20517 replies to this topic

[Will9761]

There are some mechs I'm concerned about. We won't see the Executioner and Fire Moth until we see the Flea, but in order to get the Flea we need MASC first. As for the Hellbringer, this mech would get ripped to shreds in a second by heavy firepower, and the Mad Dog's big-nosed cockpit is going to be a giant bulls-eye.

P.S., why is the the Kodiak not listed in the Clan Mech section?

[Odanan]

Will9761, on 14 March 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

There are some mechs I'm concerned about. We won't see the Executioner and Fire Moth until we see the Flea, but in order to get the Flea we need MASC first. As for the Hellbringer, this mech would get ripped to shreds in a second by heavy firepower, and the Mad Dog's big-nosed cockpit is going to be a giant bulls-eye.

P.S., why is the the Kodiak not listed in the Clan Mech section?

Fire Moth breaks the game even without MASC.
Hellbringer will be pretty good: speed of a Dragom, firepower of a Stalker and ECM.
Mad Dog? hitboxes are unknown at this point.

[FireSlade]

I cannot wait for them to do a pass on all the mechs that received a hero design before they started having the model change with the type of weapon. My Ilya and 3D look weird having 3 barrels for the ACs and me not using the torso ballistic HP.

[Strum Wealh]

FireSlade, on 15 March 2014 - 10:17 AM, said:

I cannot wait for them to do a pass on all the mechs that received a hero design before they started having the model change with the type of weapon. My Ilya and 3D look weird having 3 barrels for the ACs and me not using the torso ballistic HP.

While I would like to see how the arm on each of my Centurions changes with the loadout, I am rather apprehensive with what might happen with regard to the missile launcher(s) in the Left Torso (specifically, with regard to whether they would start sprouting as tumorous lumps, as happened with the Catapult).

[ssm]

Odanan, on 14 March 2014 - 09:06 PM, said:

Fire Moth breaks the game even without MASC.
Hellbringer will be pretty good: speed of a Dragom, firepower of a Stalker and ECM.
Mad Dog? hitboxes are unknown at this point.

Fire Moth will probably lose it's legs before even making contact with the enemy, and not necessarily to MASC. I love my Locusts, but even MASC and twice the weapon loadout won't make them really good.

[Cimarb]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

Fire Moth will probably lose it's legs before even making contact with the enemy, and not necessarily to MASC. I love my Locusts, but even MASC and twice the weapon loadout won't make them really good.

ECM would, though...

[Varent]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

Fire Moth will probably lose it's legs before even making contact with the enemy, and not necessarily to MASC. I love my Locusts, but even MASC and twice the weapon loadout won't make them really good.

No minimum heat sinks.

Done.

[Varent]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

No minimum heat sinks.

Done.

As an example, if you didnt have minimum heat sinks

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...c6a777d7b48026f

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...21db7831a557a03

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b257cbbb7514dbf

These would now be a viable mechs.

Edited by Varent, 15 March 2014 - 11:50 AM.

[FireSlade]

Strum Wealh, on 15 March 2014 - 10:35 AM, said:

While I would like to see how the arm on each of my Centurions changes with the loadout, I am rather apprehensive with what might happen with regard to the missile launcher(s) in the Left Torso (specifically, with regard to whether they would start sprouting as tumorous lumps, as happened with the Catapult).

It is an issue but it was something that should have been addressed from day one. How does one have 3 missile hard points (able to launch 30 missiles) but only one launcher (with room for 10 missiles)? It could easily be solved with having the Launchers add to the Centurion the same way that it does the Victors with possibly only one extra pod. The Catapult is unfortunate but really it was the only mech really hurt by the dynamic hard points and even then it only adds a little bit to the arm size.

[ssm]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 11:24 AM, said:

No minimum heat sinks.

Done.

Not gonna happen, for good reason, and even if - those heatsinks actually don't weight anything.

Edited by ssm, 15 March 2014 - 12:48 PM.

[Varent]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Not gonna happen, for good reason, and even if - those heatsinks actually don't weight anything.

That good reason being?

[ssm]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 12:50 PM, said:

That good reason being?

That those heatsinks don't weight anything - PGI decided (for good reason, or so it seemed at the time) to fold the weight of engine, gyro and cockpit into a weight bundle of engine + heatsinks outside the engine.

Eliminating minimum heatsink limits could actually create weightless gyros/cockpits, and that not only defies BT construction rules, but also plain logic.

[Varent]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

That those heatsinks don't weight anything - PGI decided (for good reason, or so it seemed at the time) to fold the weight of engine, gyro and cockpit into a weight bundle of engine + heatsinks outside the engine.

In MWO they do weight something. Thus in the system we are using now it makes sense for mechs to not need a minimum of 10.

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 01:03 PM, said:

Eliminating minimum heatsink limits could actually create weightless gyros/cockpits, and that not only defies BT construction rules, but also plain logic.

ever try stripping everything off of a mech? It leaves the internal structure, cockpit, sensorts and gyro.

Check your mech weight.

Its already kept track of outside of the engine.

Heat sinks in no way effects these things.

Literally the only thing no minimum heat sinks would do is buff the locust and commando, wich are already horribly underused mechs.

[ssm]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

In MWO they do weight something. Thus in the system we are using now it makes sense for mechs to not need a minimum of 10.

They rally don't. As I said, PGI probably wanted to make it simpler for non-BT-grognards, but instead they confounded a lot of people.

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

ever try stripping everything off of a mech? It leaves the internal structure, cockpit, sensorts and gyro.

Check your mech weight.

Its already kept track of outside of the engine.

Heat sinks in no way effects these things.

Literally the only thing no minimum heat sinks would do is buff the locust and commando, wich are already horribly underused mechs.

No it isn't. After stripping your mech of everything you indeed see that it still has cockpit & gyro (as they are unremovable), but the only weight tracked is actually internal structure (10% of mech's tonnage, half that, rounded up for endo steel)

Gyro of 50 ton mech with 200 engine weights 2 tons . Cockpit - 3 tons.

Where is that weight? It's folded into the bundled weight of engine and external heatsinks.

Edited by ssm, 15 March 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Which makes sense for the gyro, but not the cockpit initially (see below). Until they get up to the later cockpit options the cockpit weight should be fixed. Even then the cockpit weight should work like endo steel.

The heat sink thing is less confusing if you take the time to think about it, understand the basic BT construction rules, and the programming aspect of the game. It is likely easier to just subtract the weight of the heat sinks out of the weight of any engine rated 100 or above and set a minimum number require than make an exception of a weightless heat sink(s) for any engine rated less than 250 programming wise. The same reason they put the cockpit weight in the engine mass. Less work, less bugs the way they did it. The problem being that they box themselves in on any engine rate under 100 because subtracting the weight of heat sinks not included would yield a weight of 0 or less. The math works for standard engines, but runs into problems with XLs (XL 100s are a full ton heavier than they should be using PGI's system).

tl;dr: The math for building a 'Mech works better on paper than in a program where you have set all the rules up first.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 15 March 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Varent]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

They rally don't. As I said, PGI probably wanted to make it simpler for non-BT-grognards, but instead they confounded a lot of people.


No it isn't. After stripping your mech of everything you indeed see that it still has cockpit & gyro (as they are unremovable), but the only weight tracked is actually internal structure (10% of mech's tonnage, half that, rounded up for endo steel)

Gyro of 50 ton mech with 200 engine weights 2 tons . Cockpit - 3 tons.

Where is that weight? It's folded into the bundled weight of engine and external heatsinks.

I hate to break it to you, but it isnt battletech.

They are using that weight to count towards the gyro and cockpit plus sensors. Consider it to be an utterly new system. They obviously arent counting the Heat sinks into the engine. So again, count it to be an utterly new system.

The system we are using makes sense for us to have no minimum heat sinks.

[ssm]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

I hate to break it to you, but it isnt battletech.

They are using that weight to count towards the gyro and cockpit plus sensors. Consider it to be an utterly new system. They obviously arent counting the Heat sinks into the engine. So again, count it to be an utterly new system.

The system we are using makes sense for us to have no minimum heat sinks.

And I'd have to say it again - it's not a new system, it actually is Battletech. Stock MWO loadouts are fully transferable to TT, and vice versa. They aren't using internal structure weight to count towards the gyro and cockpits+ sensors, it just seems to be this way,they obviously are counting heatsinks into the engine but it just doesn't appear to be so in the mechlab.

So says the actual math & construction rules that those mechs are bound by.

Frankly - what you see (external heatsinks weighting 1 ton each) is just here to prevent new players (or more correctly, players not familiar with TT construction rules) from being confused by weightless equipable items. What you see in the mechlab isn't any kind of new system, but just simplified version of BT one.

I can't really explain it more clearly.

Edited by ssm, 15 March 2014 - 04:30 PM.

[Varent]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 04:29 PM, said:

And I'd have to say it again - it's not a new system, it actually is Battletech. Stock MWO loadouts are fully transferable to TT, and vice versa. They aren't using internal structure weight to count towards the gyro and cockpits+ sensors, it just seems to be this way,they obviously are counting heatsinks into the engine but it just doesn't appear to be so in the mechlab.

So says the actual math & construction rules that those mechs are bound by.

Frankly - what you see (external heatsinks weighting 1 ton each) is just here to prevent new players (or more correctly, players not familiar with TT construction rules) from being confused by weightless equipable items. What you see in the mechlab isn't any kind of new system, but just simplified version of BT one.

I can't really explain it more clearly.

You do realize that there are people that are playing this game that...

1) have never played battletech.
2) have no idea why minimum heat sinks are even in the game
3) have no desire to play by battletech rules.

all of your arguments are again going back to you wanting this to be governed by battletech rules.

There is no reason for this game to go according to that.

cockpit+gyro are included in the weight already transfered. Or honestly you might as well not even count the gyro since (gasp) it does absolutely nothing in the game... whatsoever.

The game should move towards making more mechs fully viable and allowing all mechs to have a place. In the current game locust and commando are sub par.

making no minimum heat sinks is a quick and simple way to resolve this.

I dont know any way to explain this more clearly.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

I hate to break it to you, but it isnt battletech.

They are using that weight to count towards the gyro and cockpit plus sensors. Consider it to be an utterly new system. They obviously arent counting the Heat sinks into the engine. So again, count it to be an utterly new system.

The system we are using makes sense for us to have no minimum heat sinks.

Because you seem unwilling to look up the tables or do the basic math conversions I will do it for you.

For a 100 rated engine
TT: 3 tons (100 rated standard engine) + 1 ton (gyro for a 100 rated engine) + 3 tons (cockpit) = 7 tons
MWO: 3 tons (engine) + 1 ton (gyro) + 3 tons (cockpit) = 7 tons - 6 tons (unallocated heat sinks) = 1 ton (MWO Mechlab weight)

For a 155 rated XL engine
TT: 3 tons (155 XL engine) + 2 tons (gyro for a 155 rated engine) + 3 tons (cockpit) = 8 tons
MWO: 3 tons (155 XL engine) + 2 tons (gyro) + 3 tons (cockpit) = 8 tons - 4 tons (unallocated heat sinks) = 4 tons (MWO Mechlab weight)

The minimum heat sink requirement still makes perfect, table top friendly sense.
Math is not your enemy.

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

You do realize that there are people that are playing this game that...

1) have never played battletech.
2) have no idea why minimum heat sinks are even in the game
3) have no desire to play by battletech rules.

all of your arguments are again going back to you wanting this to be governed by battletech rules.

There is no reason for this game to go according to that.

cockpit+gyro are included in the weight already transfered. Or honestly you might as well not even count the gyro since (gasp) it does absolutely nothing in the game... whatsoever.

The game should move towards making more mechs fully viable and allowing all mechs to have a place. In the current game locust and commando are sub par.

making no minimum heat sinks is a quick and simple way to resolve this.

I dont know any way to explain this more clearly.

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) Moot. It is a Battletech title and the devs have stated their desire to stick to the table top rules set as closely as reasonable. Read PGI reserves the right to change things for game balancing purposes.

Funny thing about Locusts and Commandos, they still kill things regularly if players use them properly. They are basically hard mode.

[Bishop Steiner]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 05:04 PM, said:

all of your arguments are again going back to you wanting this to be governed by battletech rules.

There is no reason for this game to go according to that.

Except that this game is based off Battletech, and the Devs have stated since it's inception that they wish to adhere to the core rules, and if not possible, spirit of the TT Battletech game?

If people just want generic mech games (in which case, no heatsink rules to worry about!) then they should chose one of the dozens of other generic mechs games about, instead of trying to twist the ONE out there that is based off an existing IP, and thus ruin it for the core customer base it was targeted for?

It's like deciding you want to be part of a religion, but then ignoring all the stuff that is inconvenient for you. Why not practice one (or none) that fits what you want in the first place, instead of trying to twist something else to what you want, and thus invalidating any point to it in the first place?