189 replies to this topic

[Brody319]

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

CDA-3C

10 heat sinks also. If i just coughed in that thing's general direction it would explode

Also even if we did give lighter engines the extra heat sinks they needed for no weight. That build still wouldn't be viable. Its a Cicada that moves slower than a stock atlas. It wouldn't even get to the fight in time to be of any use, or it would just take one alpha and explode. The cicada works because its a psudo-light, so it needs its speed to help it avoid damage.

Edited by Brody319, 22 December 2014 - 10:51 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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

CDA-3C

9 Sinks... Not possible by current rules! And thankfully so. Talk about a one trick pony!

[Xyroc]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 04:09 AM, said:

STOP TRYING TO REWRITE THE IPs 30 YEAR LONG MECHANICS CAUSE YOU DONE LIKE THEM.

Thank you! This has been a public service announcement.

Stop trying to justify changes by saying "because of TT". Those rules were put in place for a table top game not a FPS. Please give a valid reason why this would be game breaking or give an unfair advantage. If not everything else is really just a waist of a post.

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

9 Sinks... Not possible by current rules! And thankfully so. Talk about a one trick pony!

Really a 14 shot ac 20 cicada? Most dmg it could do is 280 and then be useless. I'd be happy to let people pilot that.

Edited by Xyroc, 22 December 2014 - 11:02 AM.

[Tombstoner]

I may have missed this one point in prior posts. one thats critical to the discussion..... The 10 HS minimum is to let any mech function and have chance to shut down due to 2 engine critical hits each hit being + 5 heat. That's base line. then during mech construction you allocate more resources/tonnage into HS as needed. Depending if your goal was heat neutrality or short duration massive DPS.

PGI changed heat dissipation for some reason so i think it should relax the 10 HS minimum as well.

[Joseph Mallan]

Xyroc, on 22 December 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Stop trying to justify changes by saying "because of TT". Those rules were put in place for a table top game not a FPS. Please give a valid reason why this would be game breaking or give an unfair advantage. If not everything else is really just a waist of a post.

I'm not trying to justify changes, I'm trying to block them because they are not part of this game's universe. You wanna play MechWarrior, then when the rules are not to your liking you wanna change em. Not how I like my game rules. Every MechWarrior Title I played had the 10 sink Minimum to my memory and if they didn't I still used at least 10. MW2 was 19 years ago so my memory will be a bit fuzzy.

Quote

Really a 14 shot ac 20 cicada? Most dmg it could do is 280 and then be useless. I'd be happy to let people pilot that.

I said one trick pony not useless. Useless would be a NO trick pony.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 22 December 2014 - 11:10 AM.

[Brody319]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

I'm not trying to justify changes, I'm trying to block them because they are not part of this game's universe. You wanna play MechWarrior, then when the rules are not to your liking you wanna change em. Not how I like my game rules. Every MechWarrior Title I played had the 10 sink Minimum to my memory and if they didn't I still used at least 10. MW2 was 19 years ago so my memory will be a bit fuzzy.



I said one trick pony not useless. Useless would be a NO trick pony.

Would overheat within a few shots, or just some guy with 3 medium lasers would strip it and kill it before the second shot.

But honestly. TT rules cannot apply to this game because its not a TT game! You can't apply the same rules as flying an airplane as you do flying a spaceship. They are related in some ways, but one is vastly more complex and needs an entirely different approach.

[wanderer]

Quote

IMO, smaller engines, by the virtue of being small in power, should not require all 10 heatsinks to function.

It's actually a safety thing. Fusion engines are designed to be able to sink their maximum-inefficiency operating heat (that s, unshielded) during "normal" operations to prevent them from going into a constant net heat gain, thereby risking potential explosions or death from life support failure.

Even a critically damaged 10-rated fusion engine will generate 10 heat points (or in MWO terms, 1 heat/sec) per turn if it's shielding is offline (the third engine hit pierces the fusion bottle and renders the engine inoperative as it requires a vacuum to maintain a fusion reaction).

[Joseph Mallan]

Brody319, on 22 December 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

Would overheat within a few shots, or just some guy with 3 medium lasers would strip it and kill it before the second shot.

But honestly. TT rules cannot apply to this game because its not a TT game! You can't apply the same rules as flying an airplane as you do flying a spaceship. They are related in some ways, but one is vastly more complex and needs an entirely different approach.

Thats a silly analogy. You can apply some rules from TT, and they are Most ranges are TT compliant (MAX range is not) Movement speeds are TT compliant, That we can use engines besides perfect hex counts is a good breach as we don't have to count MPs.

Doubling armor is questionable to me due to TT engagements matching the Real Time duration of TT stock armor.

Some changes I support others I don't it is your opinion vs mine and I don't agree with your opinion. Its just that simple. The Minimum Sinks does not need adjusted, players just need to be more resourceful.

[wanderer]

Actually, extreme range is generally "add another range band past long", with appropriate tougher to hit/reduced damage.

A standard PPC in TT is 1-6/7-12/13-18, with extreme being 19-24: or in MWO terms, long range is 540, extreme 720.

LRMs reach to 1000m in MWO. Extreme in TT would actually be about 840- though honestly, firing at anything past 600 or so is whistling in the dark...but that's a unique case given how "effective range" for LRMs is most directly related to missile velocity, and the extra reach is generally eaten up by having to take vertical travel into account as well.

But no, engines need to stay at their 10-sink minimum. Heck, we desperately need a real heat effect system other than "fully operational" or "shutdown, 100%+". Heat is supposed to control operations, and driving a 'Mech around riding the shutdown line should mean a 'Mech that barely moves, barely aims and risks turning it's ammo bins into junk or the entire 'Mech into explosion confetti. With that in, bigger 'Mechs wouldn't be such alpha-striking OSK machines, and lights would appreciate their sinks all the more.

[Utilyan]

The TT was the limited form used to express a fantasy with pen and paper.

Like how monopoly might express trading property.


I believe this game should point to the fantasy rather then the board game. I believe the "paper dolls" should be more advanced. Where even your arm has its own paper doll of divided parts.

The mechlab should be like STAR TREK caliber "complicated". Where you got to assign heat sinks, choose actuator brands, heat sink brands, engine parts. To the point it makes you complain your not a fricken engineer.



You know there is a traditionalist side who can't stand change.


For example if we went by the LORE. Mechs can jump, walk, run, SIDESTEP, STRAFE, TAKE COVER, even CLIMB, punch and kick. Grab things, throw things.

That's right, control would be like......COD, BATTLFIELD regular FPS. If TITAN FALL mechs had body parts rather then just one hit reg for the entire mech, it would have been close. (although they do have armor portions, critical points, but the internal is all one piece)

We are not going by TT, we are not going by LORE either, We are following MECHWARRIOR 2. Which is Tanks with Legs.


Tanks with legs is fun.

Through the magic of quirks you can have engines be heavier and include the heat sinks for certain mechs like lights.

[Pjwned]

Brody319, on 22 December 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Would anyone really honestly care if those tiny engines got a few extra heat sinks for no tonnage disadvantage? I mean chances are only the lightest of the lights will be using them anyway, you know the lights that die from one alpha most of the time anyway?

That would not only be unfair and inconsistent, it would also result in more than just tiny mechs using those smaller engines, which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it would be for the wrong reasons. Again, at least with my idea there are consequences if you want more tonnage for less heatsinks.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 01:14 PM.

[Golden Vulf]

20 Ton mechs aren't supposed to be Spartacus.

[Xyroc]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 11:10 AM, said:

I'm not trying to justify changes, I'm trying to block them because they are not part of this game's universe. You wanna play MechWarrior, then when the rules are not to your liking you wanna change em. Not how I like my game rules. Every MechWarrior Title I played had the 10 sink Minimum to my memory and if they didn't I still used at least 10. MW2 was 19 years ago so my memory will be a bit fuzzy.

I said one trick pony not useless. Useless would be a NO trick pony.

See the difference is you want something for a completely arbitrary reason. Which is just down right silly. We want the game to make sense and function the best it can. You are acting just like the oldies in politics. "I dont want it just because! I dont care if I dont have a real reason I just dont want it." Embrace innovation and change or just fall behind.

You talk so much about TT why not quit MWO and just go play it. Maybe get on that MW Tactics start up .. oh wait.

Edited by Xyroc, 22 December 2014 - 05:13 PM.

[El Bandito]

wanderer, on 22 December 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

It's actually a safety thing. Fusion engines are designed to be able to sink their maximum-inefficiency operating heat (that s, unshielded) during "normal" operations to prevent them from going into a constant net heat gain, thereby risking potential explosions or death from life support failure.

Even a critically damaged 10-rated fusion engine will generate 10 heat points (or in MWO terms, 1 heat/sec) per turn if it's shielding is offline (the third engine hit pierces the fusion bottle and renders the engine inoperative as it requires a vacuum to maintain a fusion reaction).

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.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 December 2014 - 07:39 PM.

[3rdworld]

El Bandito, on 22 December 2014 - 07:39 PM, said:

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.

Even without it, wouldn't the "just in case you take 2 engine crits" be more of a suggestion than a rule? I mean they put ammo in the mech that will insta kill the mech if crit, yet they are that worried about engine crits?

Either way if it is because of 10 heat for 2 engine crits, you still should only need 5 doubles.

[Pjwned]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 11:21 AM, said:

Some changes I support others I don't it is your opinion vs mine and I don't agree with your opinion. Its just that simple. The Minimum Sinks does not need adjusted, players just need to be more resourceful.

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.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 11:53 PM.

[Big C]

QQ, drop 1 ton of weight from leg armor and a bit of arms and you can put in a heat sink from the first build. You have room,y ou just don't want to lose armor or gauss ammo. Don't whine, it's all about tradeoffs. As a gauss boat you don't need leg armor you shouldn't be getting hit much

Game is fine.

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

So I've tried to come up with a number of builds before that use an engine with <250 rating, but often enough it comes down to needing to add at least 1 more heatsink even when it's not needed for heat dissipation, and this issue prevents me from really wanting to use mechs like the locust, blackjack & spider (to a lesser extent), and commando, which is a bit frustrating at times. This issue isn't even exclusive to smaller mechs either, if you try to make a dual gauss Jager like this (can also downgrade the engine a bit to add 2 small lasers) which indisputably does not need 10 heatsinks, the build is invalid.

To clear up the self-serving motivation, most recently I tried to come up with a build like this, but unfortunately the ammo count is rather low (especially considering the LRM15 cooldown quirks on the TBT-7M) and part of that is because of the required extra heatsink that I don't even need otherwise. I want to be able to make builds that push my heat threshold to the limit (or in the case of something like the dual gauss Jager, to have more speed or ammo or a couple backup lasers) but nearly every time I come up with something that uses a <250 engine the minimum 10 heatsink requirement wrecks the build by requiring unnecessary tonnage and crit slots.

[Pjwned]

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™.

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

[TELEFORCE]

I'm fine with the 10 heat sink minimum. I've had to work around it for the past twenty years and never had a problem with it.

As others have mentioned, they're the game rules, and they've been around for about three decades. If everyone who played BattleTech thought the rule was so bad, it would've been changed by now.

Just min/max lights and mediums as normal by using both Endo Steel and Ferro Fibrous, in addition to an XL engine. After all, the smaller weight capacity of light 'mechs means they won't be mounting weapons that take up a lot of slots anyway.

(See? Ferro Fibrous armor has a use in Inner Sphere 'mechs after all!)

Edited by TELEFORCE, 23 December 2014 - 03:18 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Xyroc, on 22 December 2014 - 10:58 AM, said:

Really a 14 shot ac 20 cicada? Most dmg it could do is 280 and then be useless. I'd be happy to let people pilot that.

I'm going to play devil's advocate on this one and point out that the 280 damage it can inflict is all highly concentrated FLD damage. We aren't talking lasers and missiles where we might be looking at spread out 280 damage.

It might not be a lot of damage, but every shot is concentrated. You could pop a lot of side torsos and legs with that build disabling and destroying XL mechs left and right.

Just saying.

P.S. counterpoint: I also ran a Raven with an A/C20 before following the rules (obviously) and it is REALLY hot. It takes forever to cool too. So as a negative, an A/C20 Cicada with less than 10 heatsinkd would probably have poor DPS.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 23 December 2014 - 03:36 AM.