69 replies to this topic

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

AC2s are absolutely useless on the mechs you want to buff. My 1ML 4 MG build on the Locust 1V, makes it one of the greatest threats late game, and will always out perform any build that uses an AC 2. Commandos don't use ballistics, and for all lights, it has never been the lack of big guns on them that hurt them. It's the lack of survivability. Which can't be fixed by making them more likely to over heat.

The AC2 was just an example and for that matter, it doesn't need to be guns that the extra tonnage was used for. It could be armor, BAP, AMS, a bigger engine. As long as it wasn't heatsinks that you didn't need anyway. And if you have made a build incapable of overheating despite having energy weapons, then you have wasted tonnage on heatsinks. Of course you might like it heat neutral, but I'd like the option of not being that.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

that one ton you're gaining is absolutely useless in this scenario. It's only use will be for the 10th heatsink, since you can gain no real advantage on a ballistic build with that one ton. If you're using MGs, you already have the tonnage you need. If you're using ACs, one ton literally makes no difference, at best it will allow you to add another ton of ammo. An issue that can be fixed with proper aiming instead.

Going down to 9 heatsinks was simply to point out that 10 is not the minimum required to run a mech. Because if 9 works, then the rule has lost it's meaning. Then the rule is simply there because... reasons. And with my Locust I would really like to go as low as 6 (double) heatsinks. That would make a difference.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Heat I said either climb, or just take up more of your threshold for walking and running. Again, that 1 ton will make no difference.

Of course the reactor heat would take more of you cap. It's part of the deal.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

The only way to take advantage of this, is by using less than 8 heat sinks to launch. a 2 ton increase might have some potential. 1 ton is useless, especially on lights, who will need all the heat capacity they can get, since they are mianly energy based. With only a couple using ballistics (LCT-1V, SDR-5K, SDR-A, FS9-E, FS9-H, RVN-4x, RVN-H)

Yes, less than 8 is good, exactly. And many of these mechs could really need a boost. The ones that don't, wouldn't be even better because of it. For example: Ember would still use lasers and thus heat sinks.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

I was explaining to you what was happening. If you cooling was adequate, you would dissipate all the heat built up within 1 second. If it's taking you longer than one second, your cooling isn't adequate, and will take time. That means, unless you can fire your weapons, and get back to neutral heat, your heatsinks aren't actually enough, and are "being stressed" since you're generating more heat than they can cool off in one second.

So what you are saying is that any build that isn't heat neutral is not working or what? I don't get it. And in less than 1 second? Even TT used 10 seconds to cool off and then declare it heat neutral.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Most people that play this game because it's a BT game. Not to mention that so far, every decision that has been made to stick close to TT was actually beneficial to the game, and every one (actually, all but one, that being the inclusion of C3i for all mechs) that was straying from TT ended up riling up the community, and causing problems (ridiculously scaling heat cap, 3PV, Coolant Flush, Single shot ballistics .. .etc.)

So far, the pattern has shown that TT has more balance than MW:O. No I don't believe it's rules should all be taken 1:1. That would be stupid, that was a 10 seconds per turn game. Doesn't apply to a real time game. However, the mechanics should, since they are solid, and have been for over 30 years.

I'm sorry, but when I played TT it took me few battles to see that the Gauss was superior to all other weapons, and that the AC2 was trash. So MWO hasn't achieved perfect balance but TT certainly wasn't any better.
But all of that doesn't matter the slightest because TT tried to be balanced as a strategy game where asymetric gameplay wasn't uncommon because all mechs wasn't equal. An Atlas was bad ass but meant that the opponent could then bring several Urban Mechs instead. And in that case the individual Urban Mech is not as important as the Atlas.
In MWO, which is a shooter and is based upon 12 vs 12, things are different. Each player has to be equally able to contribute to the teams victory. For this to happen each mech needs to be equally able to do this and thus the reason why MWO is built on the pillar of Role Warfare where each class of mech has it's own merits. This hasn't been fully achieved yet, but that's a different story.
If MWO was fully based on TT rules and balance, everyone would want to pilot an Atlas or whatever was the best assault at the time. Just like in most previous Mechwarrior title so far.
And in fact some of the balance problems currently in MWO all come from TT. It's why heat scale or ghost heat is necesary to cap alpha damage for instance. And mediums are still lackluster despite attempts to make them more in line with the rest.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

That still wouldn't really help the commando, or the locust. speaking as someone who has been piloting commandos since day 1 (I still do. My 2D is the one I bought 2 weeks into the game, and I still have it, and pilot it to this day), and has written a guide on Locusts (they are my second favorite light mech after the Commando) linked in my sig. I can tell you, the 1 ton wouldn't help. They are energy based mechs, and they will need the heat sinks to not over heat.

Okay, so now you have mentioned a couple of times that you believe they wouldn't benefit from it. But then why vote against it if it's not really a problem? At the very least you will be removing a rule that has no function. And that would be one less rule for newbies to learn and confuse them.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Understand that I write this from the perspective of measuring the effort needed to make this happen, and it's impact on the game. This is a suggestion that is meant to help light mechs, yet it will actually not help them, at best, or end them at worst. When you end up with players launching in light mechs with few heatsinks you're getting them to have higher heat problems, require more trigger discipline, and over all, make them even harder to play.

Lights are hard to play not because they can't have big guns. Ask the Hollander, or every Firestarter and Spider rendition of it. No, they are harder to play because of the lack of armor. coupled with the high alphas flying around, and lack of a proper reward system for what they do.

They are a hard class to play not because of the mechs themselves, but because of the game, and the way it's reward structure works. This "fix" will either do nothing, or worse yet, break them even more.

First of, the effort needed to change this is simple. Remove some code. Done! Not a five minute job, but not really ressource heavy. And even if the change does nothing to help some light mechs, it will still simplify things. It can't break them even more by giving them more options because their old options are still there. And it wouldn't make it harder to pilot them. It would require the same skills as before. And it doesn't open to more broken unplayable builds that wasn't already available in the current system. Nothing stops me from filling a mech with lasers and only 10 heatsinks.

[Kaptain]

For 20 and 25 ton mechs only, sure let them run less than ten.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

The AC2 was just an example and for that matter, it doesn't need to be guns that the extra tonnage was used for. It could be armor, BAP, AMS, a bigger engine. As long as it wasn't heatsinks that you didn't need anyway. And if you have made a build incapable of overheating despite having energy weapons, then you have wasted tonnage on heatsinks. Of course you might like it heat neutral, but I'd like the option of not being that.

But that's the only ballistic that a light mech can mount decently that isn't an MG. (AC5s being another possibility, with even less ammo)

As far as armor and engines go. Almost all light mechs are going max engine size with max armor anyways, while running a full compliment of weapons.

The only reason I'm seeing so far for why this rule should be removed is because someone wants to have their cake, and eat it too.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Going down to 9 heatsinks was simply to point out that 10 is not the minimum required to run a mech. Because if 9 works, then the rule has lost it's meaning. Then the rule is simply there because... reasons. And with my Locust I would really like to go as low as 6 (double) heatsinks. That would make a difference.

however, you're operating with a rule that says 9 don't work. THe only reason we have these heatsinks thrown around, is because PGI allowed us to move their slots around. Instead of having them hardwired. As mentioned before, a 170 engine still has 10 heatsinks in it. with their own slots occupied in the mech. PGI allowed us to move those slots around, and added more engine sizes instead of the 25 increments.

You're basically campaigning to lower the slot, and tonnage cost of engines, that's what you're trying to do, and where a lot of the opposition will be coming from. What next? 1 ton PPCs?

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Yes, less than 8 is good, exactly. And many of these mechs could really need a boost. The ones that don't, wouldn't be even better because of it. For example: Ember would still use lasers and thus heat sinks.

That's where you and I disagree, especially considering you will be breaking a system, just to buff 2-3 mechs. That honestly don't need THAT particular buff, which has potential to do a LOT more damage, than good.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

So what you are saying is that any build that isn't heat neutral is not working or what? I don't get it. And in less than 1 second? Even TT used 10 seconds to cool off and then declare it heat neutral.

What I'm saying is that you thinking your heatsinks dissipating any heat at all means they are not being taxed is wrong. I switched from 10 seconds to 1 (might be extreme, 2-3 is more reasonable), because our heatsinks are far more efficient than TT.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

I'm sorry, but when I played TT it took me few battles to see that the Gauss was superior to all other weapons, and that the AC2 was trash. So MWO hasn't achieved perfect balance but TT certainly wasn't any better.
But all of that doesn't matter the slightest because TT tried to be balanced as a strategy game where asymetric gameplay wasn't uncommon because all mechs wasn't equal. An Atlas was bad ass but meant that the opponent could then bring several Urban Mechs instead. And in that case the individual Urban Mech is not as important as the Atlas.
In MWO, which is a shooter and is based upon 12 vs 12, things are different. Each player has to be equally able to contribute to the teams victory. For this to happen each mech needs to be equally able to do this and thus the reason why MWO is built on the pillar of Role Warfare where each class of mech has it's own merits. This hasn't been fully achieved yet, but that's a different story.
If MWO was fully based on TT rules and balance, everyone would want to pilot an Atlas or whatever was the best assault at the time. Just like in most previous Mechwarrior title so far.
And in fact some of the balance problems currently in MWO all come from TT. It's why heat scale or ghost heat is necesary to cap alpha damage for instance. And mediums are still lackluster despite attempts to make them more in line with the rest.

Gauss had a minimum range, so all you had to do was use light mechs to close in on gauss mechs, and kill them. The locust was especially adept at that, since with MASC it could go across the board from one end to the other in one movement phase.

While AC 2s are a long range harassment weapon (check out the Mauler for an example of it in use)

As I stated earlier: I'm not for adopting TT 1:1, but the mechanics are sound, and should be adopted (mechanics are not the same as rules, and lore is not the same as TT). However, remember that you are playing a game within the BT universe, and the one of the rules of the BT universe is that you always need 10 heatsinks for your mech to move, because every engine comes with 10 in it.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Okay, so now you have mentioned a couple of times that you believe they wouldn't benefit from it. But then why vote against it if it's not really a problem? At the very least you will be removing a rule that has no function. And that would be one less rule for newbies to learn and confuse them.

Because it's absolutely a problem. Those mechs might not benefit from it, but it has the chance of breaking a lot of things instead of fixing any.

Not to mention that it also breaks the clan vs. IS balance, plus it breaks the system since engine weights are fixed. They're supposed to be included in the engine with their own slots and tons.

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

First of, the effort needed to change this is simple. Remove some code. Done! Not a five minute job, but not really ressource heavy. And even if the change does nothing to help some light mechs, it will still simplify things. It can't break them even more by giving them more options because their old options are still there. And it wouldn't make it harder to pilot them. It would require the same skills as before. And it doesn't open to more broken unplayable builds that wasn't already available in the current system. Nothing stops me from filling a mech with lasers and only 10 heatsinks.

That's still effort not being used on something that is actually helpful and beneficial to the entire community. Effort that definitely has the potential of getting people to leave the game.

Again, I'm looking at this from the point of it's impact on the game, and the player population:

1- it has the chance to be abused
2- it doesn't really help the mechs that it's supposed to help
3- it messes up the engine weights and slot cost
4- You might not like this last one, but these equipment costs are fixed, and should never be tampered with.

again, has more potential for bad than good, and when compared to leaving things as is, definitely has more potential to antagonize the player base.

[Savage Wolf]

Alright I think it's better to just write a new reply instead of repeating answers to different quotes.

You say that this will break a lot of things. Sometimes mechs, other times systems. But you can't give any examples. It's like you are talking about a hunch. You are sure that something will break somewhere. Somewhere. Problem is, it's clear that you have a bias towards TT, so it's really hard to take that seriously without a good example of something that will actually go wrong. And considering that the place where the effects of this change is the greatest is for light mechs and you consider it useless for them makes it really hard to see where it should break balance anywhere else.
And if it doesn't break anything, it does hurt anything.

AC2 was trash on everthing, including the Mauler. It was long range, yes, but it did 2 damage despite using a minimum of 7 tons. LRMs was also long range and did a lot more damage for the same tonnage. Oh and most weapons had minimum ranges in TT. Gauss, AC2, LRMs.

Actually not all the mechanics of TT are sound. Ammo as a balancing factor is a really ****** balancing factor. Any modern game system designer who knows what he is doing knows this and would never use it. But TT is an old system and we are stuck with it because it would be too big a change to remove it. Oh and no mechanics are not the same as rules, rules create mechanics.
And no TT is not lore although the reason for the lore explanation of the internal heat sinks is only to justify the TT rule which otherwise would have no justification. So they cannot be completely separated. And lore does not have rules. That's the domain of TT. And MWO have different rules, but the same lore that isn't explicitedly used to justify TT rules.

And do I want lighter engines? Why yes, with the tradeoff less cooling.
Do I want 1 ton PPCs? No, not really although I do look forward to the Light PPC so we have more options. And a sort of AC1 or something. Yes it does not exist, but it's really missing as an alternative for light mechs with ballistics slots. Oh well, off topic.
Yes I sorta want my cake and eat it too, except I can already do that by just jumping into my Raven 3L. And it's only one step in the right direction for the Locust 3V, it would probably still need some work before it's on par with other Locusts.

Oh and don't get me wrong, I love the Battletech history about the battles and wars and invasion of the clans and so on. But TT just isn't that good by todays standards. I really don't believe that it's so damn perfect that we cannot improve upon it, especially when it needs to be adapted for a different experience and in a different medium. I do not connect Battletech history with any particular ruleset.
But every time an attempt is made, the purist players fight it with all their might, because everything is already the way they want because their nostalgia says so. But any new player doesn't have that nostalgia and so they will want improvements and the purists would deny them this. And then the new players will leave. So while the purists might be needed now to keep the game going, sooner or later they need to be defied if MWO is to survive.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

Alright I think it's better to just write a new reply instead of repeating answers to different quotes.

You say that this will break a lot of things. Sometimes mechs, other times systems. But you can't give any examples. It's like you are talking about a hunch. You are sure that something will break somewhere. Somewhere. Problem is, it's clear that you have a bias towards TT, so it's really hard to take that seriously without a good example of something that will actually go wrong. And considering that the place where the effects of this change is the greatest is for light mechs and you consider it useless for them makes it really hard to see where it should break balance anywhere else.
And if it doesn't break anything, it does hurt anything.

AC2 was trash on everthing, including the Mauler. It was long range, yes, but it did 2 damage despite using a minimum of 7 tons. LRMs was also long range and did a lot more damage for the same tonnage. Oh and most weapons had minimum ranges in TT. Gauss, AC2, LRMs.

Actually not all the mechanics of TT are sound. Ammo as a balancing factor is a really ****** balancing factor. Any modern game system designer who knows what he is doing knows this and would never use it. But TT is an old system and we are stuck with it because it would be too big a change to remove it. Oh and no mechanics are not the same as rules, rules create mechanics.
And no TT is not lore although the reason for the lore explanation of the internal heat sinks is only to justify the TT rule which otherwise would have no justification. So they cannot be completely separated. And lore does not have rules. That's the domain of TT. And MWO have different rules, but the same lore that isn't explicitedly used to justify TT rules.

And do I want lighter engines? Why yes, with the tradeoff less cooling.
Do I want 1 ton PPCs? No, not really although I do look forward to the Light PPC so we have more options. And a sort of AC1 or something. Yes it does not exist, but it's really missing as an alternative for light mechs with ballistics slots. Oh well, off topic.
Yes I sorta want my cake and eat it too, except I can already do that by just jumping into my Raven 3L. And it's only one step in the right direction for the Locust 3V, it would probably still need some work before it's on par with other Locusts.

Oh and don't get me wrong, I love the Battletech history about the battles and wars and invasion of the clans and so on. But TT just isn't that good by todays standards. I really don't believe that it's so damn perfect that we cannot improve upon it, especially when it needs to be adapted for a different experience and in a different medium. I do not connect Battletech history with any particular ruleset.
But every time an attempt is made, the purist players fight it with all their might, because everything is already the way they want because their nostalgia says so. But any new player doesn't have that nostalgia and so they will want improvements and the purists would deny them this. And then the new players will leave. So while the purists might be needed now to keep the game going, sooner or later they need to be defied if MWO is to survive.

Ok, I understand your point more. However, I will stick to the topic discussion.

Yes, this will affect sub 250 engine mechs, which means lights, and some mediums. However, even if I don't have an example of an exploit right now, I can tell you there is someone out there who will find one.

As for lessening the engine weights. I am personally opposed to it on principle. Slot and weight costs should NEVER be altered. Again, arguing for that, is the same as arguing for weapons to have less weight and slot costs. Which, lore or not, is a core foundational rule for the game. I'm all for getting creative, but there are limits as to how far that should be tolerated.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

Ok, I understand your point more. However, I will stick to the topic discussion.

Good plan.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

Yes, this will affect sub 250 engine mechs, which means lights, and some mediums. However, even if I don't have an example of an exploit right now, I can tell you there is someone out there who will find one.

Then there is a compromise that I mentioned earlier by making this a quirk on mechs where is does good. Then it can be controlled. I would personally prefer removing it altogether to simplify the rules (because they could really use some simplification), but at least some mechs still gets a needed boost.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

As for lessening the engine weights. I am personally opposed to it on principle. Slot and weight costs should NEVER be altered. Again, arguing for that, is the same as arguing for weapons to have less weight and slot costs. Which, lore or not, is a core foundational rule for the game. I'm all for getting creative, but there are limits as to how far that should be tolerated.

Personally I'd prefer that every slot and weight costs could be changed if needed in the name of balance because it really limits the options for how to balance it. It's like telling PGI to balance the game, but they are hardly allowed to change anything. But of course doing so could break stock builds and ruin peoples nostalgia. Not that there really is much point in keeping stock builds because they were made for TT and not MWO.

[IraqiWalker]

Savage Wolf, on 18 September 2014 - 06:10 PM, said:

Personally I'd prefer that every slot and weight costs could be changed if needed in the name of balance because it really limits the options for how to balance it. It's like telling PGI to balance the game, but they are hardly allowed to change anything. But of course doing so could break stock builds and ruin peoples nostalgia. Not that there really is much point in keeping stock builds because they were made for TT and not MWO.

Actually stock builds were tech 1 builds. Right now we're fielding jihad era mechs pretty much with our upgrades. So all are tech 2. Which shouldn't be happening for another year or so. However, in the interest of not restricting the players, we were allowed upgrades that we shouldn't have access to.

BTW, you should come to any of the stock mech matches. They are amazingly fun.

[Savage Wolf]

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 06:15 PM, said:

Actually stock builds were tech 1 builds. Right now we're fielding jihad era mechs pretty much with our upgrades. So all are tech 2. Which shouldn't be happening for another year or so. However, in the interest of not restricting the players, we were allowed upgrades that we shouldn't have access to.

BTW, you should come to any of the stock mech matches. They are amazingly fun.

Well a few tech level 2 stock mechs do exist by now, already equipped with XL engines and double heatsinks. But no, they shouldn't be this common. But that's once again a change needed to make it a fun shooter. I guess one could just say that we are the few but wealthy mechwarriors with fully tooled out mechs. Still lack a lot of weapon options though.

And no thanks. I predict that stock matches just ends up with a different meta based on which stock mechs from TT just happens to also fit well into MWO and thus be superior to other stock mechs. But thanks for the invite.

[Zyllos]

Egomane, on 17 September 2014 - 11:37 AM, said:

There are more then balancing reasons to say no to this suggestion.

The weight of the heatsinks you need to install is deducted from the engine weight already. If you remove the 10 heatsink rule, those engines would need to get heavier again. So either way, you wouldn't get more tonnage.

What you are currently suggesting is not a boost for light mechs, but a legal cheat of the construction rules, that would be only possible because of PGIs way of calculating engine weight.

I'll give you an example:
Original rules
A tabletop 160 standard reactor weighs 6 tons. It comes with ten heatsinks of which 6 are mounted inside the engine and four are external, as the reactor is to small to accomodate them all.
Additionally you have a 3 ton cockpit and a 2 ton Gyro to accomodate.
Total weight of those components = 11 tons (6 tons engine + 3 tons cockpit + 2 tons gyro + 0 tons heatsinks
Total number of critical slots used = 15 (6 engine + 1 cockpit + 4 gyro + 4 heatsinks)

Mechwarrior Online rules
A MWO 160 standard reactor weighs 7 tons. It already includes the weight of the cockpit and the gyro, but the weight of the four heatsinks (4 tons) that need to be mounted are subtracted.
Total weight of those components = 11 tons (7 tons engine + 0 tons cockpit + 0 tons gyro + 4 tons heatsinks)
Total number of critical slots used = 15 (6 engine + 1 cockpit + 4 gyro + 4 heatsinks)

The result is the same, only the calculation is different. This difference allows you to make such a suggestion, but it is actually breaking the rules. Do you really want to suggest a cheat to help the light mechs (and I don't believe they need that help)?

I would like to point out, as a FYI...

The 100XL engine has incorrect weight due to how engine weights are calculated with the heat sinks, life support, and gyros, all into the engine weight calculation.

The 100XL engine technically weighs 0.0t by the PGI calculation but should weigh -0.5t.

100XL = 1.5t
100XL equipped mech needs another 6 heatsinks outside the engine = -6.0t
Cockpit + Life Support = 3.0t
100 engine rating gyro = 1.0t
1.5t + -6.0t + 3.0t + 1.0t = -0.5t

What PGI needs to do is add "Engine Heatsink" and "Engine Double Heatsink" that weighs 0.0t and must equal to:

If Engine Rating is < 250, then 10 - INT( ( Engine Rating / 25 ) ) "Engine" heatsinks must be equipped.

This would fix all their problems with odd calculations for engine weights.

Edited by Zyllos, 18 September 2014 - 06:44 PM.

[M0rpHeu5]

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

This is a suggestion that is meant to help light mechs, yet it will actually not help them, at best, or end them at worst. When you end up with players launching in light mechs with few heatsinks you're getting them to have higher heat problems, require more trigger discipline, and over all, make them even harder to play.

It's an option, players won't be forced to do that. They can solve what you say with the yellow triangle like when you mount weapons that will produse ghost heat.

IraqiWalker, on 18 September 2014 - 03:40 PM, said:

1- it has the chance to be abused
2- it doesn't really help the mechs that it's supposed to help
3- it messes up the engine weights and slot cost
4- You might not like this last one, but these equipment costs are fixed, and should never be tampered with.

again, has more potential for bad than good, and when compared to leaving things as is, definitely has more potential to antagonize the player base.

1- If we thinked like that we would still be in medieval agies
2-My locust will very much apreciate running pulse lase+AMS or a Large laser rather than one med laser
3-Stock builds won't be affected
4-If it can be improved then why not

I cannot see how it can couse trouble exept for a hardcore TT fun rebelion

[Karl Streiger]

uhm - i still don't get the discussion.

OK there is a option for you: all heat sinks that fit in the engine are free. heatsinks outside the engine cost weight and criticals.

So:
Take the Commando with an 150 engine.
150/25 = 6 - so 6 heat sinks are free.
The Commando has overall 6 free heatsinks

The Omni 150 Fusion Engine weights 5.5tons, Gyroscope 2t cockpit 3 tons.
So mounting the final weight for the 150 STD Fusion is 10.5t (instead of 6.5)

Congratulation you have now a Mech with less than 10 heat sinks.

But of course there are also some guys that want to say hey thank you: for example the poor Thor or the Warhawk or the Gargoyle to come - all of them have 4/3/6 engine heatsinks they become now free - adding additional tonage.


TLDR;
Ego had made calculations that you understand it.
The engine weight below 250 are reduced because you have to add the missing heat sinks to get a number of 10.

If you think we are closed minded - hey you are right lets throw the rules over board - i want to mount three Ultra AC 20s in my Mad Cat...what i can't? Not enough tonnage or room - come on we can make the Ultra 20 a 1 crit and 2t weapon - its about balance not TT.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 September 2014 - 12:16 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

M0rpHeu5, on 18 September 2014 - 10:48 PM, said:

I cannot see how it can couse trouble exept for a hardcore TT fun rebelion

Our engines are supposed to weigh more. Each engine is supposed to come with 10 heat sinks. The way PGI did it, they deducted the weight and slot cost of the external heatsinks that come with the engine so we can move their slots around.

Remove that, and suddenly XL 175s are weighing 5.5 tons instead of 8.5 tons. That's the tampering I was talking about.

If you want this to be clear, how about each engine comes with it's external heatsinks hardwired into the STs when you install it? Because those heatsinks were never supposed to be removable.

That's what's supposed to happen. However, we're allowed the luxury of moving those heatsinks around. The 10 HS rule is mandatory minimum. That's like asking for a football match to be only 2 minutes long, or having 3 downs instead of 4. Or removing sudden death, and getting a fifth (quarter?)

You can't just remove critical rules away because they're inconvenient. Creativity is in working with and around these rules. Not having them removed.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 19 September 2014 - 02:09 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Karl Streiger, on 19 September 2014 - 12:14 AM, said:

If you think we are closed minded - hey you are right lets throw the rules over board - i want to mount three Ultra AC 20s in my Mad Cat...what i can't? Not enough tonnage or room - come on we can make the Ultra 20 a 1 crit and 2t weapon - its about balance not TT.

It funny how you assume that one rule change means changing all the rules. And you don't take the justification for the rule change into account. We want to do this in the name of balance. So any other rule changes this might open up for would also have to be for better balance and the example provided doesn't really fit into that. But if we could change the crit and weight costs for a weapon to provide better balance in the game, I'm all for it.

IraqiWalker, on 19 September 2014 - 02:08 AM, said:

Our engines are supposed to weigh more. Each engine is supposed to come with 10 heat sinks. The way PGI did it, they deducted the weight and slot cost of the external heatsinks that come with the engine so we can move their slots around.

Remove that, and suddenly XL 175s are weighing 5.5 tons instead of 8.5 tons. That's the tampering I was talking about.

If you want this to be clear, how about each engine comes with it's external heatsinks hardwired into the STs when you install it? Because those heatsinks were never supposed to be removable.

That's what's supposed to happen. However, we're allowed the luxury of moving those heatsinks around. The 10 HS rule is mandatory minimum. That's like asking for a football match to be only 2 minutes long, or having 3 downs instead of 4. Or removing sudden death, and getting a fifth (quarter?)

You can't just remove critical rules away because they're inconvenient. Creativity is in working with and around these rules. Not having them removed.

You keep saying that the rule should be 10 heatsinks minimum because the rule says so. That a tautology because you use the rule to justify itself. It's like saying the bar is closed because it's not open. You have basicly said nothing.

You give all sorts of examples of how things will be before and after this change and then you just leave the example to speak for itself. But all the example says to me is: Things will be different, they will change. So is that it? Change is bad? Because if that's the case, I guess MWO is a finished product now then. No more changes.

[Egomane]

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

It funny how you assume that one rule change means changing all the rules. And you don't take the justification for the rule change into account. We want to do this in the name of balance. So his justification is as good as yours.

But so far you have failed to provide any evidence, it would actually help balance.

It might improve your performance in light mechs. But is that because you are not good with them in the first place, or is it because they are badly balanced?

My stats say, such an adjustment isn't necessary. I can do really well in Locusts and Commandos.

Edited by Egomane, 19 September 2014 - 04:25 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

But if we could change the crit and weight costs for a weapon to provide better balance in the game, I'm all for it.

In this case any additional discussion is pointless.

Weight and Crit - with the current Mech Lab are fixed. Other MechLab - Other rules.

So you don't ask for reduced heat sinks numbers - but you ask for lighter engines.
So the 150 STD should weight 4tons less - and the 245 should weight 1 ton less. What about the 200 vs 205 do you recognize the 1t jump?
Its like paying you bills with debts. The tons you add to bring your heat sinks to 10 - is free weight you never had.

[Kmieciu]

Karl Streiger, on 19 September 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:

So you don't ask for reduced heat sinks numbers - but you ask for lighter engines.

Yes this is exactly what are we asking for. Lighter engines at the cost of having less heat sinks.

Face it: engine weight in MWO do not make any sense whatsoever. STD160,STD165 and STD170 all weigh 7 tonnes but all contain 6 heat sinks. I can take a stock Locust and swap the STD160 for STD170 and gain 10 kph (after speed tweak). Maybe there is some convoluted TT explanation for this but I don't care: the point remains: In MWO we pay engine tonnage for speed and internal heat sinks.

We can pay more tonnes to get more than 10 heatsinks, I think we should have the ability to pay less tonnage for less heatsinks.

Edited by Kmieciu, 19 September 2014 - 04:42 AM.

[Savage Wolf]

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

But so far you have failed to provide any evidence, it would actually help balance.

It might improve your performance in light mechs. But is that because you are not good with them in the first place, or is it because they are badly balanced?

My stats say, such an adjustment isn't necessary. I can do really well in Locusts and Commandos.

I have at the very least provided examples of how this will help balance. You cannot even muster an example of how it will make it worse. Examples are not proof, but only an implementation of the rules and testing thereof would be actual proof, something none of us could provide.

And I do pretty well in Ravens. Love them. Even do well in Huginn which is usually considered sub-par. And it wouldn't improve those mechs. But the Locust 3V could use some love. There are simply Light mechs able to do the same thing but better. So it needs a little love. You might be able to do good in a Locust 3V, but you would do better in an Ember. So the balance is lacking.

Karl Streiger, on 19 September 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:

In this case any additional discussion is pointless.

Weight and Crit - with the current Mech Lab are fixed. Other MechLab - Other rules.

So you don't ask for reduced heat sinks numbers - but you ask for lighter engines.
So the 150 STD should weight 4tons less - and the 245 should weight 1 ton less. What about the 200 vs 205 do you recognize the 1t jump?
Its like paying you bills with debts. The tons you add to bring your heat sinks to 10 - is free weight you never had.

If you think a STD 150 with 6 heatsinks weighing 4 tons less compared STD 150 with 10 heatsinks is just a lighter engine then you haven't been paying attention. We would get lighter engines at a trade off. With your logic you should also be against XL engines. Those are also lighter.

[Kmieciu]

Egomane, on 19 September 2014 - 04:24 AM, said:

My stats say, such an adjustment isn't necessary. I can do really well in Locusts and Commandos.

You sure like to stroke you Ego. mane.
Not that I don't believe you. It's just that we've got this thing called statistics. And it tells us that Locust and Commandos do pretty badly on average.

Spoiler

[Egomane]

Kmieciu, on 19 September 2014 - 04:41 AM, said:

Yes this is exactly what are we asking for. Lighter engines at the cost of having less heat sinks.

Face it: engine weight in MWO do not make any sense whatsoever. STD160,STD165 and STD170 all weigh 7 tonnes but all contain 6 heat sinks. I can take a stock Locust and swap the STD160 for STD170 and gain 10 kph (after speed tweak). Maybe there is some convoluted TT explanation for this but I don't care: the point remains: In MWO we pay engine tonnage for speed and internal heat sinks.

We can pay more tonnes to get more than 10 heatsinks, I think we should have the ability to pay less tonnage for less heatsinks.

In the tabletop you can't select engines that do not have ratings that are multiples of the mechs tonnage. So in the TT you can't use a 170 engine for a locust.

That you do not care for explanations, shows me that you do not care for the universe behind the game. The ten minimum heatsink requirement is not only in the rules, it is part of the lore. You want a lore change, because you can't perform well in specific mechs? This is by name a game based in the batteltech universe. How many times do you believe we can ignore the lore, until it no longer is one? How many changes until it is just a generic shooter with mechs leased from the battletech universe?

You want the mech to be be better, no matter what!

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 04:49 AM, said:

I have at the very least provided examples of how this will help balance. You cannot even muster an example of how it will make it worse. Examples are not proof, but only an implementation of the rules and testing thereof would be actual proof, something none of us could provide.

I have seen no such proof. Only assumptions!

You assume, because you do not want to believe that the mech can perform well, without such a boost. I know that it can perform well, because I mastered mine and I did well in them.

Kmieciu, on 19 September 2014 - 04:57 AM, said:

You sure like to stroke you Ego. mane.
Not that I don't believe you. It's just that we've got this thing called statistics. And it tells us that Locust and Commandos do pretty badly on average.

Spoiler

Just because it is a tough to learn and hard to master mech, doesn't make it a bad mech. It just makes it a mech not suited for everyone.

[Karl Streiger]

Ok another example:

The battleTech vehicle creation system is an more or less simple system - without need square, cube, root and other functions.
You can build every Mech with a set of components a pen and paper. You don't need a calculator.
You choose a component like a reactor, heatsinks or weapons from a list.

You have your parts and you arrange them by simple rules - you don't have to calculate wast heat, fuel, energy needed for the power train, power production of the plant.
You don't have 2.050 weapon system that work in the same fashion with slight differences. Everything is plain and simple.

BT Vehicle creation is not as open as for example Heavy Gear Vehicle creation but its work - because its as easy as Lego.
Consider BT components including engine to be bricks.

You could not change the components (you can't change the bricks of LEGO - you need a brick that is 5 pins long, 3 pins wide and 1 1/2 levels high. Well there is no such brick you have to try another way.

Kmieciu, on 19 September 2014 - 04:41 AM, said:

Yes this is exactly what are we asking for. Lighter engines at the cost of having less heat sinks.

only if engines > 275 get internal heatsinks for free (won't help you)

in pure BT - you can not mount a 170 engine in your Locust. You can only add engines that could be divided by the Mech weight (reason is scale of TT)

I don't say the system is perfect - but changes need a complete other system.

Savage Wolf, on 19 September 2014 - 04:49 AM, said:

If you think a STD 150 with 6 heatsinks weighing 4 tons less compared STD 150 with 10 heatsinks is just a lighter engine then you haven't been paying attention. We would get lighter engines at a trade off. With your logic you should also be against XL engines. Those are also lighter.

NO HELL NO the OMNI 150 STD Fusion engine always wights 5.5 tons. FACT - its the brick size - you can not change it.
This brick is 3 pins long and 2 pins wide. You can not change it.

Here a calculation for the Commando:
Structure Brick 10% of weight = 2.5t
Cockpit Brick always 3tons no matter the size (logical - no but deal with it)
Gyroscope Brick - Fusion Rating/100 - round up in tons (150/100=1.5~2) 2tons
Armor 64 points /16 = 4tons
Fusion:
Max Speed 97.2 kph (/3.6/3/1.5 = 6) 6* 25 = 150
Fusion Reactor Brick 5.5tons

weapons = 8tons
SRM6 -3tons
Ammo SRM6 1ton
SRM4 - 2tons
Ammo SRM4 1ton
MLAS 1ton

Finish = 25tons - so at no where you add heat sinks - so you can't remove heat sinks - because you did not spend weight to buy this heatsinks.
YOU CAN NOT CHANGE THE BRICK

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 September 2014 - 05:08 AM.