189 replies to this topic

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

The idea is not something that has no consequences, obviously you're going to have less heat dissipation and less heat threshold if you could have less than 10 heatsinks, so it's not something to just shrug off, but at the same time could prove to be worthwhile for some builds if you chose to play that way. It's not just an option for "noobs" just because it may or may not have been that way in Tabletop, which you seem to do an excellent job of flagrantly ignoring.

Actually it was/is just a option for Noobs on TT. it is a part of "introductory rules" which included no rear armor just side or CT armor for front or back shots (which would be awesome for my Atlases and I would be against as well.) No leave the "Introductory rules" for the TT game where they belong. With the beginners on TT.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 December 2014 - 07:12 AM.

[3rdworld]

10 hs is a completely silly rule. It is so inconsistent and totally arbitrary in its reasoning.


If it is for dissipation than a mech would only need 5 DHS or 10 HS.
If it is because "mech engines need 10 hs to work" then:

• A mech would die if it was ever put below 10 (doesn't happen)
  
• Or a mech would get no dissipation from the base 10, and would simply always get hotter if below 10 (but somehow DHS are ignored)

Terrible rule, should have been left behind. There is no logical or gameplay mechanic which is benefited from the 10 HS rule, and it only stands to directly damage the performance of low weight / engine rate builds.

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 07:07 AM, said:

Because it would be a worthless change. Why because people would "live dangerously" and then realize they really should have as many HS as they can tack onto that chassis.
1. It's a rule just like so many others that add flavor to the BT universe
2. Changing it would result in little to no benefit

It might be worthless to you because of how you play, doesn't mean that others couldn't take advantage of it in some way, and either way the option affects more mechs than a LCT-1V with an ERLL.

Quote

Machine Guns are next to worthless against armor especially for something that has to be hit and run like a light. They are an excellent addition because they don't create heat and most lights run the heatline already. Missiles are viable but create more heat than you realize.

Seriously, "Do you even Light bro?"

I'll just alert all those spiders and other light mechs that their machine guns are worthless then. As for "do you even light bro," the answer is yes I do.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 22 December 2014 - 07:21 AM, said:

10 hs is a completely silly rule. It is so inconsistent and totally arbitrary in its reasoning.


If it is for dissipation than a mech would only need 5 DHS or 10 HS.
If it is because "mech engines need 10 hs to work" then:

• A mech would die if it was ever put below 10 (doesn't happen)
  
• Or a mech would get no dissipation from the base 10, and would simply always get hotter if below 10 (but somehow DHS are ignored)

Terrible rule, should have been left behind. There is no logical or gameplay mechanic which is benefited from the 10 HS rule, and it only stands to directly damage the performance of low weight / engine rate builds.

It keeps your Mech cool from damaged engine shielding which is meant to generate extra heat for the 1st (+5) and 2nd (+10) engine hits. A Mechanic that PGI has failed to implement for some reason.

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

I'll just alert all those spiders and other light mechs that their machine guns are worthless then. As for "do you even light bro," the answer is yes I do.

Next to worthless can be dangerous when Boated. it takes 4 MGs to be Worth taking minimum. Like many small weapons in this game. Is 1 small laser worth taking?

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 07:12 AM, said:

Actually it was/is just a option for Noobs on TT. it is a part of "introductory rules" which included no rear armor just side or CT armor for front or back shots (which would be awesome for my Atlases and I would be against as well.) No leave the "Introductory rules" for the TT game where they belong. With the beginners on TT.

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that this isn't tabletop but it's getting extremely annoying repeating this dozens of times to you.

I've made a little infographic to help you understand my point.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 07:41 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that this isn't tabletop but it's getting extremely annoying repeating this dozens of times to you.

Then stop.

You are playing a game based off the TT game. You are using many of that games numbers to base this games system off of, you wanna ignore the progenitor of this game. Play somewhere else. I'm here to play a game based on the BattleTech game/Universe.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

It might be worthless to you because of how you play, doesn't mean that others couldn't take advantage of it in some way, and either way the option affects more mechs than a LCT-1V with an ERLL.

So... the 8 SPL Firestarter? The 6 ML Jenner? The Deathknell with 4 MLs?

Even Spiders tend to run hot if you put enough weaponry on them to make a dent in a heavy mech.

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 07:29 AM, said:

I'll just alert all those spiders and other light mechs that their machine guns are worthless then. As for "do you even light bro," the answer is yes I do.

Wow, if that isn't a Strawman I don't know what is. What I said was that they are next to useless against ARMOR. Ergo you can't just replace a 1 ton ML or SPL with a MG and 1/2 ton of ammo and think it will do anything against a mech that isn't already damaged.

Notice I went on and pointed out that they are nice IN ADDITION to other weapons and the main reason they are nice in addition is simply because they don't create heat. Their damage is laughable unless you are rocking crits which only happen once armor is stripped. So their main use is to supplement damage as a mech starts losing armor for a mech that is running hot already or has no choice in actual weapons because of hardpoints.

So on the Ember they are a great boated addition as that thing will run hot and you can still do good damage by bring 4MGs while you are sitting cooling down. Bringing 1 less HS will mean you have to spend more time using MGs which will eat up the extra ammo your brought from saving that ton. It's net effect is you have a mech that does about the same DPS until it runs out of ammo at which point the mech that brought more HS will do more DPS.

So again.... why change it when the change would only allow you to make WORSE MECHS.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

Is 1 small laser worth taking?

Compared to one MG? YES! Which illuminates your point even more.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

I've made a little infographic to help you understand my point.

And in both games "Squares" They are part of the bigger BattleTech Universe. That Universe uses a base 10 sinks in all its writing.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 07:31 AM, said:

It keeps your Mech cool from damaged engine shielding which is meant to generate extra heat for the 1st (+5) and 2nd (+10) engine hits. A Mechanic that PGI has failed to implement for some reason.

So if you need to clear 10 heat, wouldn't 5 DHS do the same thing?

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 22 December 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

So if you need to clear 10 heat, wouldn't 5 DHS do the same thing?

Nope. They would allow you to have 2 engine hits and continue to fight. Base 10 with the perk of more survivability!

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 07:33 AM, said:

I don't know how many times I have to tell you that this isn't tabletop but it's getting extremely annoying repeating this dozens of times to you.

I've made a little infographic to help you understand my point.

You are mistaken. The definition of a square is a geometric form that has 4 equal sides and 90 degree angles. Your "battletech" item is a rectangle but not a square. Oh, and all squares also fulfill the requirements to be rectangles so you can't have a square that is not a rectangle.

Edited by Mercules, 22 December 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 07:49 AM, said:

Nope. They would allow you to have 2 engine hits and continue to fight. Base 10 with the perk of more survivability!

You mean 5 non-required heatsinks than punish small mechs. Cool.

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 07:46 AM, said:

So... the 8 SPL Firestarter? The 6 ML Jenner? The Deathknell with 4 MLs?

Even Spiders tend to run hot if you put enough weaponry on them to make a dent in a heavy mech.

I would think that it goes without saying that you use as many heatsinks as you practically can if you're using multiple energy weapons like that. Additionally, of those examples you gave only the Death's Knell has an engine cap lower than 250, which means that having less than 10 heatsinks wouldn't be a concern for the other 2 mechs anyways, or at least not with those builds.

Quote

Wow, if that isn't a Strawman I don't know what is. What I said was that they are next to useless against ARMOR. Ergo you can't just replace a 1 ton ML or SPL with a MG and 1/2 ton of ammo and think it will do anything against a mech that isn't already damaged.

Notice I went on and pointed out that they are nice IN ADDITION to other weapons and the main reason they are nice in addition is simply because they don't create heat. Their damage is laughable unless you are rocking crits which only happen once armor is stripped. So their main use is to supplement damage as a mech starts losing armor for a mech that is running hot already or has no choice in actual weapons because of hardpoints.

So on the Ember they are a great boated addition as that thing will run hot and you can still do good damage by bring 4MGs while you are sitting cooling down. Bringing 1 less HS will mean you have to spend more time using MGs which will eat up the extra ammo your brought from saving that ton. It's net effect is you have a mech that does about the same DPS until it runs out of ammo at which point the mech that brought more HS will do more DPS.

That's not mutually exclusive with what I said.

Quote

So again.... why change it when the change would only allow you to make WORSE MECHS.

Because there are OTHER MECHS with OTHER BUILDS that could take advantage of it being AN OPTION.

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 07:50 AM, said:

You are mistaken. The definition of a square is a geometric form that has 4 equal sides and 90 degree angles. Your "battletech" item is a rectangle but not a square. Oh, and all squares also fulfill the requirements to be rectangles so you can't have a square that is not a rectangle.

I'll just be honest and say I couldn't be assed to remember if that was correct or not, it still illustrates the point though since the only thing wrong is the label for the shapes.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 07:48 AM, said:

And in both games "Squares" They are part of the bigger BattleTech Universe. That Universe uses a base 10 sinks in all its writing.

And yet MWO changes many other rules to fit better with the game while still being Battletech.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 08:14 AM.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

Because there are OTHER MECHS with OTHER BUILDS that could take advantage of it being AN OPTION.

Like which?

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

I'll just be honest and say I couldn't be assed to remember if that was correct or not, it still illustrates the point though since the only thing wrong is the label for the shapes.

You can't be arsed to get a simple concept right? It does illustrate something then.

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

And yet MWO changes many other rules to fit better with the game while still being Battletech.

Want to know one of the rules they changed? They made MGs not do 2 damage and instead do LESS than 1 DPS. It pretty much made them horrible and removed one of the tools Lights would have to deal damage for low weight. Not happy about that one.

[Pjwned]

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 08:14 AM, said:

Like which?

I already posted multiple examples, I'm not going to screw around in the mech lab finding more.

Quote

You can't be arsed to get a simple concept right? It does illustrate something then.

The illustration being off doesn't mean the concept was wrong, do you want me to slightly edit the picture because you're so sensitive about it even though the point still came across? You could even do it yourself I suppose, not like it would change much either way.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 08:23 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

And yet MWO changes many other rules to fit better with the game while still being Battletech.

As the GM sees fit. So you want a change that I oppose. The GM decides, democracy wins.

[Mercules]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

I already posted multiple examples, I'm not going to screw around in the mech lab finding more.

You posted a crappy TBT build that would be even crappier without the DHS and a dual gauss Jagger that is balanced out by the fact that the rules don't allow you to not take 10 HS so you are wasting potential to bring two all but heatless weapons. So in other words you haven't given any examples that actually make sense to allow it for. Sure the Jagger becomes better since it can pack another ton of precious Gauss ammo, but that is the drawback of Gauss and negating it to break a canon rule seems... dumb.

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 08:22 AM, said:

The illustration being off doesn't mean the concept was wrong, do you want me to slightly edit the picture because you're so sensitive about it even though the point still came across? You could even do it yourself I suppose, not like it would change much either way.

What it shows, very clearly, is that you are willing to spout off poorly thought out opinion based off ignorance and not caring enough to get the details of your argument correct. Which is pretty much how your whole thought process on this has gone.

"This rule is bad because I don't like it." That is the sum of your argument.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 08:25 AM, said:

As the GM sees fit. So you want a change that I oppose. The GM decides, democracy wins.

Am I understanding right in that you think of yourself as the GM here, or do you have some other point that I'm missing?

Mercules, on 22 December 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

You posted a crappy TBT build that would be even crappier without the DHS and a dual gauss Jagger that is balanced out by the fact that the rules don't allow you to not take 10 HS so you are wasting potential to bring two all but heatless weapons. So in other words you haven't given any examples that actually make sense to allow it for. Sure the Jagger becomes better since it can pack another ton of precious Gauss ammo, but that is the drawback of Gauss and negating it to break a canon rule seems... dumb.

[snip]

"This rule is bad because I don't like it." That is the sum of your argument.

The irony is that the sum of your argument is literally "those builds are bad because I don't like it."

Hilarious.

Quote

What it shows, very clearly, is that you are willing to spout off poorly thought out opinion based off ignorance and not caring enough to get the details of your argument correct. Which is pretty much how your whole thought process on this has gone.

No, what it shows is that I made a simple mistake in the illustration but the concept was still sound, you on the other hand keep going on and on about it (despite the point of the picture being clear) because you get hung up on details.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 08:58 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

Am I understanding right in that you think of yourself as the GM here, or do you have some other point that I'm missing?

You do not understand me correctly. PGI is the GM. You are pleading your case, I am opposing it. PGI will decide which is the right course for their game.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 09:07 AM, said:

You do not understand me correctly. PGI is the GM. You are pleading your case, I am opposing it. PGI will decide which is the right course for their game.

Right, that's a fair point, I just wasn't 100% clear on what you meant.

Edited by Pjwned, 23 December 2014 - 12:37 AM.