14 replies to this topic

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

I won't pretend I have moral nor just reasons for saying this. Or pretend that logic demands it.

I say it because I feel tempted to abuse the system with crack builds & leverage that vaunted inner sphere loadout flexibility in ways which might make BT purists blush, or strangle me.

.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e562909514a2614

[FupDup]

That's not even a particularly good build anyways.


In my own opinion, I'm fine with the 10 minimum rule but I'm not fine with some of those 10 being located outside of sub-250 engines. All of those 10 should be inside of the engine, and the engine's tonnage should be increased accordingly to represent this. As an example, let's look at that XL145 your BJ carries:

Current:

  <Module id="3327" name="Engine_XL_145" CType="CEngineStats" faction="InnerSphere">
    <Loc nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" />
    <EngineStats slots="6" sideSlots="3" sidesToDie="1" rating="145" weight="2.5" heatsinks="5" health="15" />
  </Module>

Proposed:

  <Module id="3327" name="Engine_XL_145" CType="CEngineStats" faction="InnerSphere">
    <Loc nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" />
    <EngineStats slots="6" sideSlots="3" sidesToDie="1" rating="145" weight="7.5" heatsinks="10" health="15" />
  </Module>

So in the end, the tonnage required is the same (because external sinks require tonnage), but you save a lot of critical slots. This would put low-engine-limit mechs like 20 tonners, 25 tonners, and some slow 45 tonners on a slightly more even playing field against their heavier brethren. It would also improve their heat efficiency due to 2.0 Trudubs instead of 1.4 Poordubs.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

FupDup, on 22 October 2014 - 10:05 PM, said:

That's not even a particularly good build anyways.

In my own opinion, I'm fine with the 10 minimum rule but I'm not fine with some of those 10 being located outside of sub-250 engines. All of those 10 should be inside of the engine, and the engine's tonnage should be increased accordingly to represent this. As an example, let's look at that XL145 your BJ carries:

Current:

  <Module id="3327" name="Engine_XL_145" CType="CEngineStats" faction="InnerSphere">
	<Loc nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" />
	<EngineStats slots="6" sideSlots="3" sidesToDie="1" rating="145" weight="2.5" heatsinks="5" health="15" />
  </Module>

Proposed:

  <Module id="3327" name="Engine_XL_145" CType="CEngineStats" faction="InnerSphere">
	<Loc nameTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145" descTag="@Engine_XL_Fusion_145_desc" iconTag="StoreIcons\XLEngine.dds" />
	<EngineStats slots="6" sideSlots="3" sidesToDie="1" rating="145" weight="7.5" heatsinks="10" health="15" />
  </Module>

So in the end, the tonnage required is the same (because external sinks require tonnage), but you save a lot of critical slots. This would put low-engine-limit mechs like 20 tonners, 25 tonners, and some slow 45 tonners on a slightly more even playing field against their heavier brethren. It would also improve their heat efficiency due to 2.0 Trudubs instead of 1.4 Poordubs.

The build I posted (da boomjack) is similar to dual wielding ac20 boomjagers. It has less armor but could make up for that with smaller hitboxes, faster torso and arm movement and an overall smaller frame. There may be builds that would have great heat dissipation with less than 10 minimum heat sinks. Removing the limit could increase the flexibility of inner sphere loadouts and represent a buff. Or, it could break the system and result in imbalance. Clueless on what the effects would be, but thought it might be an interesting topic.

I think the default heatsinks located inside the engine receive a full 2x heat dissipation bonus with double heat sinks.

That may be the reason for lighter engines not having the internal default sinks. There are workarounds for some slots possibly providing a 2x heatscale bonus and others opting for the 1.4. It would change the heat scaling and make it easier for hot builds to avoid overheating.

Edited by I Zeratul I, 22 October 2014 - 10:15 PM.

[FupDup]

I Zeratul I, on 22 October 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

The build I posted (da boomjack) is similar to dual wielding ac20 boomjagers. It has less armor but could make up for that with smaller hitboxes, faster torso and arm movement and an overall smaller frame. There may be builds that would have great heat dissipation without 10 minimum heat sinks. Removing the limit could increase the flexibility of inner sphere loadouts and represent a buff. Or, it could break the system and result in imbalance. Clueless on what the effects would be, but thought it could be an interesting topic.

It would increase flexibility in some cases, but I don't really like the way it's achieved. Basically, what removing the 10 rule does is make the engine lighter than it really was "meant to be." That XL145 for example is technically "supposed" to be 7.5 tons (engine weight + cockpit + gyro + external sinks), although the fact that some of the 10 sinks are external can give the deceiving appearance that the engine was supposed to be only 2.5 tons instead of 7.5.

I don't think it would break anything per se in most cases, but I don't think the engines really need to be "lighter."

I Zeratul I, on 22 October 2014 - 10:14 PM, said:

I think the default heatsinks located inside the engine receive a full 2x heat dissipation bonus with double heat sinks.

That may be the reason for lighter engines not having the internal default sinks. There are workarounds for some slots possibly providing a 2x heatscale bonus and others opting for the 1.4. It would change the heat scaling and make it easier for hot builds to avoid overheating.

The sinks built into the engine are 2.0, but all external sinks (even some of the 10 required ones) are 1.4. So in the Boomjack example, if it mounted its 5 required external sinks, it would have 5 Trudubs and 5 Poordubs.

If I had to guess, the reason the FASA made sub-250 engines have to have some of the 10 sinks external is probably because of some sort of quasi-realism line of thinking rather than a game balance issue.

[Y E O N N E]

That Blackjack is so slow and so under-armored, that it gives up any advantage a Blackjack might have over a Jagermech.The engine rating is also so low that you're probably giving up torso twist speed to the point of being as slow as or slower than the Jagermech.

Besides, if you're going to make a BoomJack as a mini BoomJager, this is how you do it.

[Hades Trooper]

I Zeratul I, on 22 October 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:

I won't pretend I have moral nor just reasons for saying this. Or pretend that logic demands it.

I say it because I feel tempted to abuse the system with crack builds & leverage that vaunted inner sphere loadout flexibility in ways which might make BT purists blush, or strangle me.

.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e562909514a2614

lets me express my thoughts briefly

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

FupDup, on 22 October 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

It would increase flexibility in some cases, but I don't really like the way it's achieved. Basically, what removing the 10 rule does is make the engine lighter than it really was "meant to be." That XL145 for example is technically "supposed" to be 7.5 tons (engine weight + cockpit + gyro + external sinks), although the fact that some of the 10 sinks are external can give the deceiving appearance that the engine was supposed to be only 2.5 tons instead of 7.5.

I don't think it would break anything per se in most cases, but I don't think the engines really need to be "lighter."

The sinks built into the engine are 2.0, but all external sinks (even some of the 10 required ones) are 1.4. So in the Boomjack example, if it mounted its 5 required external sinks, it would have 5 Trudubs and 5 Poordubs.

If I had to guess, the reason the FASA made sub-250 engines have to have some of the 10 sinks external is probably because of some sort of quasi-realism line of thinking rather than a game balance issue.

2.5 ton engine sounds good to me, bro. If heat constraints can be met with 5 heat sinks as opposed to 10 minimum. A lack of 5 tons of heat sinks shouldn't represent a design flaw?

I've used super small standard engines on assault mechs with a top speed of 43 kph. The smaller engine size allows you to trade slots for overall tonnage. It acts like a quasi form of endosteel or ferro fibrous armor.

Yeonne Greene, on 22 October 2014 - 10:26 PM, said:

That Blackjack is so slow and so under-armored, that it gives up any advantage a Blackjack might have over a Jagermech.The engine rating is also so low that you're probably giving up torso twist speed to the point of being as slow as or slower than the Jagermech.

Besides, if you're going to make a BoomJack as a mini BoomJager, this is how you do it.

I don't think engine rating affects torso twist speed. It only affects turn rates. The way I would use a dual ac20 blackjack is to hide undercover. Run into the open, fire both ac20's. Then run back behind cover. 40 pinpoint damage. More than dual gauss. In reality, I'd probably be LRM'ed, PPC'ed and gauss'ed to death long before getting inside 300 m. But we don't have to talk about that, do we?

That looks like a good build you posted. I think I'll try it sometime. Thx.

Hades Trooper, on 22 October 2014 - 10:35 PM, said:

lets me express my thoughts briefly

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

No?

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYyYy'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

[Karl Streiger]

OK drop the 10 heat sink rule

• increase the weight of engines
  
  • below 250 for 1t
    
  • below 225 for 2t
    
  • below 200 for 3t
• if you want to have a Mech wit 200 STD - and 10 heatsinks you have to buy the weight
  
  • engine 8.5t
    
  • gyro 2t
    
  • cockpit 3t
    
  • an because we have dropped the 10 heat sink rule - 2t for the additional heatsinks
    
  • = the CN9-A could have 8 heat sinks or 10 heatsinks but they will cost him 2tons of payload
• engines in the engine are free
  
  • 300 engine get 12 heat sinks for nothing
    
  • 400 engine get 16 heat sinks for nothing
    
  • considering the average reactor size in my builds - I think its a great idea

I really like the idea - but everybody who thinks "drop the 10 heat sinks" is a good idea should consider that this is NOT A BUFF - it is a HARD NERF for low engine Mechs - and if you think those rules to the end its a HUGH BUFF for High Engine Mechs.

Thor - get additional 4 tons of payload. The Timberwolf gets 5, the Stormcrow - well the Stormcrow don'T get more weapons but 3 additional heatsinks.
The Atlas - is happy about 2ton more loadout - or 3t in case you install the 325....

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 October 2014 - 11:02 PM.

[XxXAbsolutZeroXxX]

Karl Streiger, on 22 October 2014 - 10:58 PM, said:

OK drop the 10 heat sink rule

• increase the weight of engines
  
  • below 250 for 1t
    
  • below 225 for 2t
    
  • below 200 for 3t
• if you want to have a Mech wit 200 STD - and 10 heatsinks you have to buy the weight
  
  • engine 8.5t
    
  • gyro 2t
    
  • cockpit 3t
    
  • an because we have dropped the 10 heat sink rule - 2t for the additional heatsinks
    
  • = the CN9-A could have 8 heat sinks or 10 heatsinks but they will cost him 2tons of payload
• engines in the engine are free
  
  • 300 engine get 12 heat sinks for nothing
    
  • 400 engine get 16 heat sinks for nothing
    
  • considering the average reactor size in my builds - I think its a great idea

I really like the idea - but everybody who thinks "drop the 10 heat sinks" is a good idea should consider that this is NOT A BUFF - it is a HARD NERF for low engine Mechs - and if you think those rules to the end its a HUGH BUFF for High Engine Mechs.


Thor - get additional 4 tons of payload. The Timberwolf gets 5, the Stormcrow - well the Stormcrow don'T get more weapons but 3 additional heatsinks.
The Atlas - is happy about 2ton more loadout - or 3t in case you install the 325....

I'm not certain how you took a buff to small engines & turned it into a nerf.

Maybe inner sphere mechs could use additional flexibility in loadouts considering that's one of their advantages over clan tech.

I wouldn't care to see clan mechs gain additional boosts. Every clan mech I've ever used has been extremely good as is. Even the nova.

[Karl Streiger]

I Zeratul I, on 22 October 2014 - 11:41 PM, said:

I'm not certain how you took a buff to small engines & turned it into a nerf.

By using the "Stock" engine weights.
Let me show you
Hm - duno the armor values for the Centurion from my memory...maybe 8tons...i take the Hunchback 10tons

• Hunchback 50t
  
  • Structure 5t
    
  • Cockpit 3t
    
  • Engine 200 STD - 8.5t
    
  • Gyro (Engine Rating/100 Round up) = 2t
    
  • Armor 10t
    
  • Heatsinks 13 - 10 free + 3tons
    
  • AC 20 14t
    
  • Ammo 2t
    
  • 2x MLAS 2t
    
  • 1 SLAS 0.5t

we have a 200 engine - that means 5 out of 13 heatsinks are mount at the Mech.

If you say - you don't need 10 heat sinks - you drop the number of heatsinks to 11 - but you don't get additional two tons. Because free heatsinks don't have a weight
So its a nerf.

Is it perfect? No - there are flaws with this system - you hardly can mount DHS on a light Mech
But its the system PGI decided to use

Why have free heat sinks no weight? Can't tell - maybe its the "size" of the engine and the area it consumes. Like a radiator

Edited by Karl Streiger, 22 October 2014 - 11:59 PM.

[Hades Trooper]

I Zeratul I, on 22 October 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

No?

yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyYYyYy'yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy

Cause i said so, that should be enough. if i say something then it's law.

get the drift yet?

[Joseph Mallan]

I Zeratul I, on 22 October 2014 - 09:48 PM, said:

I won't pretend I have moral nor just reasons for saying this. Or pretend that logic demands it.

I say it because I feel tempted to abuse the system with crack builds & leverage that vaunted inner sphere loadout flexibility in ways which might make BT purists blush, or strangle me.

.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e562909514a2614

We would also probably just shake our head and look at you sympathetically.

Hades Trooper, on 23 October 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

Cause i said so, that should be enough. if i say something then it's law.

get the drift yet?

No... I'm The Law, and you are not a member as far as I know.

[Joe Mallad]

I think the 10 minimum needs to stay but that all engines should come stock with 10. Its sucks when you need a smaller engine but it only has 8 or 9 HS and you still have to ass extras to make the 10 HS requirement.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 23 October 2014 - 06:08 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

I Zeratul I, on 22 October 2014 - 10:53 PM, said:

I don't think engine rating affects torso twist speed. It only affects turn rates. The way I would use a dual ac20 blackjack is to hide undercover. Run into the open, fire both ac20's. Then run back behind cover. 40 pinpoint damage. More than dual gauss. In reality, I'd probably be LRM'ed, PPC'ed and gauss'ed to death long before getting inside 300 m. But we don't have to talk about that, do we?

That looks like a good build you posted. I think I'll try it sometime. Thx.

I am pretty sure it does affect torso twist speed, as well as turn rate. Also, that AC/40 Blackjack is too slow and too squishy to do what you just described. With any single one of my current 'Mechs, even the hard-mode LCT-1V, you'd be dead inside 10 seconds with nothing to show for it. The only thing you might get away with is powering down and ambushing single enemies as they walk past you.

Edit: Finally, I wouldn't call that BooomJack build I posted good. It's still too slow and its arms are extremely weak. It does have the advantages of more range and higher speed than the AC/40, but against something like this, or this, or this, it's doomed.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 23 October 2014 - 04:43 PM.

[Rear Admiral Tier 6]

Suddenly,urbanspiders and trollbuilds everywhere

And that is not a bad thing