44 replies to this topic

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 03:28 PM, said:

Why do people think this is a good idea? What else are you going to put onto that ballistic Locust? A large laser will be too hot with less than 10 and the minimum 10 right now are only barely adequate at keeping that super quick MPL in check.

The ballistic Locust might have been a bad example, but the missile Locusts could certainly benefit from being able to carry more ammo. The Panther 10P would certainly benefit since it doesn't even have energy hardpoints (particuarly my ludicrously stupid and fun Plink Panther build. Silly builds like Gauss Ravens would be somewhat more viable if they didn't have to carry absolutely useless heatsinks. Urbanmechs could reasonably carry AC20s without having to sacrifice too much speed or ammo.

It would allow certain builds to be more viable without breaking anything.

[Y E O N N E]

Kaeb Odellas, on 16 February 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

The ballistic Locust might have been a bad example, but the missile Locusts could certainly benefit from being able to carry more ammo. The Panther 10P would certainly benefit since it doesn't even have energy hardpoints (particuarly my ludicrously stupid and fun Plink Panther build. Silly builds like Gauss Ravens would be somewhat more viable if they didn't have to carry absolutely useless heatsinks. Urbanmechs could reasonably carry AC20s without having to sacrifice too much speed or ammo.

It would allow certain builds to be more viable without breaking anything.

Even the missile Locusts are too hot, though. I run them at the wire already; I can't spare the heat-sinks any more than I can spare the ammo or the armor.

There's nothing to be gained by reducing the sink requirement. Only adjusting ammo in some way would help.

[FupDup]

Kaeb Odellas, on 16 February 2016 - 03:50 PM, said:

The ballistic Locust might have been a bad example, but the missile Locusts could certainly benefit from being able to carry more ammo. The Panther 10P would certainly benefit since it doesn't even have energy hardpoints (particuarly my ludicrously stupid and fun Plink Panther build. Silly builds like Gauss Ravens would be somewhat more viable if they didn't have to carry absolutely useless heatsinks. Urbanmechs could reasonably carry AC20s without having to sacrifice too much speed or ammo.

It would allow certain builds to be more viable without breaking anything.

The missile Locusts actually need those heatsinks though, so they don't benefit from it.

In general, I would like for the base 10 heatsinks to be located inside the engine so that we get full 10 TruDub efficiency and don't have to spend precious critslots on Poordubs. Note that the freed up slots would allow some IS lights to use Ferro with their Endo, which would in turn free up a little bit more tonnage.

Removing the 10 requirement doesn't benefit any of the lights that actually need all of the heat efficiency that they can get their tiny little hand actuators on.

Edited by FupDup, 16 February 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

FupDup, on 16 February 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

The missile Locusts actually need those heatsinks though, so they don't benefit from it.

In general, I would like for the base 10 heatsinks to be located inside the engine so that we get full 10 TruDub efficiency and don't have to spend precious critslots on Poordubs. Note that the freed up slots would allow some IS lights to use Ferro with their Endo, which would in turn free up a little bit more tonnage.

Removing the 10 requirement doesn't benefit any of the lights that actually need all of the heat efficiency that they can get their tiny little hand actuators on.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 03:55 PM, said:

Even the missile Locusts are too hot, though. I run them at the wire already; I can't spare the heat-sinks any more than I can spare the ammo or the armor.

There's nothing to be gained by reducing the sink requirement. Only adjusting ammo in some way would help.

I'll posit that Locust heat is only a problem if you want to mercilessly dog a heavier target for a prolonged period. I can't imagine the missile Locust as anything more than a hit-and-fade mech, what with every enemy light or fast medium on the map getting instant murder boners the moment you show up on radar. Every time I see a locust while piloting a light I think GO KILL NOW. I'm not the Locust expert though so I'll defer to you.

Now what about ballistic lights like the PNT-10P and Urbanmechs? You can't deny that lights built around heavy, relatively heat-efficient ballistic weapons have no need for 10 heatsinks, and can easily get by with just 7 or so DHS?

[Y E O N N E]

I'm hitting and fading, I'm just doing it so rapidly that my heat is going up faster than it's going down. Though the more effective way to play these Locusts is actually to stay in close proximity to your team and then ambush the enemies who come to fight them. That means getting up their backsides or whatever open component is available and firing for as long as you can before heat-level or threat-level forces you away.

For the Urbs, you might be able to make a case, but then again a big ballistic is still a terrible choice for it anyway. Undergunned, ammo-dependent. If your aim is to do something like an AC/10 and four SL or a UAC/5 with 3x or 4x ML, that will be too hot for 7x DHS.

[Jables McBarty]

Alistair Winter, on 16 February 2016 - 07:55 AM, said:

Locust
LCT-1E: Perfect. 6E
LCT-1V: 4B 1E upgrade to 6B 1E
LCT-1M: 2E 2M upgrade to 2E 4M
LCT-3M: Perfect. 5E 2AMS. With some AMS range and ammo quirks, this would be an ok mech.
LCT-3S: 1E 4M upgrade to 1E 6M. May need ammo quirks too.
LCT-PB: Meh, I dunno about this one. Maybe upgrade 2B 4E to 2B 5E. It's not exactly a top tier mech right now.

I'd love to see a visual quirk for MGs on the PB. I love running the stock build with the 4xSL and 2xMG, but after a match or two i start to get dizzy from the CT-mounted machine-gun flashback taking up half my screen.

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

I'm hitting and fading, I'm just doing it so rapidly that my heat is going up faster than it's going down. Though the more effective way to play these Locusts is actually to stay in close proximity to your team and then ambush the enemies who come to fight them. That means getting up their backsides or whatever open component is available and firing for as long as you can before heat-level or threat-level forces you away.

For the Urbs, you might be able to make a case, but then again a big ballistic is still a terrible choice for it anyway. Undergunned, ammo-dependent. If your aim is to do something like an AC/10 and four SL or a UAC/5 with 3x or 4x ML, that will be too hot for 7x DHS.

Yeonne, I think you make a point that using fewer than 10 HS is probably impractical, but I don't think it's a viable argument against removing or lowering the cap. If anything, your various arguments are in favor of reducing the cap--in most situations the cap is superfluous, since you really NEED 10 HS/DHS. But it would be nice to have the option to strip them.

I mean, I've ran an ERLL on a SDR-5K with only Standard HS....it's rough, especially on a moderately hot map like Tourmaline. Terra Therma? You can take like one shot a match. So with energy builds you definitely won't be dipping below the 10 watermark. But for creative ballistic or missile builds...I say why not let 'em?

Edited by Jables McBarty, 16 February 2016 - 04:34 PM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 04:18 PM, said:

I'm hitting and fading, I'm just doing it so rapidly that my heat is going up faster than it's going down. Though the more effective way to play these Locusts is actually to stay in close proximity to your team and then ambush the enemies who come to fight them. That means getting up their backsides or whatever open component is available and firing for as long as you can before heat-level or threat-level forces you away.

For the Urbs, you might be able to make a case, but then again a big ballistic is still a terrible choice for it anyway. Undergunned, ammo-dependent. If your aim is to do something like an AC/10 and four SL or a UAC/5 with 3x or 4x ML, that will be too hot for 7x DHS.

But Urbanmechs are supposed to be big ballistic carriers. That's kind of their thing. An AC10 + 4SL build is perfectly heat neutral firing just the AC10, and it takes 23 seconds to overheat if you're firing everything nonstop, which isn't that bad. You could even fit 2.5 tons of ammo and 2 jump jets with just 7 DHS. That build wouldn't even be possible on an Urbie with 20 DHS unless you use the STD 60 engine.

[Y E O N N E]

Jables McBarty, on 16 February 2016 - 04:34 PM, said:

Yeonne, I think you make a point that using fewer than 10 HS is probably impractical, but I don't think it's a viable argument against removing or lowering the cap. If anything, your various arguments are in favor of reducing the cap--in most situations the cap is superfluous, since you really NEED 10 HS/DHS. But it would be nice to have the option to strip them.

I mean, I've ran an ERLL on a SDR-5K with only Standard HS....it's rough, especially on a moderately hot map like Tourmaline. Terra Therma? You can take like one shot a match. So with energy builds you definitely won't be dipping below the 10 watermark. But for creative ballistic or missile builds...I say why not let 'em?

Well, let me posit it this way: what creative ballistic build can't you currently do on the Urbs that you can't do already? I can already squeeze an AC/10 on max engine with 2.5 tons of ammo. What are you after? Gauss? AC/20?

[Jables McBarty]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

Well, let me posit it this way: what creative ballistic build can't you currently do on the Urbs that you can't do already? I can already squeeze an AC/10 on max engine with 2.5 tons of ammo. What are you after? Gauss? AC/20?

Meh, I don't know...I run what is probably the same build on the R63 (with one SL).

Mostly it's so heartbreaking when you build this SICK MECH that has like JJs and 4xSL AND AN AC/10 and then you click Save and there's a popup saying that you have insufficient HS.

After nothing in particular I guess, just POSSIBILITIES!!!

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 04:36 PM, said:

Well, let me posit it this way: what creative ballistic build can't you currently do on the Urbs that you can't do already? I can already squeeze an AC/10 on max engine with 2.5 tons of ammo. What are you after? Gauss? AC/20?

A AC10, max engine, 2.5 tons of ammo, 2 jump jets, and 4 small lasers for backup. Is that really too much to ask?

Or an AC20, XL 170, 4 tons of ammo, and 2 lasers. Would that break the game?

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 16 February 2016 - 04:51 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Kaeb Odellas, on 16 February 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

A AC10, max engine, 2.5 tons of ammo, 2 jump jets, and 4 small lasers for backup. Is that really too much to ask?

Or an AC20, XL 170, 4 tons of ammo, and 2 lasers. Would that break the game?

It wouldn't break the game, but it also wouldn't be good. I mean, I honestly don't care if they enable that, but it won't actually help the 'Mechs-in-question to become more competitive.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

It wouldn't break the game, but it also wouldn't be good. I mean, I honestly don't care if they enable that, but it won't actually help the 'Mechs-in-question to become more competitive.

They don't have to "good" or "competitive". All I ask is that these stupid things be able to carry the weapons they were designed to carry without being laughably useless due to an inherently nonsensical tabletop rule.

[Pjwned]

You know what would actually help the particularly small light mechs (on both sides), aside from ridiculous quirks?

Stop screwing them over in multiple ways for equipping a sub-250 rating engine. They don't need to be penalized for crit slots and poordubs the moment anything smaller than a 250 engine is equipped because this isn't a game where those tiny light mechs are supposed to be inferior.

[Y E O N N E]

Kaeb Odellas, on 16 February 2016 - 04:56 PM, said:

They don't have to "good" or "competitive". All I ask is that these stupid things be able to carry the weapons they were designed to carry without being laughably useless due to an inherently nonsensical tabletop rule.

They can carry the weapons they were designed to carry, you just have to bring crappy SHS and tiny engines to do it. So, this whole conversation does, in fact, revolve around making them more viable.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Yeonne Greene, on 16 February 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

They can carry the weapons they were designed to carry, you just have to bring crappy SHS and tiny engines to do it. So, this whole conversation does, in fact, revolve around making them more viable.

"More viable" doesn't mean "good". Like I said, I want the to be able to carry those weapons without them being laughably useless. Of course I'd never bring one on a CW dropdeck, but they'd be fun to use in quick play.

[Deathlike]

It will require some alignment of the planets before underperforming Lights get properly quirked.

So, good luck with that.

[JC Daxion]

BFHKitteh, on 16 February 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

If PGI simply made MGs useful, you'd fine about a dozen and a half light mech variants coincidentally also become useful over night.

totally agree...

I also think lights could use larger ammo stacks.. The last thing we need are more reasons to boat energy.

I agree some lights can use some love, but adding more energy hard points IMO is not the answer

Get the ballistics, and missiles to be used more efficiently with out running out of ammo after 200 damage. That is the real problem.


For example, an Uller should be able to use an AC-2 and fire it more than a handful of times. Those are the real issues.. not let all lights boat MPL's or SPLs

[Trauglodyte]

You've got to remember that, in the beginning, your Lights were the Mando - 4 hardpoints and the Jenner with 6 hard points (or 5, depending). The Jenner was never balanced vs. the Commando because it was bigger, just as fast, had more weapons, and JJs. The thing is, the Locust and Mando are still imbalanced vs. the heavy Lights as is the Spider. The thing is, what do you gain by putting more weapons on these mechs? What I complained about, for the LONGEST of times back in Beta and after release, is what is the point of having mechs when they essentially go the same speed but one has more weapons than the other? The Jenner should go about 20-30 KPH slower than the Mando and the Mando shouldn't go as fast as the Locust. The lack of differentiation amongst mechs within a weight class is absolutely abysmal - it just so happens that it is far more blatant in the Light category.

[Deathlike]

Trauglodyte, on 16 February 2016 - 06:41 PM, said:

You've got to remember that, in the beginning, your Lights were the Mando - 4 hardpoints and the Jenner with 6 hard points (or 5, depending). The Jenner was never balanced vs. the Commando because it was bigger, just as fast, had more weapons, and JJs. The thing is, the Locust and Mando are still imbalanced vs. the heavy Lights as is the Spider. The thing is, what do you gain by putting more weapons on these mechs? What I complained about, for the LONGEST of times back in Beta and after release, is what is the point of having mechs when they essentially go the same speed but one has more weapons than the other? The Jenner should go about 20-30 KPH slower than the Mando and the Mando shouldn't go as fast as the Locust. The lack of differentiation amongst mechs within a weight class is absolutely abysmal - it just so happens that it is far more blatant in the Light category.

The problem you have is that the stock Jenner build is pretty ridiculous by most standards (STD 245 engine to begin with) and I don't see how you could reconcile those details w/o ruining all of them in some way shape or forum.

[Trauglodyte]

You're absolutely right, Death. That is why the biggest issue that I argued back in the day was simply white washing the game with a simple calculation for engine caps. If Mech A has an insane number of hard points and Mech B has only a few, the answer to balancing within the weight class isn't to get them the same/similar engine cap due to a bad formula. Reducing mech A's max speed by 5kph isn't the answer either - my Cicadas are all faster than the Arctic Cheetah but that doesn't mean that I can outrun the weapon range once I'm engaged within "melee" range. So, what good is my speed buff if I'm still getting shot in the butt as I go 7kph faster?