189 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 11:48 PM, said:

I'm still not clear on what problems it would cause with balance because so far mostly what I've heard is "people want to change the rules because they don't like challenge" and "this rule was for noobs in Tabletop" but that doesn't really say much of anything. What I see is a solution that helps (at least some) builds with sub-250 engines be less underwhelming.

You did bring up the part about the role of 10 heatsinks when the engine is damaged, but the fact is that's not something to consider here because this is MWO and not tabletop.

It is A BattleTech game and as such should stick to "As many of the original concepts as it can."

People want to change the rules cause they don't like Challenges is my opinion.

10 Sinks in the engine for all engines IS a for beginners rule is a fact. It is an Introductory rule.

So no matter how you slice it it is your opinion of what is good for the game vs my opinion of what is good for the game. Thus you are no more right than I am. PGI will decide, and we will continue to play or we will leave. Its really just that simple Pj.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 04:07 AM, said:

It is A BattleTech game and as such should stick to "As many of the original concepts as it can."

People want to change the rules cause they don't like Challenges is my opinion.

10 Sinks in the engine for all engines IS a for beginners rule is a fact. It is an Introductory rule.

So no matter how you slice it it is your opinion of what is good for the game vs my opinion of what is good for the game. Thus you are no more right than I am. PGI will decide, and we will continue to play or we will leave. Its really just that simple Pj.

If you can't give me a reason other than sticking to rules in other games with completely different formats, regardless of how well it might or might not fit in MWO, then I will remain unconvinced.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 04:55 AM, said:

If you can't give me a reason other than sticking to rules in other games with completely different formats, regardless of how well it might or might not fit in MWO, then I will remain unconvinced.

I don't care if you are convinced Pj. PGI only needs to be.

BTW you haven't convinced me that you need any buff for lights. I die to them all the time in my assaults, so why would you need buffed?

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 December 2014 - 04:59 AM.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 04:58 AM, said:

I don't care if you are convinced Pj. PGI only needs to be.

I don't see why you bother having a discussion if you don't care then.

Quote

BTW you haven't convinced me that you need any buff for lights. I die to them all the time in my assaults, so why would you need buffed?

It's hard for that statement to be more vague, but ignoring at least a dozen other factors I would like to know how many of those light mechs use sub-250 engines.

Your statement also seems to imply (again, because it's so vague) that requiring less minimum heatsinks would just be a buff for every light mech when that's not true; obviously you wouldn't want to run a build like this with less than 10 heatsinks because it's hot enough as it is, so there wouldn't be any change there.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 05:23 AM, said:

obviously you wouldn't want to run a build like this with less than 10 heatsinks because it's hot enough as it is, so there wouldn't be any change there.

You wouldn't want to run that build with 10 heatsinks either so your point is moot. The rule is you have to have 10 sinks and has been that way for the entire existence of this IP. So why after 30 years does it NEED to change? Rules are there because people need to have limits. For this game it has always been you have to have 10 sinks. That does not need to be changed.

You do not need to be convinced of this, you don't even need to agree with me. PGI is the final word. Allowing you to have less than 10 sinks is no different than players wanting MORE armor for assaults. Its not needed.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:

You wouldn't want to run that build with 10 heatsinks either so your point is moot. The rule is you have to have 10 sinks and has been that way for the entire existence of this IP. So why after 30 years does it NEED to change? Rules are there because people need to have limits. For this game it has always been you have to have 10 sinks. That does not need to be changed.

My point was that the change would benefit the mechs that do need it (read: mechs with sub-250 engines) while not really making any difference for the mechs that don't need it.

Quote

You do not need to be convinced of this, you don't even need to agree with me. PGI is the final word.

I'm not exactly giving you a tough goal to achieve here, so if you don't even care about the potentially positive effect it would have in MWO because you have your head stuck 30 years in the past then I think it's safe to say that's not very convincing to other people either.

Quote

Allowing you to have less than 10 sinks is no different than players wanting MORE armor for assaults. Its not needed.

Comparing 2 completely different ideas and saying they're not different is a pretty ridiculous argument.

Assault mechs don't need more armor because they clearly already have enough.
Mechs with sub-250 engines don't need to have minimum heatsinks reduced because...

Edited by Pjwned, 23 December 2014 - 05:52 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

My point was that the change would benefit the mechs that do need it (read: mechs with sub-250 engines) while not really making any difference for the mechs that don't need it.

Those Mechs have never NEEDED a buff of any type. Player WANT a buff but plenty of players are doinig just fine with the system we have.

Quote

I'm not exactly giving you a tough goal to achieve here, so if you don't even care about the potentially positive effect it would have in MWO because you have your head stuck 30 years in the past then I think it's safe to say that's not very convincing to other people either.

It will have little to no affect, You are not the one I am posting for your desire for me to convince you should be pointed to PGI. They need to be convinced you are right not me. I am perfectly fine with the system we have. and am saying so. You will not convince me your suggestion is worth implementing.

Quote

Comparing 2 completely different ideas and saying they're not different is a pretty ridiculous argument.
Assault mechs don't need more armor because they clearly already have enough.
Mechs with sub-250 engines don't need to have minimum heatsinks reduced because...

Comparing wants and needs is not ridiculous. Both suggestions are merely wants. They are not needed. See you and I agree about the silliness of wanting to change more of the base rules of the game in some areas. But you WANT your change so you will not accept that others will be against changing it cause it is YOUR cause. It is personal to you. Light Mechs do not need to have less heat sinks any more than Assaults need to have more armor. Both desired changes are pitched as something that would fix a "broken" aspect. and both are changes to "Table Top" rules.

At least I am consistent in my adhering to what I think is fine "as is". If I had my way, we would never have gotten double armor. But I was not in CB when that argument went down.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 06:09 AM, said:

Those Mechs have never NEEDED a buff of any type. Player WANT a buff but plenty of players are doinig just fine with the system we have.

So despite the extraordinary effort needed to do decently with them (in part due to the minimum heatsink requirement holding them back) the mechs that use sub-250 engines are fine, okay, meanwhile other mechs that don't have such issues can perform just as well or better with less effort yet apparently that's fine because the rules benefit them more.

Quote

It will have little to no affect, You are not the one I am posting for your desire for me to convince you should be pointed to PGI. They need to be convinced you are right not me. I am perfectly fine with the system we have. and am saying so. You will not convince me your suggestion is worth implementing.

If you say so.

Quote

Comparing wants and needs is not ridiculous. Both suggestions are merely wants. They are not needed. See you and I agree about the silliness of wanting to change more of the base rules of the game in some areas. But you WANT your change so you will not accept that others will be against changing it cause it is YOUR cause. It is personal to you. Light Mechs do not need to have less heat sinks any more than Assaults need to have more armor. Both desired changes are pitched as something that would fix a "broken" aspect. and both are changes to "Table Top" rules.

At least I am consistent in my adhering to what I think is fine "as is". If I had my way, we would never have gotten double armor. But I was not in CB when that argument went down.

You can tell me that assault mechs don't need more armor because it would be ("silly") unbalanced but you can't tell me the same for why the minimum heat sinks should be reduced, that is why I don't just simply accept that you don't want it to be changed. It's not that I refuse to accept an argument, it's that you don't have an argument that's convincing, but you've already stated that you don't care if I'm convinced so this isn't really going anywhere at this point and I'm done arguing.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

So despite the extraordinary effort needed to do decently with them (in part due to the minimum heatsink requirement holding them back) the mechs that use sub-250 engines are fine, okay, meanwhile other mechs that don't have such issues can perform just as well or better with less effort yet apparently that's fine because the rules benefit them more.



If you say so.



You can tell me that assault mechs don't need more armor because it would be ("silly") unbalanced but you can't tell me the same for why the minimum heat sinks should be reduced, that is why I don't just simply accept that you don't want it to be changed. It's not that I refuse to accept an argument, it's that you don't have an argument that's convincing, but you've already stated that you don't care if I'm convinced so this isn't really going anywhere at this point and I'm done arguing.

Dude. It is the rules sometimes you just have to accept that. Do you tell a cop You SHOULD be allowed to drive over the limit cause I want to and it will help me get to work faster?

Then we agree on two things. Cause your argument is not convincing to me either. 30 years Light Mechs have done fine to exceptional depending on who drives em, and they have done it with 10 heat sinks. Thus not needed by light Mechs. Light Mechs need a lot more armor and weapons for them to be useful by me. Its why I don't use em. They don't fit my style.

Also those folks asking for more armor use your arguments to say they NEED more armor. Its why you will likely never see less than 10 sinks.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 06:36 AM, said:

You can tell me that assault mechs don't need more armor because it would be ("silly") unbalanced but you can't tell me the same for why the minimum heat sinks should be reduced, that is why I don't just simply accept that you don't want it to be changed. It's not that I refuse to accept an argument, it's that you don't have an argument that's convincing, but you've already stated that you don't care if I'm convinced so this isn't really going anywhere at this point and I'm done arguing.

It's not a matter of balance in all but a few cases. It's a matter of, "You would be stupid to run with less than 10 anyway so why change the established rule?" See, to change it, PGI would have to change the code for something less than 1% of the population would utilize.

The benefit is negligible, minimal, nearly non-existant, so why waste the time changing it?

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Dude. It is the rules sometimes you just have to accept that. Do you tell a cop You SHOULD be allowed to drive over the limit cause I want to and it will help me get to work faster?

A better analogy would be complaining why my speed limit is lower than the speed limit for everybody else when I'm driving a motorcycle.

Quote

Also those folks asking for more armor use your arguments to say they NEED more armor. Its why you will likely never see less than 10 sinks.

And yet the people that would argue against assaults having more armor can clearly explain why that would be unbalanced, that's something I've yet to hear here and apparently never will.

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 07:00 AM, said:

It's not a matter of balance in all but a few cases. It's a matter of, "You would be stupid to run with less than 10 anyway so why change the established rule?" See, to change it, PGI would have to change the code for something less than 1% of the population would utilize.

The benefit is negligible, minimal, nearly non-existant, so why waste the time changing it?

Ignoring the benefit doesn't mean the benefit isn't there, not to mention that Joe has already established that he thinks it would be a buff anyways (which is the point, it would be a buff) so maybe you 2 can have a little discussion about that if you want.

Edited by Pjwned, 23 December 2014 - 07:08 AM.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

Ignoring the benefit doesn't mean the benefit isn't there.

Cost to Benefit Analysis. This is a thing. You should look it up.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:06 AM, said:

Ignoring the benefit doesn't mean the benefit isn't there, not to mention that Joe has already established that he thinks it would be a buff anyways (which is the point, it would be a buff) so maybe you 2 can have a little discussion about that if you want.

Why would we need to discuss it we agree it is not needed. the why of our reasoning is not the point he has his opinion I have mine. we agree it is not needed. Just like we don't need to have more armor.

[3rdworld]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Cost to Benefit Analysis. This is a thing. You should look it up.

How much time / money was invested on the Lolcust, Blackjack, slower mediums etc, well any mech that can't mount a 250 really? Because I imagine it is considerably more than needing to comment out a construction rule.

Edited by 3rdworld, 23 December 2014 - 07:22 AM.

[Mercules]

3rdworld, on 23 December 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

How much time / money was invested on the Lolcust, Blackjack, slower mediums etc? Because I imagine it is considerably more than needing to comment out a construction rule.

You act as if they are unplayable without this change. They work fine and I play a lot of Locusts and Commandos. Like I stated, I doubt I would run with less HS even if I could.

[The Boz]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 07:24 AM, said:

You act as if they are unplayable without this change.

...whereas you act as if lifting this one non-sensical rule would cost millions in manhours and testing time.

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 07:10 AM, said:

Cost to Benefit Analysis. This is a thing. You should look it up.

What I'm getting from this is that you don't have an argument.

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 07:13 AM, said:

Why would we need to discuss it we agree it is not needed. the why of our reasoning is not the point he has his opinion I have mine. we agree it is not needed. Just like we don't need to have more armor.

Saying the reasoning doesn't matter is extremely foolish, by that logic I am right just because I say so.

[Mercules]

The Boz, on 23 December 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

...whereas you act as if lifting this one non-sensical rule would cost millions in manhours and testing time.

Millions? No. Wasted time that could go into something else? Yes. Because with ANY code change you have to put it through QA. If their QA is any good they will run scenarios for every underweight engine on every chassis to make sure they didn't introduce a bug. While a lot of it might be automated, it will still require setup and running time.

For something people will try and then go, "I need more Heatsinks I overheat WAY too easily."

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

What I'm getting from this is that you don't have an argument.

Then you aren't very observant.

The benefit is minimal.
The cost is likely not.
Ergo doing it is not worth the effort.

On top of that we have a rule that has worked for 30+ years without need of changing. Obviously YOU are the messiah that has first thought of it, and discovered all possible ramifications and will lead us out of this dark age because no one else has ever considered this change in 30+ years.

[FupDup]

Shameless self-bump.

FupDup, on 22 December 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

I didn't bother to read through most of the replies here so I'll just cut to my own idea that was probably already proposed earlier.


I'm okay with requiring 10 heatsinks on mechs. What I'm not fine with is that sub-250 engines need to allocate some of their sinks on the outside. All that does is nerf mechs with engine limits under 250, while most mechs of that type are already weak in some other way (i.e. low tonnage tiny lights).

So what I'd do is modify all engines to carry all 10 heatsinks on the inside without any needed on the outside. In order to represent the added tonnage of these sinks, the engine weights would be increased to reflect this.

For example, a Locust's current XL190 has an upfront tonnage of 6 tons and requires 3 external sinks, which brings the final cost up to 9 tons. So what I would do is simply make the XL190 come with all 10 sinks, and increase its weight to 9 tons.


In the end, the tonnage required would be the same as it is now, but you would save a lot of critical slots in the process. These critslots could be used on tech upgrades like FF armor and w/e to increase your spare tonnage. Also, you'd gain higher heat efficiency due to 2.0 Truedubs™.

[Joseph Mallan]

The Boz, on 23 December 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

...whereas you act as if lifting this one non-sensical rule would cost millions in manhours and testing time.

Its nonsensical if you wanna ignore the fluff that inspired the rule:
Fusion engines are able to generate a great deal of heat. Simply moving the vehicle creates heat, though this is often a small amount. Though heat can negatively affect the vehicle's pilot or even the vehicle itself, a well-ventilated fusion engine is far less dangerous than the bleed-heat generated by charging and/or firing weapons, especially lasers and particle weapons.

And Thus the guys who invented the game decides to have a Minimum number of Sinks. That minimum is 10. Has been in every rendition of this game in all its glory. But You wanna change it cause... You don't agree.