35 replies to this topic

[Gierling]

Zetrein, on 05 December 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

You know, I recall this exact question coming up well over a year ago, in a topic about tonnage limits on unit drops before they put in the 3/3/3/3 ruleset. I'm just gonna repeat what I said back then, before that thread got deleted with the rest of the general discussion forum. (Really, the fact that we even have one again is a sign of how big a turn-around PGI has done.)

This will never fly, because an underweight heavier mech does NOT equal the weight it has. I could build a D-DC Atlas with a few SRM4s and a pair of ERLL, and it'd come in around 72 tons, with full Atlas armor. Going by tonnage, this should be about equal to a Cataphract, right? Have them stand in front of eachother and start firing, see which one walks away.

tl;dr Heavier mechs mounting smaller guns get to keep their higher internal and armor numbers, and have no reason not to use them.

This is a misleading argument, yes it gets its full Atlas armor but it also gets its full Atlas maneuverability. Which is to say that your argument is misleading because you place them toe to toe shooting at each other. When an Atlas is going to be easily outmaneuvered by a Cataphract of equal weight.

[Ronan]

Zetrein, on 05 December 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

You know, I recall this exact question coming up well over a year ago, in a topic about tonnage limits on unit drops before they put in the 3/3/3/3 ruleset. I'm just gonna repeat what I said back then, before that thread got deleted with the rest of the general discussion forum. (Really, the fact that we even have one again is a sign of how big a turn-around PGI has done.)

This will never fly, because an underweight heavier mech does NOT equal the weight it has. I could build a D-DC Atlas with a few SRM4s and a pair of ERLL, and it'd come in around 72 tons, with full Atlas armor. Going by tonnage, this should be about equal to a Cataphract, right? Have them stand in front of eachother and start firing, see which one walks away.

tl;dr Heavier mechs mounting smaller guns get to keep their higher internal and armor numbers, and have no reason not to use them.

Except the Cataphract should be moving. The Cataphract will move faster/better (faster twist and arm movement) because it's a lighter frame. A mech of X tons that brings, for instance, a smaller engine to shave tons is going to lose mobility.

And I feel (havent done the math) that a "shaved" larger mech could very well be bringing fewer weapons than a proper weight smaller mech. More armor maybe, but lower firepower and mobility.

IMO this just feels like the player wanting to take a "shaved" mech is gimping themselves, and the idea isn't worth the limited programmer time that PGI has with all the other items that most everyone agrees are high priority.

[Mister Blastman]

I'd really like to see the weight per dropship increased but, whatever. 240 is what we are stuck with. I really don't want to buy any of the existing crap Clan lights. They're horribad. So I'll be stuck in the Doomcrow... or have to run IS 'mechs. Which isn't a bad thing either, as a PUG.

[Zetrein]

Gierling, on 05 December 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

This is a misleading argument, yes it gets its full Atlas armor but it also gets its full Atlas maneuverability. Which is to say that your argument is misleading because you place them toe to toe shooting at each other. When an Atlas is going to be easily outmaneuvered by a Cataphract of equal weight.

True enough, but that doesn't change the point I was trying to make, about having a "72 ton" mech with the armor and internals of a hundred tonner. It's not how the mech is piloted, but the actual numbers involved. Even if you strip the armor off, a X ton chassis will still have X ton chassis internals, with Y max armor values. Even with crap for guns, the mech will be able to soak more damage than an actual mech of that tonnage range.

[Almond Brown]

Ronan, on 05 December 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

Except the Cataphract should be moving. The Cataphract will move faster/better (faster twist and arm movement) because it's a lighter frame. A mech of X tons that brings, for instance, a smaller engine to shave tons is going to lose mobility.

And I feel (havent done the math) that a "shaved" larger mech could very well be bringing fewer weapons than a proper weight smaller mech. More armor maybe, but lower firepower and mobility.

IMO this just feels like the player wanting to take a "shaved" mech is gimping themselves, and the idea isn't worth the limited programmer time that PGI has with all the other items that most everyone agrees are high priority.

The OP was shaving Heavy/Medium Mechs as well, not Assault Mechs. Both the Atlas and Cataphract could mount 300 engines, thus the Atlas does not get degraded engine based perks. For that matter, one player could have a non-Mastered chassis versus a Mastered one... etc etc blahblahblah

Gimp your Mech all you want. If the DropShips Ramp Masters sheet says its 75t, its 75t. End of story.

Edited by Almond Brown, 05 December 2014 - 10:33 AM.

[terrycloth]

If you let people remove equipment to reduce mech weight, you end up with an 8.5 ton locust with a 100 engine, no armor, and a single small laser.

[MoonfireSpam]

I suppose it's a good idea until someone brings an empty Mech so as to field 3 Timber Wolves or something absurd.

I would much rather use that spare weight to smuggle contraband for C-bills. You can pack a lot of drugs into the rear torso of an atlas.

Edited by MoonfireSpam, 05 December 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Davegt27]

Quote

Can we please make it so that the Dropship will account for Mech's current weight rather then the chassis' nominal maximum weight.

So that if you find yourself needing a 40 ton mech, you could just shave 5 tons off the drop deck (pull BAP off 2 mechs, AMS off a 3rd and shave a half ton of armor) and squeeze in the mech you want.

It seems logical to me, I'd be willing to go without a heatsink, BAP, an extra ton of ammo or armor here and there to pilot a blackjack (A chassis I love) over a Cicada (one that I dislike).

I knew this question would come up
when they changed from 1-1-1-1 (which wasn't a bad idea)

[hybrid black]

Gierling, on 05 December 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Can we please make it so that the Dropship will account for Mech's current weight rather then the chassis' nominal maximum weight.

So that if you find yourself needing a 40 ton mech, you could just shave 5 tons off the drop deck (pull BAP off 2 mechs, AMS off a 3rd and shave a half ton of armor) and squeeze in the mech you want.

It seems logical to me, I'd be willing to go without a heatsink, BAP, an extra ton of ammo or armor here and there to pilot a blackjack (A chassis I love) over a Cicada (one that I dislike).

And this lady's and gentlemen is the prime example of what is called a free kill / joke. See how it fails about with no clue or sign of intelligence

[Fishbulb333]

You guys can run 11 locusts if I can run 245 elementals... deal?

edit - 1 direwolf, 1 ssrm stormcrow and about 70 elementals is also fine

Edited by Fishbulb333, 05 December 2014 - 10:45 AM.

[Khobai]

240 seems too restrictive IMO. 250 seems better, because then you can use all four founders mechs (jenner + hunchy + catapult + atlas = 250 tons)

They should also allow 3 mechs instead of forcing you to have 4 mechs. But not allow more than 4 mechs.

Edited by Khobai, 05 December 2014 - 10:46 AM.

[Fishbulb333]

Khobai, on 05 December 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

240 seems too restrictive IMO. 250 seems better, because then you can use all four founders mechs (jenner + hunchy + catapult + atlas = 250 tons)

They should also allow 3 mechs instead of forcing you to have 4 mechs. But not allow more than 4 mechs.

250 is also enough room for 3 timberwolfs and a mist lynx... pass.

[Khobai]

Quote

250 is also enough room for 3 timberwolfs and a mist lynx... pass.

I fail to see your point since 240 is enough room for 2 timberwolves, a hellbringer, and a mist lynx.

Which is probably a better drop loadout anyway... since your team can rotate in hellbringers as ecm is needed. Also it frees up the mist lynx from not having to take ecm which drastically improves its hardpoint options.

Allowing a timberwolf instead of a hellbringer is hardly going to break the game. 250 tons just seems like a better max limit to me.

Edited by Khobai, 05 December 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Deathlike]

To the OP, no.

Here's some simple logic, used previously in MW games past and league play.

Even if you legitimately do the undertonnage, you are trying to "work around" the basic dropdeck rules.

For instance.. instead of using a 90-ton Highlander or a 95-ton Banshee, running a "90 or 95 ton Atlas" with ECM breaks the spirit of the rules, since neither mechs have ECM. Now, it may not need to be specific to ECM... it could be a certain set of hardpoints or whatever to allow for you, while disregarding the whole purpose of the other chassis you are trying to avoid.

In other words, you don't like X mech, and prefer Y mech, and will do Z to circumvent using X. That's the whole problem with idea as a whole.


As for those wanting "less than 4 mechs", I wholly disagree with it, since people will load up on high tonnage options, and NEVER use a low tonnage mech. Given the whole AssaultWarrior behavior in the queues, it will extend to CW and will be "more of the same", despite having "less lives" to work with. Learn to play a medium or light. There's a reason why people don't play them, and not learning to play the game is inexcusable here.

In the case for people wanting "as many mechs as tonnage allows", you gain "more lives" than the rest... and if the objectives somehow make this a viable option, this can be abused/exploited to for "multiple attempts" to get at the objective. That will be problematic. This is why limited lives are used. I would be amenable to expand lives from 4 to 5 or 6, but no more. However, ultimately the balance mechanic of having "the same # of lives" makes for easier balancing of the map objectives, whatever they happen to be in CW. In previous leagues, limited lives allowed consistency in accounting and everything else involved.

Learning to build a proper drop deck is very important nonetheless.

[Joe Mallad]

In all fairness, I think its fine how PGI has it now. In reality if I have a 75 ton mech and I equip it the way I want and it only comes out to being 73.5 tons, then its (at that moment) not a true 75 ton mech lol. But for balance and fairness, it still being counted as a 75 ton mech is the best option and it should stay that way. Was just agreeing with the OP because realistically a 75 ton mech or whatever tonnage mech isn't that tonnage if it drops light. But this is a game and we push on

[terrycloth]

I like the 'extra weight == contraband' option. Give bonus C-bills for surviving a match in an underweight mech (no black market deal if your contraband got blown up).