189 replies to this topic

[Bagheera]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

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

Re-read that last paragraph. I'm pretty sure if they nixed the min-heat-sink rule that they would change engine weights back, and since engines are technically heavier than they should be because they include the gyro weight (remember closed beta, before engine restrictions on individual chassis, that was an attempted solution to Fastbacks) lights would probably end up with a net loss.

Rules comment was unecessary. That 1V build is the only time I've ever been in a position where 10 min heat sinks were sub-optimal.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wingbreaker, on 23 December 2014 - 10:09 AM, said:

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.

Not what I am arguing dude. I am pointing out it's one example PGI has already deviated from the precious "canon", to make the game better and more balanced, and thus, more fun.

Ditto with what I am recommending with the sub 250 engines. It allows mechs that currently their system does not, it gives a mild buff to the lower tier, lower weight lights like Locusts, Commandos, Mist Lynx, and it really does NOTHING to make the rich Lights richer, as they are already running bigger than 250 engines in FS9s, Jenners, etc.

Hurts nothing but a few lore junkies sense of propriety, which should already be sore from things like Ghost Heat, lol.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 23 December 2014 - 10:15 AM.

[VanillaG]

FupDup, on 23 December 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

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.

The number in the XML file is the total number of heatsinks that can placed in the engine. The mechlab then has the run of 10 enforced by code so for those with less than 10 in the engine get the invalid config warning and the engine that can have more than 10 show the slot for adding them. This solution is the easiest to code because it is a simple check for do you have at least 10. If they went with the actual construction rules they would have to implement a concept of a zero weight heatsink to enforce the 10 minimum rule and write rules to ensure that they were always present when saving.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 23 December 2014 - 09:47 AM, said:

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

Only if you don't understand logic, which given your posting history, I believe we all know the answer to that.

I gave you 3 reasons in the post you quoted, as to why the rule is bad, all of which have been discussed many times in this thread.

Edited by 3rdworld, 23 December 2014 - 10:53 AM.

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

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.

Not my problem if you can't take advantage of it regardless of the consequences.

Quote

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

I already gave you a detailed post about an example that didn't involve any gauss rifles and you ignored it, so no I'm not giving you another example.

Quote

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.

It isn't the same because neither of those mechs generate as much heat as something like an Ember with multiple medium lasers.

Quote

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.

Yep, because if a dual gauss mech could mount a slightly bigger engine or a couple small lasers so that various other mechs could perform at par instead of sub-par that would make things unbalanced.

Quote

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.

"It's bad because I don't like it."

Quote

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.

One does not exclude the other in your case however.

Quote

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.

Oh no, the illustration I posted was slightly wrong while still managing to convey the point quite clearly, how horrible.

[Pjwned]

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

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.

1. The problem affects mechs that use something bigger than a 100 rated engine, which I can't imagine is useful for anything except the most gimmicky of builds.
2. Stock mechs are trash and thus not a consideration, if you want to purposely run a gimped mech because it's stock then go ahead and gimp it even harder by removing heatsinks, not my problem.

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 09:15 AM, said:

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?

I think what you mean to say is in 99% of cases you won't want to.

[Xanquil]

The thing I don't understand is why you don't want those 10 weightless HS, Is it to try and scrape up some space. And yes I know all HS in MWO weigh 1 ton, but that tonnage has already been removed from sub 250 engines. MWO combines several pieces of mandatory equipment to give you the engine weight.(gyro, engine, and cockpit if I remember correctly)
If they allowed you to put less then 10hs on a mech they would have to reprogram how engines and HS weight is calculated. In addition to that If space is the issue use SHS.

In all honesty I would rather they just standardize how DHS worked (in and out of engine)

But giving you more tonnage to work with because you choose to go with less than 10 HS should never happen, for game balance reasons.

[Wingbreaker]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 December 2014 - 10:12 AM, said:

Not what I am arguing dude. I am pointing out it's one example PGI has already deviated from the precious "canon", to make the game better and more balanced, and thus, more fun.

Oh, misread. Sorry!

[Bishop Steiner]

Wingbreaker, on 23 December 2014 - 11:51 AM, said:

Oh, misread. Sorry!

No problem man, do it myself am the time, especially onon ROC's like this where context gets lost easy

[Pjwned]

Xanquil, on 23 December 2014 - 11:48 AM, said:

The thing I don't understand is why you don't want those 10 weightless HS, Is it to try and scrape up some space. And yes I know all HS in MWO weigh 1 ton, but that tonnage has already been removed from sub 250 engines. MWO combines several pieces of mandatory equipment to give you the engine weight.(gyro, engine, and cockpit if I remember correctly)

I understand the "weightless" aspect of the minimum 10 heatsinks.

Quote

If they allowed you to put less then 10hs on a mech they would have to reprogram how engines and HS weight is calculated. In addition to that If space is the issue use SHS.

They already did it once apparently, also the issue is more about tonnage than critical space, and SHS are terrible because the game is very clearly balanced around having DHS on all but super gimmick builds.

Quote

In all honesty I would rather they just standardize how DHS worked (in and out of engine)

But giving you more tonnage to work with because you choose to go with less than 10 HS should never happen, for game balance reasons.

If you wouldn't mind elaborating a bit further on both of these points that'd be nice, I'm a bit less interested in the topic of standardizing internal and external DHS though.

[Almond Brown]

Utilyan, on 22 December 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

Easy fix is quirks. Quirks is magics.

Quirk "Light Efficiency" - All engines contain the equivalent of 10 heatsinks

That rule would give a LCT with a XL100 the same level of HE (minus 6 tons) as a Mech that uses a 250XL just because "Light"? Not!

[wanderer]

Quote

That is all fine and dandy but we don't have engine hits/engine explosions/life support in MWO. Therefore the point is moot. Aside from "how it worked in TT" you got no valid reason not to change small engine heat sink requirement--which will help balance 20-25 ton mechs.

Engines actually generally don't explode in TT, either. "Stackpoling" is a MechWarrior thing far more than a TT one.

As for not having engine hits or the like,that's just one of those glaring missing parts to the whole thing, along with other big ol' chunks of 'Mech modeling that cause headaches.

You can't screw up aiming/movement from damaging actuators. This has also coincidentally helped hose putting MASC in.

You can't cause overheat from engine damage or get an engine kill short of obliterating the section in question. For that matter, none of the actual heat effects are in save for going 100%+, leading to asinine things like ghost heat. You can't damage or disable a 'Mech with gyro damage either.

Sensor damage isn't modeled. Nor life support or cockpit damage.

There isn't a real heat scale, which would actually slow movement, increase time to aim, cause damage to accumulate to ammo locations (hence simulating the odds for an ammo explosion) and -if- life support is gone, inflict cockpit (pilot) damage.

Not putting a lot of TT in the game for whatever reason has led to all kinds of screw-ups. Although if you -really- wanted exploding,low-sink engines they could always put in fission ones....

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

I already gave you a detailed post about an example that didn't involve any gauss rifles and you ignored it, so no I'm not giving you another example.

Can you please link it? I didn't see one. I saw a post where you posted 2 bad examples one of them gauss. I admit I might have missed it, but I am pretty sure I didn't so if you could link to it as I checked again and didn't see it.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

It isn't the same because neither of those mechs generate as much heat as something like an Ember with multiple medium lasers.

Really? The LCT-1V doesn't generate much heat, firing it's ERLL about twice as fast as it would normally be fired? Experience tells me otherwise.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Yep, because if a dual gauss mech could mount a slightly bigger engine or a couple small lasers so that various other mechs could perform at par instead of sub-par that would make things unbalanced.

I think you meant smaller, not bigger.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

One does not exclude the other in your case however.

Listen, I've already explained to you how that does not meet the definition of a Strawman Fallacy. You need to go read up on Logics.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 10:57 AM, said:

Oh no, the illustration I posted was slightly wrong while still managing to convey the point quite clearly, how horrible.

It was very wrong and didn't convey what you were stating. As stated it should have been a Veng Diagram where TT and MWO overlapped in some areas and all of it was Battletech.

I'm not trying to insult you, but wow are you stupid. I can't explain things any simpler to you and you keep making huge mistakes just trying to get a concept across and using totally and irrevocably wrong examples to do so. I mean basic geometric shapes and the rules for them is grade school level concepts.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 11:04 AM, said:

I think what you mean to say is in 99% of cases you won't want to.

Okay, I'll revise that. In 99% of the cases only the really, really, really stupid people would put less than 10 HS in a mech. The other 1% case is because the mech is only armed with Gauss.

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 23 December 2014 - 01:18 PM, said:

Can you please link it? I didn't see one. I saw a post where you posted 2 bad examples one of them gauss. I admit I might have missed it, but I am pretty sure I didn't so if you could link to it as I checked again and didn't see it.

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 10:11 AM, said:

Quote

Really? The LCT-1V doesn't generate much heat, firing it's ERLL about twice as fast as it would normally be fired? Experience tells me otherwise.

Does it generate as much heat as an Ember with its multiple medium lasers? No.
Does it generate the heat that it does from a safe distance unless you're playing poorly? Yes.

Quote

I think you meant smaller, not bigger.

Um, no, I mean bigger because it would still be under a 250 rated engine.

Quote

Listen, I've already explained to you how that does not meet the definition of a Strawman Fallacy. You need to go read up on Logics.

Mhm.

Quote

It was very wrong and didn't convey what you were stating. As stated it should have been a Veng Diagram where TT and MWO overlapped in some areas and all of it was Battletech.

Yep.

Quote

I'm not trying to insult you, but wow are you stupid. I can't explain things any simpler to you and you keep making huge mistakes just trying to get a concept across and using totally and irrevocably wrong examples to do so. I mean basic geometric shapes and the rules for them is grade school level concepts.

Okay, I'll revise that. In 99% of the cases only the really, really, really stupid people would put less than 10 HS in a mech. The other 1% case is because the mech is only armed with Gauss.

Yeah I'm clearly just stupid, does that make you feel better now?

I mean this in the most passive aggressive way possible in case it's not obvious because your blathering is getting old.

Edited by Pjwned, 23 December 2014 - 01:32 PM.

[Xanquil]

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

If you wouldn't mind elaborating a bit further on both of these points that'd be nice, I'm a bit less interested in the topic of standardizing internal and external DHS though.

Ok but you contradict yourself in the following.

Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 12:22 PM, said:

I understand the "weightless" aspect of the minimum 10 heatsinks.

also the issue is more about tonnage than critical space,

The issue is about tonnage, correct. About how those 10 HS are already part of the weight and thus removing them wouldn't/shouldn't give you any weight to work with.(it is part of balance) Thus those first 10 required HS are needed to keep the "engine" weight correct. So if it is about tonnage than it is a moot point as you wouldn't get any from going under 10.
It is all about balance, and not allowing negative weight engines from happening. (some of those smaller engines only weigh 1 ton or less not counting the other equipment added to them but still come with 10 HS at no extra weight.)

So if you won't get any tonnage back, and space isn't the issue than why gimp yourself?

[Pjwned]

Xanquil, on 23 December 2014 - 01:47 PM, said:

Ok but you contradict yourself in the following.

The issue is about tonnage, correct. About how those 10 HS are already part of the weight and thus removing them wouldn't/shouldn't give you any weight to work with.(it is part of balance) Thus those first 10 required HS are needed to keep the "engine" weight correct. So if it is about tonnage than it is a moot point as you wouldn't get any from going under 10.
It is all about balance, and not allowing negative weight engines from happening. (some of those smaller engines only weigh 1 ton or less not counting the other equipment added to them but still come with 10 HS at no extra weight.)

So if you won't get any tonnage back, and space isn't the issue than why gimp yourself?

The heatsinks are only "weightless" because of the restriction, if it was removed then clearly tonnage would be freed up since the engines already weigh less accordingly, that's not a contradiction.

I also wanted you to elaborate on why it is that way due to balance since apparently nobody can answer that.

Edited by Pjwned, 23 December 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[Utilyan]

Almond Brown, on 23 December 2014 - 12:38 PM, said:

That rule would give a LCT with a XL100 the same level of HE (minus 6 tons) as a Mech that uses a 250XL just because "Light"? Not!

Red Quirk- Applies appropriate engine heat sink tonnage.


The point is with the quirks its magic you can fix it.


Btw I drive lights, mediums, heavies, assaults, Inner Sphere and Clans.

[Joe Mallad]

One Medic Army, on 21 December 2014 - 11:42 PM, said:

Two things:

First, tabletop required 10 heatsinks to be a valid build.

Second, the weights of engines of less than 250 rating are actually discounted in weight to account for those mandatory heatsinks. This is an implementation thing, in TT the first 10 heatsinks were always weight free, but the engines weighed more. Devs decided it was too hard to make the 2 zero weight heatsinks that came with a 200 rating engine actually weight nothing, so they cut the engine weight by 2tons and mandated putting in 2x 1ton heatsinks.

and that MAKES NO SENSE lol. If they cut the engine weight by 2 tones but than WANT YOU TO ADD 2 (1) ton HS... guess what? You END UP WITH THE SAME WEIGHT! They need to just make ALL engines come standard with 10 HS and raise the tonnage of the engines back up 2 tons for those that are under 10 HS. Its the same damn weight lol

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 23 December 2014 - 02:13 PM.

[TELEFORCE]

I would like some clarification: Why is the 10 heatsink minimum frustrating some players? Is it because they take up too many slots? Is it because they take up too much mass? If either of those are the case, then why not ask for more critical slots, or changes to the amount of slots weapons and equipment take up on light 'mechs?

I wouldn't agree with those changes, but I'm curious nonetheless.

[The Boz]

TELEFORCE, on 23 December 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

I would like some clarification: Why is the 10 heatsink minimum frustrating some players? Is it because they take up too many slots? Is it because they take up too much mass? If either of those are the case, then why not ask for more critical slots, or changes to the amount of slots weapons and equipment take up on light 'mechs?

I wouldn't agree with those changes, but I'm curious nonetheless.

Those suggestions would break A LOT of other things in needlessly complicated ways.