20517 replies to this topic

[CDLord HHGD]

test

[Varent]

Nathan Foxbane, on 15 March 2014 - 05:15 PM, said:

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.


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, on 15 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

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?

I want to show you something.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5d46eaf2dcda9cf

This is a locust without anything on it. Do note the gyro and cockpit and sensors are all on it.

This is the mech without an engine, heat sinks, what not etc.

I dont care what the previous systems have done. What previous Mechwarrior games have done. What Battletech has done.

This is the system in wich the game we are playing is based around. The locust with the COCKPIT AND GYRO inside of it, stripped, weighs 2 tons.

I am not going to bother looking it up on sarna because its a mute point, they are not using those rules for this mechwarrior game. They are using new build rules. Period.

Right now. Having a minimum of 10 heat sinks is making 2 light mechs unplayable. Its not about hard more. Its not about those mechs need to be that way because... They simply are not playable in the game we have. They are basically broken for all intents and purposes. However by changing this rule and allowing the mechs to not need minimum heat sinks you will be doing the whole community some justice and make the locust and to a degree the commando viable mechs once again.

This is a good thing. Embrace it.

[ssm]

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.

Yes, I know. I clearly see now that that PGI botched this - they should've just plainly include weights of both gyro & cockpit in the mechlab, instead of hiding it inside engine's & external heatsinks weight, and make the latter weightless.

But really - from Commando & Locust standpoint - it would be exactly the same.

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.

I'm not 'wanting' this to be governed by BT rules. In case of heatsinks it actually is governed by BT rules.

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

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

It's BT game, so there's that.

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

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.

Thay aren't. As I said - you think they are, because you don't see their weight in the mechlab - but the actual math behind weight is straight from BT. It's as simple as that.

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

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.

As much as I'd love to see Locusts as kings of the battlefield taking down lances of Atlases by themselves, we just need to accept the fact that Commandoes and Locust would always be sub par in fps BT game, and making their gyros or cockpits weightless won't change it.

Edited by ssm, 15 March 2014 - 05:46 PM.

[Varent]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 05:45 PM, said:

Yes, I know. I clearly see now that that PGI botched this - they should've just plainly include weights of both gyro & cockpit in the mechlab, instead of hiding it inside engine's & external heatsinks weight, and make the latter weightless.

But really - from Commando & Locust standpoint - it would be exactly the same.


I'm not 'wanting' this to be governed by BT rules. In case of heatsinks it actually is governed by BT rules.


It's BT game, so there's that.


Thay aren't. As I said - you think they are, because you don't see their weight in the mechlab - but the actual math behind weight is straight from BT. It's as simple as that.


As much as I'd love to see Locusts as kings of the battlefield taking down lances of Atlases by themselves, we just need to accept the fact that Commandoes and Locust would always be sub par in fps BT game, and making their gyros or cockpits weightless won't change it.

again, this is the locust stripped.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5d46eaf2dcda9cf

Those are the weights of the items.

Im sorry you want a game with full battletech rules. This game is not doing that at all. That is the system we are using. There is no reason why they could not do this. It would not make thos mechs king, It would make them 'playable'

[ssm]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 05:47 PM, said:

again, this is the locust stripped.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5d46eaf2dcda9cf

Those are the weights of the items.

Im sorry you want a game with full battletech rules. This game is not doing that at all. That is the system we are using. There is no reason why they could not do this. It would not make thos mechs king, It would make them 'playable'

Hmmm...

As I, and others beside me pointed out, it isn't Locust stripped. Period. And those aren't weighs of the items. You'll get full weight of those items (cockpit, gyro, engine, heatsinks) after you add engine and required heatsinks.

And there is a test for you - try to join the game without required number of external heatsinks. If you can - you're right, and MWO is based on different system than BT, and they are using some new build rules. If you can't - it is BT and we're right.

Edited by ssm, 15 March 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[Finestaut]

Both sides of this argument have merit.

On the one hand, sub 250 engines have been lightened to provide extra free weight to offset the cost of external heat sinks. They are substantially lighter than they would be if they followed the natural progression of engine weights.

On the other hand, I don't believe there is a single decent build with an engine that low, and that's probably a bad thing. It may very well be appropriate to give the tiny engines (and thus the tiny 'mechs) a buff.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

I want to show you something.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5d46eaf2dcda9cf

This is a locust without anything on it. Do note the gyro and cockpit and sensors are all on it.

Note their weight is unaccounted for. However the engine and corresponding minimum heat sinks are required for the 'Mech to be used, as such the weight is right there in the engine and minimum heat sinks. Also note that the only weight accounted for is the internal structure. Sensors and life support are part of the weight of the cockpit.

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

I dont care what the previous systems have done. What previous Mechwarrior games have done. What Battletech has done.

This is the system in wich the game we are playing is based around. The locust with the COCKPIT AND GYRO inside of it, stripped, weighs 2 tons.

I am not going to bother looking it up on sarna because its a mute point, they are not using those rules for this mechwarrior game. They are using new build rules. Period.

Right now. Having a minimum of 10 heat sinks is making 2 light mechs unplayable. Its not about hard more. Its not about those mechs need to be that way because... They simply are not playable in the game we have. They are basically broken for all intents and purposes. However by changing this rule and allowing the mechs to not need minimum heat sinks you will be doing the whole community some justice and make the locust and to a degree the commando viable mechs once again.

This is a good thing. Embrace it.

If you had bothered reading a previous post of mine I noted why PGI may have gone the route they did. They account for things slightly differently, but the math still works out.
The Locust was never intended to fight other 'Mechs, it was meant to support light vehicles and infantry and scout. If it ran into other 'Mechs it was supposed to run away. The Commando is a light raider, a fast strike, hit and run style 'Mech which is why it had all those SRMs for their big alpha. It is actually decent at its other job of hunting other lights if it does not stray too far from support.
You want less than the minimum number of heat sinks? Think about this, not only are you asking for a great deal more work on PGI's part (not like they do not have enough on their plate), but you are asking for something affecting all 'Mechs. A potentially Mechlab breaking change with the ability to introduce some serious bugs. And if you are suggesting to make a change to just those two 'Mechs or their respective weight classes what makes them so special they need unique code to break the rules.

You sir or madam need to look at the whys as much as the whats when you make an argument. If you are just trolling well then congratulations you have mildly succeeded.

[Bishop Steiner]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 05:31 PM, said:

I want to show you something.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5d46eaf2dcda9cf

This is a locust without anything on it. Do note the gyro and cockpit and sensors are all on it.

This is the mech without an engine, heat sinks, what not etc.

I dont care what the previous systems have done. What previous Mechwarrior games have done. What Battletech has done.

This is the system in wich the game we are playing is based around. The locust with the COCKPIT AND GYRO inside of it, stripped, weighs 2 tons.

I am not going to bother looking it up on sarna because its a mute point, they are not using those rules for this mechwarrior game. They are using new build rules. Period.

Right now. Having a minimum of 10 heat sinks is making 2 light mechs unplayable. Its not about hard more. Its not about those mechs need to be that way because... They simply are not playable in the game we have. They are basically broken for all intents and purposes. However by changing this rule and allowing the mechs to not need minimum heat sinks you will be doing the whole community some justice and make the locust and to a degree the commando viable mechs once again.

This is a good thing. Embrace it.

Unplayable? I play them fine.

Also, all mech have an internal structure that is 1/10 of their weight. Hence a Locust has one weighing 2 tons. Using endo it is half. In the MWO mechlab, the Sensors and Cockpit, are added as part of the engine. This is partly reflected by how the Heat Sinks are added.

This is a Stock LCT-1V before armor and weapons
LCT-1V
Follow Closely
the INternal Structure (aka "stripped" as you posted) is 2 tons.
a 160 standard is 6 tons.
The Gyro is 2 tons (1 ton for every 100 of engine rating)
the Cockpit is 3 tons (in ALL mechs)
note that is 13 tons.....which is exactly the weight you are brought to by adding the minimum required heatsinks. In other words, it adds no punishment, but merely brings it to the stock mass it is supposed to be.

So you can look up the rules on sarna, or not, as you desire. But if you do not, then you argue from a stance of ignorance, and thus have no argument. You can accept that arguing without knowing the facts is a poor decision, or you can be offended, your choice. But the methodology is sound, and no "punishment" is accrued to the Locust or other mechs.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 15 March 2014 - 06:26 PM.

[FupDup]

Finestaut, on 15 March 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

Both sides of this argument have merit.

On the one hand, sub 250 engines have been lightened to provide extra free weight to offset the cost of external heat sinks. They are substantially lighter than they would be if they followed the natural progression of engine weights.

On the other hand, I don't believe there is a single decent build with an engine that low, and that's probably a bad thing. It may very well be appropriate to give the tiny engines (and thus the tiny 'mechs) a buff.

IMO, the issue with the lower engines is that some sinks have to be placed externally instead of all 10 base sinks being inside the engine (like 250+ engines feature). Note that the weight would be the same in the end, the only difference is that you'd no longed be taxed of critical slots (cuz all 10 base sinks would be inside your engine). I have no idea why the BT writers even made it so sub-250 engines had to place sinks externally in the first place. It just seems so pointless and like a nerf to mechs that suck as it is.

The main build that would benefit from this is the classic Trollmando 2D, which could mount an extra ton of SSRM ammo without downgrading to SHS or replacing his ML with an SL. The freed up slots could also open up some new Lolcust loadout options.

Edited by FupDup, 15 March 2014 - 06:35 PM.

[Varent]

ssm, on 15 March 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

Hmmm...

As I, and others beside me pointed out, it isn't Locust stripped. Period. And those aren't weighs of the items. You'll get full weight of those items (cockpit, gyro, engine, heatsinks) after you add engine and required heatsinks.

And there is a test for you - try to join the game without required number of external heatsinks. If you can - you're right, and MWO is based on different system than BT, and they are using some new build rules. If you can't - it is BT and we're right.

Explain to me what destroying the gyro does in mwo please. How about destroying the life support in the {LT-MOB-25} pit.

Even better, tell me what destroying the actuators does.

Nathan Foxbane, on 15 March 2014 - 06:23 PM, said:

The Locust was never intended to fight other 'Mechs, it was meant to support light vehicles and infantry and scout. If it ran into other 'Mechs it was supposed to run away. The Commando is a light raider, a fast strike, hit and run style 'Mech which is why it had all those SRMs for their big alpha. It is actually decent at its other job of hunting other lights if it does not stray too far from support.

I would love to fight infantry or vehicles, where are they?

Oh btw, why do you think the locust is the laughing stock of the community and not used in game.

Bishop Steiner, on 15 March 2014 - 06:25 PM, said:

Unplayable? I play them fine.

Also, all mech have an internal structure that is 1/10 of their weight. Hence a Locust has one weighing 2 tons. Using endo it is half. In the MWO mechlab, the Sensors and Cockpit, are added as part of the engine. This is partly reflected by how the Heat Sinks are added.

This is a Stock LCT-1V before armor and weapons
LCT-1V
Follow Closely
the INternal Structure (aka "stripped" as you posted) is 2 tons.
a 160 standard is 6 tons.
The Gyro is 2 tons (1 ton for every 100 of engine rating)
the Cockpit is 3 tons (in ALL mechs)
note that is 13 tons.....which is exactly the weight you are brought to by adding the minimum required heatsinks. In other words, it adds no punishment, but merely brings it to the stock mass it is supposed to be.

So you can look up the rules on sarna, or not, as you desire. But if you do not, then you argue from a stance of ignorance, and thus have no argument. You can accept that arguing without knowing the facts is a poor decision, or you can be offended, your choice. But the methodology is sound, and no "punishment" is accrued to the Locust or other mechs.

sarna =/= balance in a shooting game.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

Explain to me what destroying the gyro does in mwo please. How about destroying the life support in the {LT-MOB-25} pit.

Even better, tell me what destroying the actuators does.

Nothing as of yet. I believe such critical damage went into the circular filing cabinet. The one marked, "We'll do it when we have extra time."

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

Oh btw, why do you think the locust is the laughing stock of the community and not used in game.

The same reason people get all hot and bothered over the Flea and Urbie. The same reason I have a Boomcada (you have any idea how embarrassing it is to be killed by a 'Mech slower than an Atlas and makes the Locust look like it has heavy armor?). For the lulz, especially when they make it work.

Back to more interesting things an speaking of less than optimal designs, any guesses as to how long we will have to wait for the Assassin. I need a new over sized ankle biter in my Mechbay.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 15 March 2014 - 07:46 PM.

[SweetJackal]

Varent, on 15 March 2014 - 07:21 PM, said:

sarna =/= balance in a shooting game.

Yes! Exactly! Glad to see you understand that and that the build rules from MWO and the TT are the same in minimum requirements. Now where you are missing your mark is where to blame for the "lack of results" a Locust gets.

It's not the build rules. A Locust in the TT has the same minimum required tonnage eaten up as it does in MWO and in general, unless you go below a 100 rating engine or try to exceed MWO's hardpoint system, you can build the same Locusts in MWO as you can in the TT.

The 'problems' with the Locust are actually the symptoms of what PGI has set to be it's "Normal" on the sliders of design.

The problem is that the mechanics in the game and the way movement and aiming is handled means that all light mechs are forced to "Over Engine" compared to what you would run in the TT. This requirement for speed for light mechs pushes them up in engine ratings in order to make use of their one defense and eats more tonnage as a result.

The problem is that the MWO heat scale was designed with the concept that Heat Neutral Builds are an exploit. This in general has caused all mechs to be required to have a build that in the TT would be Heat Neutral and treat it like a Hot Build from the TT and has pretty much eliminated the differences in play and mech design that Heat Management allowed. This has had the game altered to force DHS builds to run hot after DHS were introduced and found to allow Heat Neutral Builds, which of course has made SHS nonviable, DHS a requirement and added the 1.5 million C-Bill tax that has existed for years now.

The problem is that MWO has kept the instant pinpoint convergence for every weapon mounted to the mech, the placeholder from the closed beta. This has created large amounts of pinpoint damage when the designs set in the TT rules were to allow damage to be spread around the mech. The Torso Twist meta would have grown regardless, as that is how damage transfer was added to the game but high pinpoint damage placed a need for higher armor values around the table. Yet more demands for tonnage. The solution to this is removing the current "Across The Board Instant Convergence" we have now and setting another system in it's place.

On the last note there, I hate random cones of fire with a passion. They can be done well but the entire game has to be designed from the ground up with them in mind. I would prefer a system that mixed Fixed Convergence and Instant Dynamic Convergence. The current convergence system for arm mounted weapons with lateral moment and fixed convergence for everything else.

Don't blame the minimum requirements set in the design rules, something held true to the TT just simplified in coding, to be why mechs aren't viable. So much is added when transitioning from the TT to MWO and it is these factors that make or break mechs. Hitboxes, Scaling and Size, Twist Speeds and Angles, Shooting Mechanics, the list goes on.

[ssm]

Nathan Foxbane, on 15 March 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

(...)
Back to more interesting things an speaking of less than optimal designs, any guesses as to how long we will have to wait for the Assassin. I need a new over sized ankle biter in my Mechbay.

Well, because PGI's current plan for matchmaker is based on weight class matching supplemented by 5 ton tolerance (Dragon could be matched against Catapult, but not against Cataphract) I think that they'll push mechs of underrepresented tonnage first.

As we currently have only one 40 tonner, and non-humanoid at that, and PGI has already shown (with Griffin, for example) that they aren't afraid of major hardpoint inflation, Assasin is actually a good bet.

Even more so because it has a lot of potential for incredibly good Alex's redesign.

Edited by ssm, 16 March 2014 - 05:59 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Nathan Foxbane, on 15 March 2014 - 07:38 PM, said:

Back to more interesting things an speaking of less than optimal designs, any guesses as to how long we will have to wait for the Assassin. I need a new over sized ankle biter in my Mechbay.

do want also.

Size and hit boxes of the Firestarter, mobility nearly on par with the Spider. Sure it needs some hardpoint propagation, but that's OK. Give it 2 energy in the Right Arm, and 2 Missile each Side Torso. I'd run it!

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 16 March 2014 - 09:59 AM.

[Tkhaw]

Finding this thread in page 2 is unforgivable...

Anyway



http://catalystgamel...nion-cover-wip3

Punch up!!!

[ssm]

Tkhaw, on 19 March 2014 - 07:44 PM, said:

Finding this thread in page 2 is unforgivable...

Anyway



http://catalystgamel...nion-cover-wip3

Punch up!!!

Well, it really takes extremely good artist to make original TRO Victor & Quickdraw look cool

And about the thread - maybe we'll ask one of the mods to pin it?
It sure deserves that.

Edited by ssm, 20 March 2014 - 04:02 AM.

[Odanan]

ssm, on 20 March 2014 - 04:01 AM, said:

Well, it really takes extremely good artist to make original TRO Victor & Quickdraw look cool

And about the thread - maybe we'll ask one of the mods to pin it?
It sure deserves that.

It was pinned and unpinned multiple times, so I gave up asking. But don't worry, we keep it pined alright.

Edited by Odanan, 20 March 2014 - 04:45 AM.

[SgtMagor]

Melee when is it going to happen? time to make use of those hand actuators for more than something to look at!

[Odanan]

SgtMagor, on 20 March 2014 - 07:57 AM, said:

Melee when is it going to happen? time to make use of those hand actuators for more than something to look at!

I suppose the Banshee will have an extra melee damage quirk. ;P

[Bishop Steiner]

Odanan, on 20 March 2014 - 10:04 AM, said:

I suppose the Banshee will have an extra melee damage quirk. ;P

6 fingers should mean extra damage!