88 replies to this topic

[FupDup]

Alienized, on 08 April 2015 - 08:19 AM, said:

uhm.. i will check which IS mechs are currently used with engines of far higher ratings than they have stock and make a list which ones would been hurt the most. i guess some raven loadouts would disappear as well as a vcitor with XL350 but the victor does not need such a change. a banshee with XL400 tho and 4-6 large pulses would disappear. it would still run the weapons but the speed is the problem on it, same goes for the battlemasters that run too fast.

Here's the list of mechs with sub-250 engine limits right now:

-Locust
-Commando
-Mist Lynx
-Urbanmech
-Kit Fox
-Adder
-Blackjack (except 1 variant)
-Vindicator (except 2 variants)

So, that's 8 mechs that my idea would buff. Judging by the max weight of those mechs, I don't think they would suddenly gain the ability to use "horrendous alphastrike" loadouts with their sinks moved to the engine. They also tend to have significant design flaws such as sub-par hitboxes, not being very mobile for their class, hardpoint types/quantities/locations, and other issues.

I strongly doubt that any of them would suddenly become problematic after this change. There's very little chance that they would even compare to the current best mechs in their respective weight classes. Until I see a specific loadout that is more optimized than a heavy or assault boat, you're exaggerating what would happen with this change.

For most of them, only two things would happen:
1. Their cooling would be equal to mechs that have 250+ engines (2.0 Trudubs).
2. They would be able to equip tech upgrades like Ferro Fibrous, giving them something like 0.5-1 tons extra to spend on equipment (mostly just applies to the IS lights listed above).

Neither of those dethrone the Stormcrow, Firestarter, etc.

Edited by FupDup, 08 April 2015 - 08:34 AM.

[Alienized]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

Don't 2 Gauss weigh as much as a firestarter???


Define to fast?

faster than ANY assault of that time was apart from the MASC omni mechs.
customization is good but PGI tries to go after the TT rules as much as they can get and then they let a banshee run 75. thats at least 10kph too fast. its a damn 95 ton mech.
the victor at 80 tons can go 75 because it was BUILT to be mobile and it CANT boat anyway with its hardpoints and it was already considered a fast assault with its stock speed.

where is canonicity in this?


so for the engine cap on lights: currently FS9 are capped at 285. stock is 210. it would be totally fine to cap it at 250 or even lower especially after all the overdone quirks.
spiders, commandos and locusts look fine they have their own weakness by beeing fragile and not carry many weapons.
ravens could be capped a little bit higher at 260 but they can literally use alot of weapons.

this is not about buffing low capped mechs actively, its about bringing the over the top mechs like fs9 in line with other mechs of its class. its propably a easier thing to do than messing with quirks again.
the only buff the low used mechs get is that the others arent as overdone as they currently are anymore.

weapon loadout is also not the problem on the FS9. its the speed and its hitreg issue.

Edited by Alienized, 08 April 2015 - 08:39 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Faster than any STANDARD build of that time.

TROs only list the House Standard Builds and a few Unique models.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 08 April 2015 - 08:40 AM.

[ThirtyOughtSix]

DarthRevis, on 08 April 2015 - 08:17 AM, said:

What?

You cant put more weapons on then hardpoints available to the mech....so no mech can put on 40 mg's.

I dont get that comparison....

That was ment to be take. Theoretically. If I needed no heat sinks and a mech had 40 ballistic points I can equip 40MGs. Of I have to have 10 heat sinks I can only equip 20. Again, i think it's partly there to limit obserd ballistic based builds.

Let me put it this way, without a heat sink cap why would anyone not in their right mind not run LLYA with 3x gauss?

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 08:20 AM, said:

Don't 2 Gauss weigh as much as a firestarter???


Define to fast?

FIREBRAND, not fireSTARTER. ������

Edited by Hyper99, 08 April 2015 - 08:57 AM.

[Alienized]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 08:40 AM, said:

Faster than any STANDARD build of that time.

TROs only list the House Standard Builds and a few Unique models.

and still faster in where we are timeline wise for the IS.

[Jonathan Paine]

Out of curiosity: what happens if we lower the minimum amount of heatsinks to 8 for engines smaller than 225? Any examples of mechs that will suddenly become op if they gain 2 tons and a couple of crits? Will the locust all of a sudden rule the battlefield? Does it turn the mist lynx into a giant killer?

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 08 April 2015 - 07:53 AM, said:

If you use a mech of higher tonnage, you can just use larger engines to save critslots as it is, and thus boat easily. Look at mechs like the Timberwolf. The "Big Engine Stomp Meta" (term coined by Gman) is a real thing, because of this game's arm's race to mount huge engines.

Why should an XL200 engine, for example, require more critical space than an XL250?

All it does is punish mechs who aren't fortunate enough to have an engine cap of at least 250. This mostly just applies to small/slow lights and low-end mediums, who aren't exactly good boats to begin with.

A better way of approaching "limiting the engines" is that you could force the inclusion of "max HS" on all 275+ engines.. so you have to sacrifice more tonnage if you want to use a "perfect" 350-engine on a Zeus, Victor, or Awesome-9M/PB with all 4 HS put into it... instead of deciding/choosing whether you want the extra heatsinks in the engine.

That would probably work better than what some are trying to propose, even though it would kinda suck.

Edited by Deathlike, 08 April 2015 - 10:00 AM.

[Mechteric]

I'd rather they let us have less than 10 heat sinks, but if we do choose to we suffer heat penalties for each heat sink under 10 that we run.

[Bobzilla]

Is there really any point for min 10 hs in MWO?

[Joseph Mallan]

Bobzilla, on 08 April 2015 - 10:33 AM, said:

Is there really any point for min 10 hs in MWO?

Its teh rules. and has been teh rules.

Alienized, on 08 April 2015 - 09:09 AM, said:

and still faster in where we are timeline wise for the IS.

Actually the reason we dont have Battlemasters running at Timber Wolf Speeds is the TT game using Hex movement. You had to have an exact number of movement points v tonnage of Mech to upgrade your engine.

[Alienized]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

Its teh rules. and has been teh rules.


Actually the reason we dont have Battlemasters running at Timber Wolf Speeds is the TT game using Hex movement. You had to have an exact number of movement points v tonnage of Mech to upgrade your engine.

we dont have any hex movement here. so in that case TT rules cant apply to a free movement game like this. thats where TT fails at.

[Bobzilla]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 10:55 AM, said:

Its teh rules. and has been teh rules.

So no reason in this game then.

[Joseph Mallan]

Alienized, on 08 April 2015 - 10:57 AM, said:

we dont have any hex movement here. so in that case TT rules cant apply to a free movement game like this. thats where TT fails at.

I completely understand that, I even accept it. Thus in MW:O I can have a 360XL in my Hellslinger!

Bobzilla, on 08 April 2015 - 11:03 AM, said:

So no reason in this game then.

Its a BattleTech game. That is reason enough.

[Mawai]

I don't mind the way it is now to be honest.

The 10 heat sink requirement comes from the TT Battletech rules.

Every engine includes 10 but the smaller engines did not have room for them within the engine so they had to be allocated to spaces on the mech.

It was probably part of the mech balance limiting the number of crit slots on the lighter mechs.

Also, keep in mind that if the engines included all the heat sinks in the engine ... then all the engine weights would be going up a lot ... you might have a few more slots to play with ... but no more tonnage.

Finally, removing the requirement to fit external heat sinks would open up the possibility of fitting endo-steel or FF in order to get more tonnage for weapons ... these are supposed to trade off against crit slots ... but if you have external heat sinks slotted you might not have the slots required ... moving all the heat sinks into the engine would make the mech more slot efficient. On the other hand, maybe the light mechs could use a boost?

[Joseph Mallan]

Hyper99, on 08 April 2015 - 08:55 AM, said:

That was ment to be take. Theoretically. If I needed no heat sinks and a mech had 40 ballistic points I can equip 40MGs. Of I have to have 10 heat sinks I can only equip 20. Again, i think it's partly there to limit obserd ballistic based builds.

Let me put it this way, without a heat sink cap why would anyone not in their right mind not run LLYA with 3x gauss?



FIREBRAND, not fireSTARTER. ������

Right then... reading.

[wolf74]

[Rollplay _on]

Star League Law about Fission & Fusion Engine are Very Clear on that they Must have 10 Cooling Units minimal. Failure to follow this Law would bring comms interdiction & fines on the group that makes, uses, and or support anything less.

[/Rollplay_off]

[Alienized]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

I completely understand that, I even accept it. Thus in MW:O I can have a 360XL in my Hellslinger!

ye but i guess setting it to a reasonable 350 cap instead of the 400 some have its more how it should be. its still fast enough, can carry good weapons and armor. a victor for example cant be used well with a 400 because it just lacks literally everything then. a battlemaster with 400 and its several laser-boat hardpoints is simply boated and does not fulfill its assaulting role anymore.
its more like a heavier heavy.

what surprises me most: they done it perfectly right for the stalker or highlander. the atlas is limited by itself and its hardpoints so is the victor.
battlemaster is not.
banshee-3S? 345 cap, totally fine. the others? 400......
i wonder why they never balanced each wheight class on its own before they balanced them to the clans...

[Joseph Mallan]

Alienized, on 08 April 2015 - 11:13 AM, said:

ye but i guess setting it to a reasonable 350 cap instead of the 400 some have its more how it should be. its still fast enough, can carry good weapons and armor. a victor for example cant be used well with a 400 because it just lacks literally everything then. a battlemaster with 400 and its several laser-boat hardpoints is simply boated and does not fulfill its assaulting role anymore.
its more like a heavier heavy.

what surprises me most: they done it perfectly right for the stalker or highlander. the atlas is limited by itself and its hardpoints so is the victor.
battlemaster is not.
banshee-3S? 345 cap, totally fine. the others? 400......
i wonder why they never balanced each wheight class on its own before they balanced them to the clans...

Well using some of the advanced rules I can put a 425 rate engine in a Battlemaster.

Banshee has a 345 cap?
That is pretty foolish! Its meant to be a fast Assault.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The development staff maintains that the 10 SHS minimum exists to prevent players from heat-locking themselves.

That means a Mech with a 125 engine and DHS meets the minimum heat dissipation rate, and should be good to drop.

Unfortunately, the Dev staff has not reconsiled those two notions yet.

[Alienized]

Joseph Mallan, on 08 April 2015 - 11:17 AM, said:

Well using some of the advanced rules I can put a 425 rate engine in a Battlemaster.

Banshee has a 345 cap?
That is pretty foolish! Its meant to be a fast Assault.

only the banshee 3s. and what do you consider fast? the victor went 64, battlemaster as well soe was the bansee. the thug was faster but it had no massive weapon arsenal.

and we have to admit: the first banshee was a massive failure lol. weapons? LOL