478 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

adamts01, on 09 March 2018 - 03:48 AM, said:

Why I couldn't care less about volumetric scaling? It's bad for game play and balance. 90% of Mwo exists in Quick Play, where every weight class is treated as an equal, or at least should be. That's not the game I want, but that's the game we were given. One of PGI's greatest mistakes was throwing the same mechs in CW, where lighter mechs had less value. The volumetric scaling proposed would make the weakest class absolutely worthless. If we had a ticket-based mode, or some other sort of logistics, then fine, let lights be worthless. But in this current game that can't be the case. The light nerf/resale was a grave mistake.

Glad to see a fellow light pilot!

Based on volumetric scaling, a firestarter would be 1.12x of a commando really slightly bigger. Would this not fix the easy to hit factor you're unhappy with?

In addition, PGI rewards the larger scaled heavies and assaults with lots of armor and structure quirks. This is the biggest nerf for lights, as it makes back kills impossible with one alpha. Look up my stats with lights, and I'm telling you as long as mech are scaled down to the commando, it'll be a major buff for lights.

That been said, this is just a PSA thread. We know PGI doesn't care about this issue and considers it done with the current foam mechs.

[nehebkau]

Just one question....

A Ton is a measure of weight... how can one scale weight by volume? For clarity a 70 ton jet has a lot of volume while a 70 ton tank doesn't have very much while 70 ton of neutron star has very little volume.

It's not like these mechs would be solid without empty spaces inside which add volume but no weight.

but I would spend real money for a miniature atlas.

(removing tongue from cheek) ;P

Edited by nehebkau, 09 March 2018 - 07:40 AM.

[Nightbird]

nehebkau, on 09 March 2018 - 07:38 AM, said:

Just one question....

A Ton is a measure of weight... how can one scale weight by volume? For clarity a 70 ton jet has a lot of volume while a 70 ton tank doesn't have very much while 70 ton of neutron star has very little volume.

It's not like these mechs would be solid without empty spaces inside which add volume but no weight.

https://mwomercs.com...ost__p__6044022

I discuss part of it in the link above. Since weight = volume * density, I did assume uniform density in the OP as stated in the first sentence. As for the question of whether Assaults are less dense than Lights as per PGI's interpretation, follow the argument in the linked post and I hope you're convinced that unless the Atlas contains non-slot empty space on the scale of a tennis court, spa, and yoga room together, there is no frigging way it's that large.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

when im take a MG in a Torso who is Place for a AC20 ...ist many empty room in the Atlas..in MW4 you can drive Mechs with less Tonnage ..a 80t Awesome you can drive with 70t ..its faster for it.

and the most arguments from PGI only hollow speech Bubbles..

and now has a 75t Black Knight the same Tall Size as a 100t Atlas (25t different) and a 65t Catapult go a Black knight to the Hip (only 10 t different)

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 09 March 2018 - 11:36 AM.

[Grus]

nehebkau, on 09 March 2018 - 07:38 AM, said:

Just one question....

A Ton is a measure of weight... how can one scale weight by volume? For clarity a 70 ton jet has a lot of volume while a 70 ton tank doesn't have very much while 70 ton of neutron star has very little volume.

It's not like these mechs would be solid without empty spaces inside which add volume but no weight.

[adamts01]

Nightbird, on 09 March 2018 - 07:21 AM, said:

Glad to see a fellow light pilot!

Based on volumetric scaling, a firestarter would be 1.12x of a commando really slightly bigger. Would this not fix the easy to hit factor you're unhappy with?

In addition, PGI rewards the larger scaled heavies and assaults with lots of armor and structure quirks. This is the biggest nerf for lights, as it makes back kills impossible with one alpha. Look up my stats with lights, and I'm telling you as long as mech are scaled down to the commando, it'll be a major buff for lights.

That been said, this is just a PSA thread. We know PGI doesn't care about this issue and considers it done with the current foam mechs.

I understand this is is pointless, as it would never happen. I think we've all accepted the forums as that years ago.

Lights were made too large, too sluggish, and easy to hit, so I absolutely agree with you on the Firestarter. These over-armored tanky/big lights we currently have are an abomination. My issue is scaling down assaults and heavies by such a large degree. In practice, a Hellbringer would be about the same size target as a Firestarter, but with so much more firepower and armor. So 3x the guns and armor but just a few pixels larger? Without logistics, mechs in Quick Play need to be equal, so would heavies need to be that much more sluggish to balance things? Even if we had a mode where assaults and heavies were crazy powerful andexpensive, and players were instead buying 6 lights for every 1 assault the enemy had, I still wouldn't want your proposed scaling. If I'm driving my big bad Atlas, I want to look down at my cowering targets, not stand practically face to face with a mech a 3rd of my weight. Most players agree that the sluggishness we were given doesn't feel right, at least not to this extent. Size and armor is critical to making you feel like you're actually in an assault. Just as size and fragility coupled with quickness makes you feel like you're really in a light.

[adamts01]

nehebkau, on 09 March 2018 - 07:38 AM, said:

Just one question....

A Ton is a measure of weight... how can one scale weight by volume? For clarity a 70 ton jet has a lot of volume while a 70 ton tank doesn't have very much while 70 ton of neutron star has very little volume.

It's not like these mechs would be solid without empty spaces inside which add volume but no weight.

but I would spend real money for a miniature atlas.

(removing tongue from cheek) ;P

I hate the idea of volumetric scaling, but his ballpark work seems pretty accurate. I'm more than twice the weight of my girlfriend, but at 6'2" only a foot taller than her. Structure does have to change fairly dramatically as weight increases, which is why bugs can't get much bigger than they are, but given that construction materials are given to us (endo/ferro), we can assume that design isn't radically different, at least not to the extent of comparing a tank to a jet.

[Nightbird]

adamts01, on 09 March 2018 - 03:25 PM, said:

My issue is scaling down assaults and heavies by such a large degree. In practice, a Hellbringer would be about the same size target as a Firestarter, but with so much more firepower and armor. So 3x the guns and armor but just a few pixels larger? Without logistics, mechs in Quick Play need to be equal, so would heavies need to be that much more sluggish to balance things? Even if we had a mode where assaults and heavies were crazy powerful andexpensive, and players were instead buying 6 lights for every 1 assault the enemy had, I still wouldn't want your proposed scaling. If I'm driving my big bad Atlas, I want to look down at my cowering targets, not stand practically face to face with a mech a 3rd of my weight. Most players agree that the sluggishness we were given doesn't feel right, at least not to this extent. Size and armor is critical to making you feel like you're actually in an assault. Just as size and fragility coupled with quickness makes you feel like you're really in a light.

You're looking down so hard from your Atlas today that you can't shoot the lights standing at your ankles

A dps light from up close will easily be able to spread 2-3 alphas from a hellbringer and chew through both his legs, I don't think the size matters much at all. It's still about builds. The shrink of heavier mechs should only increase TTK between the heavier mechs, without affecting lights that are piloted right (ST backstab or legs)

[Kroete]

FupDup, on 04 March 2018 - 03:01 PM, said:

I don't think that's what he meant.

A specific example might be the proportion/ratio of your total mass that gets spent on internal structure. In BT every mech uses the same %, but as far as I've heard that's not realistic. Realistically the larger mechs would need a higher proportion of their body mass spent on internal frame than a small mech (cube square law, right?).

The idea that a 100-ton and 20-ton mech both spend exactly 5% of their weight on their skeleton is silly, either the 100-tonner should spend more than 5% or the 20-tonner should spend lower than 5%. The point is that the ratios for stuff like that would not be the same, it's not like upscaling a .png image file.

Simple explanation:
A cube with 1m has 6m² surface and 1m³ volume and 1 ton.
A cube with 2m has 24m² surface and 8m³ volume and 8 tons.

Dont know much about mechlegs, but chain links give 4 times the strengh for doubling the diameter.
Thats not enough to counter the cube square law.

Thats why you cant build endless skyscrapers and the titanosaurus and argentinosaurus were the upper limit for landbased living on earth.

[adamts01]

Nightbird, on 09 March 2018 - 09:31 PM, said:

You're looking down so hard from your Atlas today that you can't shoot the lights standing at your ankles

A dps light from up close will easily be able to spread 2-3 alphas from a hellbringer and chew through both his legs, I don't think the size matters much at all. It's still about builds. The shrink of heavier mechs should only increase TTK between the heavier mechs, without affecting lights that are piloted right (ST backstab or legs)

You're so busy looking at realistic physics that you're completely ignoring gameplay. Lights only survive our current meta because of obscene structure/armor quirks, and have those because of a ridiculous rescale. And all of that is because of Team Death Match where lights are treated equal to to assaults. Making everything practically the same size doesn't work for a game where wimpy lights need to be balanced with OP assaults. MWO actually worked when size/apeed/agility countered size/armor/firepower. The game was hands down better at release because of that balance. I know this is all theoretical, but it has zero place on Mwo, just as the rescale had zero business ever taking place. CW was the beginning of the end, and the light nerd was the nail in the coffin.

[MW Waldorf Statler]

Kroete, on 10 March 2018 - 03:54 AM, said:

Simple explanation:
A cube with 1m has 6m² surface and 1m³ volume and 1 ton.
A cube with 2m has 24m² surface and 8m³ volume and 8 tons.

Dont know much about mechlegs, but chain links give 4 times the strengh for doubling the diameter.
Thats not enough to counter the cube square law.

Thats why you cant build endless skyscrapers and the titanosaurus and argentinosaurus were the upper limit for landbased living on earth.

only by same Material ..and thats is nothing by Complex Vehicles...a Arm with a Weapon has aother Desity as one arm with ammunition or Heatsinks ,with a full modelling Hand or only a Weaponspylon...a old TV from 1950 has other Weight as a New LED Monitor in same size...a Marauder has a special Armor thats only the Marauder has ,all mechs have differnet Aurtocannons with different mechanics and calibbersfrom different Companys...a Quetzlocoatlus Pterosaurus with 12 m Wingspan as a Different bonestructur as a Titanosaur or Liopleurodon

Edited by Old MW4 Ranger, 10 March 2018 - 06:16 AM.

[Nightbird]

adamts01, on 10 March 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

You're so busy looking at realistic physics that you're completely ignoring gameplay. Lights only survive our current meta because of obscene structure/armor quirks, and have those because of a ridiculous rescale. And all of that is because of Team Death Match where lights are treated equal to to assaults. Making everything practically the same size doesn't work for a game where wimpy lights need to be balanced with OP assaults. MWO actually worked when size/apeed/agility countered size/armor/firepower. The game was hands down better at release because of that balance. I know this is all theoretical, but it has zero place on Mwo, just as the rescale had zero business ever taking place. CW was the beginning of the end, and the light nerd was the nail in the coffin.

I'm confused, are you saying lights have a terrible scale or a good scale? If obscene quirks are needed because of a bad rescale, why are you against scaling them down? The difference between the volumetric versus current might seem large, but really, the Commando will stand at the height of the bellybutton instead of the crotch. You'll still get to enjoy looking down at it.

Here are my QP stats, where I play lights extensively. Hopefully it's enough to show I care about gameplay. IMO the best lights don't have much if any survival quirks.

https://leaderboard....rch?u=nightbird
https://leaderboard....rch?u=NLGHTBLRD
https://leaderboard....u=ironnightbird

Edited by Nightbird, 10 March 2018 - 06:35 AM.

[Nightbird]

Old MW4 Ranger, on 10 March 2018 - 06:15 AM, said:

only by same Material ..and thats is nothing by Complex Vehicles...a Arm with a Weapon has aother Desity as one arm with ammunition or Heatsinks ,with a full modelling Hand or only a Weaponspylon...a old TV from 1950 has other Weight as a New LED Monitor in same size...a Marauder has a special Armor thats only the Marauder has ,all mechs have differnet Aurtocannons with different mechanics and calibbersfrom different Companys...a Quetzlocoatlus Pterosaurus with 12 m Wingspan as a Different bonestructur as a Titanosaur or Liopleurodon

Nightbird, on 05 March 2018 - 08:07 PM, said:

So I got a question. I've been thinking though the density question, and here's what I got.

Say we start with a standard structure and standard armor Commando and Atlas.

(1) 10% of the weight goes to structure, and 20% (approx) goes to armor. The structure and armor should be the same density, given how it's all swappable (in case of structure as scrap). At this point, we've used up 30% of the total weight and at the same density for both mechs.

(2) The remaining 70% of the tonnage goes into the 53 free slots. We know the slots are the same size, since if they scaled with tonnage a 3 slot DHS on a Commando would take up less than 1 slot on an Atlas, which is not the case. It doesn't matter which slots you fill and which slots you leave empty, you have 17.5 tons versus 70 tons going into the same sized 53 slots.

We don't know what % of the total volume the structure and armor take up, but we do know that for 30% of the total tonnage, the density is the same, and for the other 70%, the Atlas is much more dense (4x more). Right? Or can there be other 'empty space' in a mech that is not part of the slot system?

Because the slots system is fixed volume, it doesn't matter whether you put anything inside of it or not. In other words, total mech volume = structure volume + armor volume + slot volume. My question is, is this true or not? Would a mech have a lot of free space inside of it, that is not part of the slot system? Is it fair to assume that structure and armor of the SAME type have the same density?

Edited by Nightbird, 10 March 2018 - 06:45 AM.

[Koniving]

Quote

Y'know, I always rewrote the canon in my head and declared a 'Mech's tonnage to be its carrying capacity rather than total mass.

Thing is... it isn't really its carrying capacity... or its actual mass. It takes a bit of digging, but...

Lets take the Powerman.

Remember that each cargo container takes a ton, regardless of whether it is full or empty...

The base SC Powerman Haulermech according to Sarna.net has 3 cargo bays (2 tons each) and two lifting hoists.
The Haulermech is 35 tons..supposedly.
But unloaded, its actually 29 tons, give or take.
And fully loaded its 35 + 17.5 tons + 17.5 tons = 70 tons.

Catalyst's version of the Powerman "Haulermech" is actually arguably inferior to the original Powerman entry, as while the mech can carry 6 tons of equipment, it has the issue that it would only be allowed to carry 3 containers so if you had 5 containers of 1 ton each, the Powerman couldn't haul all 5 containers despite having a ton left over in space for hauling containers... but the original Powerman "Loadermech" could.

Note: This is as far as you really need to go for my point, the rest is a rant on huge retcons done within only 4 years of each other... Only continue on if you care about how absurd Catalyst can be.

Spoiler

Now Battletech.RPG aka Mech Factory's version, which I rely more on Mech Factory because it rips the data word for word from older released materials rather than relying on users to make up their own way of wording them (and being subject to constant changes by users that feel like changing it)... So while it might not be "current" in terms of retcons, it tells it like the stuff is originally published, in the original publisher's words, rather than whatever company made up retconning nonsense after the fact.
(Think Fallout as made by Interplay, where Fallout 2 gives the entire history of "Jet" the drug as a recent invention by a child prodigy, with the primary ingredient being irradiated two-headed cow...post-consumer product. Now take Bethesda's Fallout 4, which has put Jet into untouched vaults that have been closed since bombs dropped on pre-war America, and filled a specific one that's loaded with a stash of chems that was kept hidden for less than 20 years after the bombs dropped before being "introduced" to the population with hundreds of them with its history as a war time psycho-enhancing drug used for soldiers... That's a complete retcon of the lore... which is what Catalyst did above.)
Edit: Apparently the rabbit-hole above sinks even deeper. Its original actually acknolwedges Powerman's haulermech predecessors as "Buster-Class Hauler Mechs" and that the Powerman is actually a derivative of this. However, the predecessor was never called a Powerman, afterall the predecessor was made by a rival company and Richard Sitwell's company didn't even exist until 2795. (Catalyst's retcon states the Sitwell-made Powerman was made in 2764 according to Historical Operation Klondike.)

Sitwell corporation, which was founded in 2795... according to both the TRO Vehicle Annex and the http://www.sarna.net...ell_Corporation Sarna's entry into the Sitwell Corporation, was made specifically by Richard Sitwell to get back at a former employer that screwed him over.... in the end, he screwed them right into bankruptcy with bitter sweet revenge, and his mechs would go on for centuries. Though apparently, according to Catalyst's version, he made his mech 31 years before his company was founded, under his company name... and Richard Sitwell at the time of founding his company was only 34 years old... That's impressive, either he's got time travel or he made a highly successful "Haulermech" at 3 years old.

Also according to the Vehicle Annex written in

Huh. Man they don't look their **** up, do they?

Anyway...
Anyway Mech Factory and the original book states that the Powerman "Loadermech" SC (no numerals) from is 35 tons with 5x 1 ton cargo bays (which fits the picture, as each cargo bay is represented by a spike and the cargo is literally fastened to each of these spikes. I'm actually not sure where they get XI for Mech Factory... the chassis name is Powerlift CXV Standard... So "XV" makes sense but "XI" does not... The original entry has no numeral in the Loadermech's name, as it was the first model in 2795...

This means that unloaded the mech is 30 tons. Fully loaded its 30 + 5 tons in full cargo bays (the 35 base tons) plus the in hand carrying capacity of an additional 35 tons (by the way lift hoists work) so fully loaded it is 70 tons.

Sarna states that the loadermech wasn't added to the MUL. However, it apparently is. Historical: Operation Klondike gives the Loadermech, changing its introduction date to 2764 but calls it the Powerman XI.
HisOK also gives two more powerman profiles, referring to Powerman XI Haulermechs as M and M-B "MOD"s.
Meanwhile the original Haulermech entry has been modified, remaining as claiming to be the Powerman SCV XV introduced in "2895." (Typo?)
Catalyst Gamelabs made this complete retcon in 2010, and the powerman was completely retconned just as an excuse to be able to shove it into Clan space lore. (Why use the XI? If they want to claim it is the 11th model, why not use say the 5th model, the 3rd model, etc? But that goes into a whole new rabbit hole...)

....The original Powerman Loadermech was actually written in 2006 by FanPro [a Wizkidz brand owned by the Topps company] whom owned the game at the time, (so there's only 4 years and already a retcon this hugely inconsistent when Catalyst published Operation Klondike, which Catalyst started running Battletech as Topp's own brand company in 2008...)

So to make Catalyst's version work with the original, change Catalyst's versions of the "older" powerman into Buster Hauler Mechs.

Speaking of which, the name Haulermech was avoided by Richard Sitwell purposefully as a means of spite. As such the Sitwell corporation would never have used the traditional term of "Haulermech". It was also never intended to fulfill the same purpose as a Hauler Mech.

The problem with the solution of taking Catalyst's retcon in light of the original, is that the TRO Vehicle Annex also gave the stats of the 50 ton Buster-class Haulermech.. which was 50 tons, had Robot Jocks style catapillar tracks for the legs in case of leg actuator damage, allowing it to still function even if the leg was rendered useless for walking, dedicated 11 tons to cargo bays (but only 3 mounts meaning it was limited to 3 cargo containers)

Another thing I find interesting, is that apparently the traditional max weight of a Hauler mech is 50 tons, and they could haul up to 61 tons.
This goes into PGI's Roughneck, the Loader King, the most popular community made artwork and "build" associated with it, and the story of my own design that coincidentally targeted 50 tons rather than 65 tons due to a number of factors as told here, without having known about the fluff given for non-powerman Hauler mechs.

Spoiler

Yet PGI's Roughneck references a made up "Loader King"... Some fans have made up a 65 ton Hauler/Loader mech in tribute to be the Loader King... Unfortunately, the most popular of these made by Justin Kase breaks construction rules as well as the laws of physics... (if you ever worked with a crane, you would know the dangers of a using a crane while moving at high speeds; hell try moving at high speeds with a haul a quarter of the weight of your forklift and you're spelling disaster). His own retcon no longer violating construction rules (which was only done to excuse the crane he added to the art, so the retcon limited it to one lift hoist in the crane rather than in the arms as stated by the Roughneck page), makes it capable of only hauling less than 40 tons (though the original design breaking construction rules could haul over 92 tons without factoring in any cargo containers...)

Before learning of any of this, with just the information of the Powerman from Mech Factory, I supposed that the transition from Loader King to Roughneck, which trades heavy industrial alloys for equally strong but much lighter military-grade alloys, would be make the Roughneck heavier than the Loader King. Comparing structure weight, I came up with 50 tons as the ideal weight for the Loader King as the tonnage for structure still 4 tons heavier than the military grade structure of the 65 ton Roughneck and yet produces a more favorable mech. In practicality it should probably be lighter as even a 35 ton Industrial mech has 1 ton heavier structure than a 65 ton Battlemech's military grade alloys... A 65 ton industrial mech loses 13.5 tons on just the skeleton for just 21 points more internal structure to my 10 tons on a 50 ton Loader King.

Powerman's Vehicle Annex Lore states that the Bluth Corporation's Buster-Class HaulerMech dominated the market before the powerman, and that the Buster-Class was a venerable but ungainly heavy. 50 tons is ungainly heavy yet tolerable. So imagine a mech that's 65 tons and could only haul less than 40 tons... nobody would ever buy it.

So when I made my own, without even knowing the above, I made mine 50 tons. This decision was also based on reading the lore of the corporation PGI said it was produced by, which did not have the ability to produce mechs of over 55 tons until the start of the Jihad era (3067), after losing the ability to produce heavy mechs in the first succession wars (as chronicled in Federated Suns page 18 where their heavy mechs remained unproduced until New Hessen took over their rights during the Jihad, fingering that Archner had no use for the rights to mechs which it had no means of producing). Even then, the newly acquired Jihad era facilities (post selling the rights to those two heavy mechs) couldn't produce military grade heavy battlemechs until 3133.... and thus between three facilities on three planets, only produced the Dig Lord at 65 tons. But we won't get into PGI's retcon of that...

Anyways knowing that until 3067 Archener had no ability to produce a 65 ton Loader King, and the Powerman was produced to annihilate the heaviest and best Haulermech of its time with no discernable competition throughout two succession wars (so 69 years with NO rival and the third succession war lasts over 100 years, Archner lost its ability to produce heavy mechs in the first succession war)... I set with the mission of the Loader King's lore and a target construction era of after the second succession war. The lore: a mech that could compete with stock Powerman (which I used it as shown in the Mech Factory without knowing anything of the Buster-class hauler mech) that could live up to the 'Mech's "Superb reputation for taking a beating".

I made something with a similar price point, superior hauling capabilities, but limited to 3 containers rather than 5 but those containers could be heavier, gave it a fuel cell engine so that the native small laser could still be legal by construction rules which gave it a different fuel economy. In the end I had something that was comparable... better in some cases, not so good in others, which left it to be a real choice between which to buy for your loading/hauling needs.
Price difference is: 790,915 cbills greater than the powerman.
Load difference is: 15 or 16 tons more depending on which Powerman you compare to (original or retcon).
- Powerman: 35+5 (per 2006 original entry) or 35+6 (per 2010's retcon which sets the model's original production 31 years before the reason to produce while the creator was 3 years old).
- Loader King: (Koniving's version) 50 + 6 = 56 tons
Quirk: Stable (harder than usual to knock over with physical attacks.) (Source: Roughneck fluff.)
(Powerman quirk for comparison: Easy to maintain. Easy to pilot; source: TRO Vehicle Annex fluff, "significantly less maintenance" and "could unload a Mule Dropship in 1/4th the time it would take the Buster." Could easily argue for the Stable quirk from the fluff too, but it just states compared to the Buster.)

Comparing it now against the Bluth Buster-Class Haulermech...
My Loader King can take 49 points of "more beating" than the equally heavy Buster.
Is faster.
Cannot continue to perform all functions in spite of leg damage (so plus one Buster buddy)
Comes with minor armament standard (small laser, eats from the fuel cell engine)
Runs on Hydrogen and thus can be refueled by water, which on some planets is great, on others traditional diesel would have been better.
Has identical cargo carrying capacity.
Is 508,375 more expensive than the Buster XV (which is what the Powerman competed with at the time of its original non-retconned inception)
Is 624,125 cbills cheaper than Buster XXI (The current Buster model)
Lacks Industrial Triple Strength Myomer (that the Buster XXI model has)

Buster's quirks from fluff.
Unbalanced (closest thing to less stability, as implied by Powerman lore).
Oversized (design quirks implies this isn't applicable to medium mechs, but the fluff hits on how the Buster is huge, ungainly, surprisingly venerable for its clunky frame even compared to battlemechs of its weight.)

(Strangely, the Buster as published in the 2006 Vehicle Annex has triple strength myomer as of 2795...but this didn't come about until 3040... Ooo, I see, this is the Buster XXI... meanwhile the Powerloader was based on blueprints stolen for the Buster XV. So this stat sheet I have is for a much newer Buster... Mech Factory distinguishes this as the 2795 Buster given its comparison next to the Powerman. If I plop the 2750 Buster then I get no TSM..)

In light of the Buster XXI having TSM..
It can haul a maximum of 106 tons. 6 of which can be distributed in up to 3 cargo container mounts and the remaining tonnage carried within its hands (split to up to 50 tons or combined for up to 100 tons).

....In a single test run with this build, a regular pilot made 3 piloting fails in just 1 minute. Its apparently clumsy as hell, where the same pilot cloned made only 1 piloting fail performing the exact same tasks in that same minute. In the Loader King, same pilot, almost made that single piloting failure but the higher speed tolerance saved him. Finally same pilot in the Powerman didn't even come close to making a mistake for the same tasks. Both the Loader King and the Powerman had 10 seconds to spare and relax, too.

But anyway... On the original point of the comment...

Powerman:

• Actual weight is 30 to 29 tons unloaded but fueled depending on which version (Topps Fanpro original or Topps Catalyst retcon in that order)
  
• Given weight is 35 tons.
  
• Max carrying in hand is 35 tons.
  
• Maximum cargo haul 5 containers strapped + 1 or 2 in hands max mass 40 to 41 tons depending on which version (original or retcon in that order)
  
• True max weight is 70 tons.

Buster:

• Actual weight is 39 tons unloaded but fueled.
  
• Given weight is 50 tons.
  
• Carrying in hand weight is 50 tons.
  
• Maximum cargo haul 3 containers strapped + 1 or 2 in hands max mass 56 tons.
  
• Maximum possible weight under full carry weight is 100 tons.
  
• (Note the fluff states the Buster can haul 15 tons of ore on its mounts, but only has 11 tons worth of cargo container mounts.)

Buster XXI:

• Actual weight is again 39 tons.
  
• Given weight is 50 tons.
  
• Carrying in hand weight is 100 tons (due to TSM in addition to lift hoists).
  
• Maximum cargo haul 3 containers + hands max mass 111 tons.
  
• Maximum possible weight under full load is 150 tons.

Loader King (Koniving's design) : (Note: This was without knowing of the existence of the Buster, see spoiler above).

• Actual weight is 44 tons.
  
• Given weight is 50 tons.
  
• Carrying in hand weight is 50 tons.
  
• Maximum cargo haul 3 containers + hands max mass 56 tons.
  
• Maximum possible weight under full load is 100 tons.

Would compare Justin Kase's Loader King pre-and-post construction-rule-friendly but he doesn't have a specific number of cargo container mounts or sizes mentioned.

Atlas AS7-D for comparison, to share how it works without lift-hoist enhanced arms...
....according to TRO 2750 Atlas D and BT Master Rules (revised) for carrying capacity page 77: (Rule is identical in the original, too).

• Actual weight (unloaded, empty bins but fueled and all weapons) 95 tons.
  
• Given weight (ammo bins full) 100 tons.
  
• Carrying in hand weight is "10% of a mech's given weight"... so 10 tons.
  
  • Note: the Battletech Memorial gives the optional rule: 10% of a mech's given weight per hand, so 20 tons maximum lifting weight).
• Maximum possible weight under load: 110 or 120 tons.

Side note:
While prodding Juodas on an old comment about Battletech rules encompassing like...everything.. I made a jab about the rules having beast-mounted infantry straddling killer whales with torpedo tubes... in which he showed me this which made me realize the example listed for fliers... is a goofy name for what's effectively DRAGONS IN BATTLETECH!

Beware there be dragons eating your mechs!
And here I thought it was gonna be funny mounting infantry on Megasaurs (also given as an example of beast mounted infantry)


So...yeah. I'm gonna stop talking before I veer off into a whole different territory altogether.

Edited by Koniving, 11 March 2018 - 05:01 AM.

[Y E O N N E]

Koniving, on 10 March 2018 - 08:06 AM, said:

Thing is... it isn't really its carrying capacity... or its actual mass. It takes a bit of digging, but...

Like I said, I rewrite it in my head. It makes more sense that way than accepting that such light, mobile vehicles are technically capable of mounting and firing 8-inch guns without ill effect. And that's a burst of two 203 mm, IIRC, not a single round, so it's even more ridiculous.

BattleTech was made to be incredulous. Trying to rationalize those decisions is, frankly, folly unless you do some of your own work to change it.

[Koniving]

Yeonne Greene, on 10 March 2018 - 10:44 AM, said:

Like I said, I rewrite it in my head. It makes more sense that way than accepting that such light, mobile vehicles are technically capable of mounting and firing 8-inch guns without ill effect. And that's a burst of two 203 mm, IIRC, not a single round, so it's even more ridiculous.

BattleTech was made to be incredulous. Trying to rationalize those decisions is, frankly, folly unless you do some of your own work to change it.

I've never seen a 203mm cannon mounted on any of BT's vehicles.

[Koniving]

In fact I have only seen a single 203mm example, the Ebon Jaguar. I do know why it would be ridiculous though, given the 203mm in real life is an artillery cannon.

Even Reddit's big thing rubbing a 203mm cannon in my face pointing out a Yen Lo Wang as the carrier... well that's a Pontiac 100 (which someone else pointed out and quoted quite a large section in which Allard ejects 3 tons of ammunition, totaling some really specific number over 3,000 rounds, and calls the Pontiac 100 a 40mm gun when I tried to say mathematically it needed to be a 30mm... which means it needs at least 200 rounds to make 20 damage rather than the 100 rounds I put it at to fit with the rulebook fluff).

[Y E O N N E]

Koniving, on 10 March 2018 - 11:18 AM, said:

In fact I have only seen a single 203mm example, the Ebon Jaguar. I do know why it would be ridiculous though, given the 203mm in real life is an artillery cannon.

Even Reddit's big thing rubbing a 203mm cannon in my face pointing out a Yen Lo Wang as the carrier... well that's a Pontiac 100 (which someone else pointed out and quoted quite a large section in which Allard ejects 3 tons of ammunition, totaling some really specific number over 3,000 rounds, and calls the Pontiac 100 a 40mm gun when I tried to say mathematically it needed to be a 30mm... which means it needs at least 200 rounds to make 20 damage rather than the 100 rounds I put it at to fit with the rulebook fluff).

203 mm is 8 inches, and that's the size of smaller coastal batteries, each weighing in the 16-17 ton range.

But even still, it's not like firing ten 150 mm rounds from a single weapon in the span of ten seconds is any less ridiculous.

[Nightbird]

I'm willing to accept that in the future, materials for weapons are lighter, more heat resistant, and more durable than those available today. If a 10 ton weapon in 1000 years can do what a 16 ton weapon does today, at a higher rate of fire, I'm not that disturbed.

[Y E O N N E]

Nightbird, on 10 March 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

I'm willing to accept that in the future, materials for weapons are lighter, more heat resistant, and more durable than those available today. If a 10 ton weapon in 1000 years can do what a 16 ton weapon does today, at a higher rate of fire, I'm not that disturbed.

Nope.

Making everything lighter is actually the problem. The basic laws of motion and conservation of energy do not change just because you managed to shave weight and, in fact, the recoil problem only becomes worse.

And then there is simply the time it takes to get rounds from your magazine and into the weapon.