189 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

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."

So because you won't benefit from it and other people might make stupid builds that automatically eliminates anybody else that could take advantage of it.

Quote

Then you aren't very observant.

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

I ask you to explain why the benefit is minimal despite multiple posts showing why it's not and your response is pretty much "because it is."

Quote

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.

Excellent strawman, 10/10.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 07:36 AM, said:

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.

No he hasn't. The argument comes up on occasions on the CBT forums. It gets shot down by the players just as often. and with more ridicule than we are giving.

[Pjwned]

FupDup, on 23 December 2014 - 07:43 AM, said:

Shameless self-bump.

I did actually reply here in case you missed it:

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 12:44 AM, said:

An idealist version of this idea would be to give all engines the capacity for 10 heatsinks while not requiring a minimum of 10.

Not a terrible amount to consider beyond what's already in the thread though.

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

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.

Because the restriction isn't needed in MWO.

[FupDup]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

I did actually reply here in case you missed it:

Not a terrible amount to consider beyond what's already in the thread though.

Oh, oops.

In that event, I'm not sure how to code it with the current XML's (most likely possible, but might require some new code). The really weird thing about the current engine XML entries is that they don't have separate listings for how many heatsinks they have by default and what their total capacity is.

For example, a Locust's XL190 currently reads as "7" heatsinks. But an XL400 currently reads as "16" heatsinks being included with it. However, we know in-game that it only comes with 10 by default. The XML makes no mention of just having the base 10 with 6 optional "bonus" slots...

The game seems to figure out somehow that the first 10 are the only "default" ones and any of them past 10 become bonus slots automatically. There's probably another file lurking somewhere that controls this. Maybe I'll try to dig it up sometime.

Edited by FupDup, 23 December 2014 - 07:58 AM.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

So because you won't benefit from it and other people might make stupid builds that automatically eliminates anybody else that could take advantage of it.

No... I won't say no one will, however to change an established rule you need not just a reason, but a good one. Your reasoning is that you want to build mechs with less HS ignoring the fact that with less HS they become even less viable than they currently are.

My example above on how an Ember could take less HS and add more ammo for MGs but because it would lose heath THRESHOLD as well as dissipation and so would overheat much quicker and thus have to use it's MGs more frequently negates that gain in ammo. And since MG ammo runs out and ML with more HS don't it actually makes an Ember running fewer than 10 DHS worse.

There is a specific example of what I am trying to explain to you. The benefits of running less HS are outweighed by the disadvantages except in the case of a dual gauss Jagger which is an exception. However the dual gauss Jagger is balanced out by the existing rule.... that is what balances Gauss is the fact that it takes up a lot of tonnage and crit slots. Forcing you to run HS on a basically heatless mech BALANCES out Gauss.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

I ask you to explain why the benefit is minimal despite multiple posts showing why it's not and your response is pretty much "because it is."

See above example which has already been posted once. So my response has not been "because it is". I also explained a rough idea of typical QA processes which are often time consuming showing the cost portion of the change. Ignoring an argument is not the same as stating I didn't make it.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

Excellent strawman, 10/10.

Hey awesome you are ignorant about the types of fallacies as well. A Strawman would be if I took your argument, altered it slightly to make it easier to pick apart, and then picked that "strawman" argument apart, thus the name. That was blatant sarcasm pointing out that this argument has been around as long as BT has and has, for 30 years, resulted in the conclusion of, "Leave it as is." Now this could be an "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy but is definitely not a Strawman.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

I did actually reply here in case you missed it:



Not a terrible amount to consider beyond what's already in the thread though.



Because the restriction isn't needed in MWO.

But it is there. And it is there until such a time as it is changed. You can continue to request the change. But as long as you do I will continue to remind PGI it is not a necessary or needed change. K? Cool. have a Merry Christmas. Two more hours of "work" and I will be gone til Jan 5th. Give or take a post or three.

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:

No... I won't say no one will, however to change an established rule you need not just a reason, but a good one. Your reasoning is that you want to build mechs with less HS ignoring the fact that with less HS they become even less viable than they currently are.

In your opinion the mechs are less viable that way and keep arguing "it's bad because I don't like it" despite being shown that it's not necessarily bad with multiple examples.

Quote

My example above on how an Ember could take less HS and add more ammo for MGs but because it would lose heath THRESHOLD as well as dissipation and so would overheat much quicker and thus have to use it's MGs more frequently negates that gain in ammo. And since MG ammo runs out and ML with more HS don't it actually makes an Ember running fewer than 10 DHS worse.

Your example of an Ember doesn't even hold unless you're running a smaller standard engine on it for some reason.

Quote

There is a specific example of what I am trying to explain to you. The benefits of running less HS are outweighed by the disadvantages except in the case of a dual gauss Jagger which is an exception. However the dual gauss Jagger is balanced out by the existing rule.... that is what balances Gauss is the fact that it takes up a lot of tonnage and crit slots. Forcing you to run HS on a basically heatless mech BALANCES out Gauss.

The gauss rifle has enough drawbacks, frequent explosions and a charge fire mechanic being a couple things you missed on top of the high tonnage & crit slots, that I don't see how it needs essentially worthless heatsinks being mandatory.

Quote

See above example which has already been posted once. So my response has not been "because it is". I also explained a rough idea of typical QA processes which are often time consuming showing the cost portion of the change. Ignoring an argument is not the same as stating I didn't make it.

I asked you why the benefit was minimal, I don't care about your exaggerated QA costs as a reason to not improve the game.

Quote

Hey awesome you are ignorant about the types of fallacies as well. A Strawman would be if I took your argument, altered it slightly to make it easier to pick apart, and then picked that "strawman" argument apart, thus the name. That was blatant sarcasm pointing out that this argument has been around as long as BT has and has, for 30 years, resulted in the conclusion of, "Leave it as is." Now this could be an "Appeal to Tradition" fallacy but is definitely not a Strawman.

Sarcasm and strawman arguments are not mutually exclusive.

[Bishop Steiner]

Pjwned, on 21 December 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

op

one more reason to break lore, I reckon. With heat management how it is, sub 250 mechs (aka most lights, several mediums) are punished and run way to hot (another issue the Mist Lynx struggles with, for instance).

Even though it changes the internal space for some mechs (again, mostly Lights), it's time to simply ghost the 10 SHS or DHS into the Engine, period. Then you not only help a lot of subpar Lights with their heat, but free up sub 100 engines. And it doesn't make the top tier lights any stronger, as they are already running 295s, 300s, etc.

Really is not any different at the end of the day, IMO then swapping rear and leg weapons around, or giving the Hellbringer Prime extra armor in place of A-Pods, and certainly no more lore breaking than Quirks.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

In your opinion the mechs are less viable that way and keep arguing "it's bad because I don't like it" despite being shown that it's not necessarily bad with multiple examples.



Your example of an Ember doesn't even hold unless you're running a smaller standard engine on it for some reason.



The gauss rifle has enough drawbacks, frequent explosions and a charge fire mechanic being a couple things you missed on top of the high tonnage & crit slots, that I don't see how it needs essentially worthless heatsinks being mandatory.



I asked you why the benefit was minimal, I don't care about your exaggerated QA costs as a reason to not improve the game.



Sarcasm and strawman arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Well the smaller your engine the slower your Light Mech. a 100 rate engine only holds 4 Sinks which gives you 6 extra tons to use... Whatcha going to use that tonnage for on any light Mech that WON'T be negated by the really bad speed?

A Commando-1B could take away 4 Heatsinks and put on more armor but that large laser would over heat 6 sinks really fast. and even if double it would run way hot in this game environment.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

In your opinion the mechs are less viable that way and keep arguing "it's bad because I don't like it" despite being shown that it's not necessarily bad with multiple examples.

No, it's an opinion back up by logical reasoning and understanding of the game mechanics. Heat threshold is a big thing. Dropping to 9 DHS from 10 is a pretty significant drop when Light mechs must rely on Energy weapons and Missiles to do the majority of their damage. As light mechs would be the primary beneficiaries of reducing requirements for small engine sizes to take outside HS it is counterintuitive to reduce how many HS they carry. Now putting them in the engine and bringing the engine weight back to what it should be would free up some crit slots and is a minor change that isn't too far from the core rules and gives them a benefit they can actually use. Removing the HS is frankly, stupid.

Please show me a FRESH example of a mech improved by the removal of the rule, one that doesn't involve Gauss rifles.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Your example of an Ember doesn't even hold unless you're running a smaller standard engine on it for some reason.

Swap Ember for LCT-1V or SDR-5K the result is the same. Remove a HS for more ammo = needing more ammo = running out of DPS sooner.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

The gauss rifle has enough drawbacks, frequent explosions and a charge fire mechanic being a couple things you missed on top of the high tonnage & crit slots, that I don't see how it needs essentially worthless heatsinks being mandatory.

I know you don't see why it's mandatory, it's something called, "Game Balance". Even with the drawbacks Gauss are among the best weapons in the game.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

I asked you why the benefit was minimal, I don't care about your exaggerated QA costs as a reason to not improve the game.

As I have pointed out numerous times the situations in which it would be beneficial to run less than 10 HS are closer to 0 than 1. Here let's try again

Little mech only get weapons make big heat or weapons make no heat but be bad.
Less heat sink mean heat more bad.
Little mech no want less heat sink or little mech be bad.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 08:53 AM, said:

Sarcasm and strawman arguments are not mutually exclusive.

Nor does one imply the other. Look, your used the wrong term out of ignorance as to what it means. Just deal with the fact you don't know what a Strawman Fallacy is, blush appropriately for making yourself seem stupid, and move on. It's not the first ignorant statement you have made in this discussion I mean you don't even know the difference between a square and a rectangle or which is a subset of which, I learned that in like second grade.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 December 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

one more reason to break lore, I reckon. With heat management how it is, sub 250 mechs (aka most lights, several mediums) are punished and run way to hot (another issue the Mist Lynx struggles with, for instance).

Even though it changes the internal space for some mechs (again, mostly Lights), it's time to simply ghost the 10 SHS or DHS into the Engine, period. Then you not only help a lot of subpar Lights with their heat, but free up sub 100 engines. And it doesn't make the top tier lights any stronger, as they are already running 295s, 300s, etc.

Really is not any different at the end of the day, IMO then swapping rear and leg weapons around, or giving the Hellbringer Prime extra armor in place of A-Pods, and certainly no more lore breaking than Quirks.

Quirks are in the lore. If you count TRO fluff.

Switching rear fire to front fire was due to limits of the program itself, Otherwise I want my rear fire weapons back behind me!

So both of these "reasons" can be excluded. Sorry Bish.

[Mercules]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

A Commando-1B could take away 4 Heatsinks and put on more armor but that large laser would over heat 6 sinks really fast. and even if double it would run way hot in this game environment.

This... this is the concept I have trying to get across. Sure you CAN remove the HS but in 99% of the cases your won't want to... so why make a change for a 1% case?

[Wingbreaker]

The Boz, on 22 December 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

STOP TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE THIRTY YEAR OLD CRAP THAT HASN'T BEEN WORKING RIGHT SINCE DAY ONE!
Especially if the discussion here is about something PGI already changed when compared to TT.

Actually, during CB we didn't have a 10 minimum, and it resulted in rather few hilarious builds that would run so hot in a map like caustic valley that it could never cool itself off. It's a bad idea for new players.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

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.

I want to change it because it is nonsense in its reasoning, inconsistent in its logic, and a detriment to build variety.

The only logical reason put forth to keep it in the game is that the benefit wouldn't be worth the time to change. Being 30 years old doesn't make it good, and because things have always been a certain way, is not a great argument to keep them.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 23 December 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

I want to change it because it is nonsense in its reasoning, inconsistent in its logic, and a detriment to build variety.

The only logical reason put forth to keep it in the game is that the benefit wouldn't be worth the time to change. Being 30 years old doesn't make it good, and because things have always been a certain way, is not a great argument to keep them.

Because I don't agree with it isn't either. and that is all your argument boils down to.

[Bagheera]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 09:00 AM, said:

A Commando-1B could take away 4 Heatsinks and put on more armor but that large laser would over heat 6 sinks really fast. and even if double it would run way hot in this game environment.

My LCT-1V rocks a quirk build. With SHS and a single ERLL (no MGs) it sits somewhere in the 1.1-1.2 heat scale. Don't remember exactly, but it basically sucks. The sinks can't keep up.

I flipped it to doubles, and now it sits at 1.92 on the scale and can fire that ERLL with impunity on every single map it's played. I haven't tried it on Sulphurous, but unless that map is like twice as hot as TerribleTherma, it'll be fine.

I could, conceivably run it without the 3 extraneous heat sinks (175 engine) and either make it go faster (drop in the 190) or add MGs and ammo for support (4MGs +1 ton ammo == 3 heat sinks).

This is seriously an edge case thing. Honestly, anything heavier than a 35 tonner doesn't have an issue with this, and since they did a whole bunch of math with engine weights (subtracting heat sink weights, but adding gyro weight to the engine instead of the chassis) it's hard for me to say that changing it would actually help lights at all. Chances are we'd be in a worse position if they nixed the HS requirement, but returned engines to their "pre-mandatory-heat-sink-weight-subtraction" weight values.

If that made sense.

[Bishop Steiner]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

Quirks are in the lore. If you count TRO fluff.

Switching rear fire to front fire was due to limits of the program itself, Otherwise I want my rear fire weapons back behind me!

So both of these "reasons" can be excluded. Sorry Bish.

really, so where in fluff do Hunchbacks get massive armor and internal buffs to their RT?

Or the Summoner goes 5% faster than every other same profile mech?

And why move the leg weapons form the cicada? Those face forward? The A-pods could have been made into something functional.

Less than 10 Heat Sinks is bad. Especially since all mechs get those to begin with. But mech with 5-6 internal DHS get shafted by 1.4 external sink efficiency.

It's already deviated enough from lore, where needed, to make things work, that to not just give sub 250 engines their sinks as part of the package is asinine and simply bad for game balance.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 December 2014 - 10:05 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bagheera, on 23 December 2014 - 10:01 AM, said:

My LCT-1V rocks a quirk build. With SHS and a single ERLL (no MGs) it sits somewhere in the 1.1-1.2 heat scale. Don't remember exactly, but it basically sucks. The sinks can't keep up.

I flipped it to doubles, and now it sits at 1.92 on the scale and can fire that ERLL with impunity on every single map it's played. I haven't tried it on Sulphurous, but unless that map is like twice as hot as TerribleTherma, it'll be fine.

I could, conceivably run it without the 3 extraneous heat sinks (175 engine) and either make it go faster (drop in the 190) or add MGs and ammo for support (4MGs +1 ton ammo == 3 heat sinks).

This is seriously an edge case thing. Honestly, anything heavier than a 35 tonner doesn't have an issue with this, and since they did a whole bunch of math with engine weights (subtracting heat sink weights, but adding gyro weight to the engine instead of the chassis) it's hard for me to say that changing it would actually help lights at all. Chances are we'd be in a worse position if they nixed the HS requirement, but returned engines to their "pre-mandatory-heat-sink-weight-subtraction" weight values.

If that made sense.

I'm sitting here at work waiting for 2:30 cause the boss said We have to stay the whole day even though we are here only for our annual xmas party. I don't like it, nobody does after 20 years of coming in for just the party and leaving. But that's the rules this year.

Thats the way rules work. Not everyone will like them, but you have to abide by them anyway.

[Wingbreaker]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 December 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

really, so where in fluff do Hunchbacks get massive armor and internal buffs to their RT?

That's really easy to work around through fluff, and there are instances in the official BT canon of mechs being 'feared' because of certain weapons specific to the chassis. One of the best known instances of this is the thunderbolt's arm large laser that, IIRC, was supposed to be something like twice as large as most other Large Lasers, and thus feared for the cuts it made into armor.

In game mechanic terms for TT, this had no actual effect, but I don't see any reason that we shouldn't be able to play with it, it's an excuse to give the quirks to mechs and doesn't much matter since no MW game is considered canon.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 December 2014 - 10:03 AM, said:

really, so where in fluff do Hunchbacks get massive armor and internal buffs to their RT?

Or the Summoner goes 5% faster than every other same profile mech?

And why move the leg weapons form the cicada? Those face forward? The A-pods could have been made into something functional.

Less than 10 Heat Sinks is bad. Especially since all mechs get those to begin with. But mech with 5-6 internal DHS get shafted by 1.4 external sink efficiency.

It's already deviated enough from lore, where needed, to make things work, that to not just give sub 250 engines their sinks as part of the package is asinine and simply bad for game balance.

I said quirks existed not the specific ones PGI are using.

I will disagree on what should and shouldn't be deviated from as I feel. Thats part of having an opinion Bish. We disagree but we can look past those disagreements and still be friends.

Unless you wanna make something of it!

See ya in the New year Buddy. Time for the Xmas party!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 December 2014 - 10:11 AM.