

#161
Posted 23 December 2014 - 02:49 PM
#163
Posted 23 December 2014 - 03:30 PM
Pjwned, on 23 December 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:
I also wanted you to elaborate on why it is that way due to balance since apparently nobody can answer that.
OK lets try it this way;
A standard 100 rating engine only weighs 3t with 10 HS but in order to "simplify" things PGI add other pieces of equipment to that weight in order to avoid having to program that the first 10 didn't weigh anything. In order to kip that balance the first 10 HS are required to be added. Pure and simple, it is all about math and keeping the tonnage to the TT levels, (a rule PGI has kept to) In order to keep build balance.
If we allowed a mech to run with less than 10 HS not only would it effect the engine weight, it would also make those other pieces of equipment no longer weigh what they are suppose to.(cockpit=3T and gyro is based of engine rating) Again throwing off build balance.
So yes the 10 HS are required because of balance.
I hope that helps.
#164
Posted 23 December 2014 - 03:52 PM
Xanquil, on 23 December 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:
A standard 100 rating engine only weighs 3t with 10 HS but in order to "simplify" things PGI add other pieces of equipment to that weight in order to avoid having to program that the first 10 didn't weigh anything.
The engines already weigh less due to the missing heatsinks, so the only thing that would change is not needing to add more external heatsinks; none of the values to the engine equipment, as they are now, would need to be tweaked.
Quote
Considering how different MWO is from Tabletop that is not necessarily why it shouldn't change, so if you can demonstrate why it shouldn't be so other than "it's not Tabletop," which seems to be a rather common response as the only response, then that would be nice, but I'm not expecting it to happen at this point.
Quote
That's wrong though.
Quote
I assume what you mean is they would no longer weigh what they're supposed to because it would be different from Tabletop.
Quote
I hope that helps.
It didn't really answer much actually, and I have a feeling this is just going to be repeating the same questions and arguments already posted so I'm not really interested in continuing.
Edited by Pjwned, 23 December 2014 - 03:53 PM.
#165
Posted 23 December 2014 - 04:38 PM
I own a Pirate's Bane, 3M and 1V. Love these things. Just gotta keep the single heat sinks because of space restrictions.
#166
Posted 23 December 2014 - 04:38 PM
Edited by Xanquil, 23 December 2014 - 04:39 PM.
#167
Posted 23 December 2014 - 07:52 PM
I want 2 more tons on my light mechs.
Listen, it's been said over and over in this thread - the heatsinks are weightless (or at least factored in such a way that the presence of the heatsinks do not affect the cannon mech weight that you're allowed to modify).
So what this means is you're just outright asking for 2 more tons on your mechs to make more powerful builds. The problem with that is, that's not exactly balanced.
I understand that you can see, and manipulate that weight, and believe that you should be able to then be able to remove the heatsinks for extra weight - but that weight isn't something that you should have had the ability to manipulate in the first place.
#168
Posted 24 December 2014 - 12:52 AM
Christof Romulus, on 23 December 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:
I want 2 more tons on my light mechs.
Listen, it's been said over and over in this thread - the heatsinks are weightless (or at least factored in such a way that the presence of the heatsinks do not affect the cannon mech weight that you're allowed to modify).
So what this means is you're just outright asking for 2 more tons on your mechs to make more powerful builds. The problem with that is, that's not exactly balanced.
I understand that you can see, and manipulate that weight, and believe that you should be able to then be able to remove the heatsinks for extra weight - but that weight isn't something that you should have had the ability to manipulate in the first place.
This would be a buff to some light mechs, that much is true.
The light mechs that would be buffed (Locust, Commando) really need it. Not every light is a Firestarter.
#169
Posted 24 December 2014 - 03:06 AM
Christof Romulus, on 23 December 2014 - 07:52 PM, said:
I want 2 more tons on my light mechs.
Listen, it's been said over and over in this thread - the heatsinks are weightless (or at least factored in such a way that the presence of the heatsinks do not affect the cannon mech weight that you're allowed to modify).
So what this means is you're just outright asking for 2 more tons on your mechs to make more powerful builds. The problem with that is, that's not exactly balanced.
I understand that you can see, and manipulate that weight, and believe that you should be able to then be able to remove the heatsinks for extra weight - but that weight isn't something that you should have had the ability to manipulate in the first place.
The 2 (or 1, or even 3+) tons that would be freed up come at a cost you know, and what I'm asking for is the ability to make builds that push the heat limit on mechs that have smaller engines just like the bigger mechs that can make builds that push the heat limit, seems pretty fair to me. I hope that certain people who think the change wouldn't be a benefit are taking note by the way...
If for some reason there is a concern that gauss boats would benefit too much from this change then there could be a special exception to require 10 minimum heatsinks with a gauss rifle equipped, because while I still think it would be an interesting change, I'm not on a crusade to say OMG BUFF GAUSS MECHS THEY SUCK because they definitely do not suck, I'm more concerned with other builds that actually have the potential to overheat. Alternatively, a mech with a gauss rifle equipped with less than 10 heatsinks could also generate significantly more heat from the gauss rifle (for...some reason; let's say it overloads the heatsinks with less than 10) to balance it out that way too since that would mean not adding in more arbitrary limits, which we already have enough of.
Edited by Pjwned, 24 December 2014 - 04:07 AM.
#170
Posted 24 December 2014 - 04:12 AM
MechWarrior5152251, on 23 December 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:
The Boz, on 24 December 2014 - 12:52 AM, said:
The light mechs that would be buffed (Locust, Commando) really need it. Not every light is a Firestarter.
It actually would not Buff the Locust or Commando. The Locust quirks all support weapons that generate a big chunk of heat. Removing DHS lowers not only dissipation of heat but also threshold meaning the Locust would overheat much sooner and thus be unable to use most of it's quirks. Most Commando's are in the same boat, where removing even 1 DHS would throw them into the red zone so much quicker they would be better running with the 10 DHS even if the restriction was removed.
#171
Posted 24 December 2014 - 04:14 AM
Xanquil, on 23 December 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:
OK lets try it this way;
A standard 100 rating engine only weighs 3t with 10 HS but in order to "simplify" things PGI add other pieces of equipment to that weight in order to avoid having to program that the first 10 didn't weigh anything.
OOO I just had a really bad idea..... how about we toss the one engine rule ( its not TT after all) and let people use 3 x 100 ratting engines one in each torso, for a power level of 300 and 30 heat sinks..... all for the low low tonnage of 9. but the down side is your effectively running an xl engine.
#172
Posted 24 December 2014 - 04:27 AM
Tombstoner, on 24 December 2014 - 04:14 AM, said:
OOO I just had a really bad idea..... how about we toss the one engine rule ( its not TT after all) and let people use 3 x 100 ratting engines one in each torso, for a power level of 300 and 30 heat sinks..... all for the low low tonnage of 9. but the down side is your effectively running an xl engine.
Why even stop there, blowing out 1 engine wouldn't mean the other 2 stop working, it would just mean 10 less heatsinks and having 100 less engine rating for speed and such.
Great idea, I wish I thought of it.
#173
Posted 24 December 2014 - 08:13 AM
Frankly the current engine system is one PGI cooked up, and it's one that doesn't allow the Urbanmech to have it's stock 60-STD engine, because then it would have a negative weight... So why we're arguing to keep a non-BT system because of BT is beyond me.
The 10-heatsink rule should be dropped for 25-tonne and below mechs (possibly all). My Commando doesn't really need those extra heatsinks for it's one medium laser. It could really do with extra SSRM ammo on the other hand.
Arguing that I should build the Commando better is rubbish... the Commando is a ballistics-catcher on legs in the current game, so it stays in the garage, where everyone else has left their Commandos. It frankly needs all the help it can get.
Edited by EGG, 24 December 2014 - 08:14 AM.
#174
Posted 24 December 2014 - 12:07 PM
Still no. Sorry, someone's gonna be at the bottom of the food chain here
#175
Posted 24 December 2014 - 12:28 PM
It's a trade-off.
What you propose would semi-directly be buffing light mechs across the board, and quite frankly, that's the opposite of what MWO needs in today's "meta".
#176
Posted 24 December 2014 - 12:29 PM
wanderer, on 24 December 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:
Still no. Sorry, someone's gonna be at the bottom of the food chain here
If you're arguing against the idea because you favor inequality when PGI has gone to great lengths to make all mechs largely equal then that's not very convincing or worthwhile.
Telmasa, on 24 December 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:
It's a trade-off.
There would still be a penalty for reducing your heat dissipation and heat threshold you know, although not so much that it would make the option worthless like some people seem to think.
Quote
Absolutely wrong, mechs like the Jenner, Firestarter, and most Ravens & Spiders would gain no benefit from the change with the kind of builds they run.
Edited by Pjwned, 24 December 2014 - 12:34 PM.
#177
Posted 24 December 2014 - 12:35 PM
#178
Posted 24 December 2014 - 12:53 PM
Quote
If that was the case, CW drop decks wouldn't have maximums OR minimums for tonnage. There's a bottom rung for available tonnage, and 20-25 tonners are certainly in it in terms of firepower- and thanks to PGI's engine failings, they're boxed in on speed. The era of the 200kph Trollmando has passed thanks to MWO's servers weakness to GOTTA GO FAST.
I mean heck. I wouldn't have made silly topics like that one in my sig otherwise.
#179
Posted 24 December 2014 - 01:33 PM
1: To make smaller engine like the 60 in the Urbanmech.
2: In order to make it possible to get http://www.sarna.net/wiki/XL_Gyro , and http://www.sarna.net...i/Small_cockpit
3: And most importantly to stop the confusion about the first 10 weightless HS.
#180
Posted 24 December 2014 - 07:40 PM
wanderer, on 24 December 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:
I'm pretty sure the tonnage range for drop decks is more about encouraging diversity (with some flexibility still of course) instead of letting people stack up 4 assaults or 4 lights.
Quote
I honestly don't see a problem with mechs not going as fast as 200 kph, but the lower firepower could be addressed a bit if those mechs could drop a heatsink or 2.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users