23 replies to this topic

[Inatu Elimor]

This locust is annoyingly forced to carry 4 heatsinks. Why?? It makes the mech mediocre at best.

[Luminis]

Battle Tech construction rules. Running less than 10 Heatsinks is invalid.

[Nema Nabojiv]

Then the rules has to be changed for that one particular mech. It could be fun HMG boat without heatsinks.

And there is already Urbie stock engine defying the laws physics which are kinda more fundamental thing than the BT rules.

[El Bandito]

PGI is too afraid of straying far from the TT rules, which is unfortunate. There are many good ways to balance the game, if TT core rule is ignored.

[Nema Nabojiv]

I still think MW4 mechlab was the best one in the entire history of videogame BT. And it gave zero fuск to BT rules.

Edited by Nema Nabojiv, 22 April 2018 - 02:39 AM.

[Bud Crue]

El Bandito, on 22 April 2018 - 02:33 AM, said:

PGI is too afraid of straying far from the TT rules, which is unfortunate. There are many good ways to balance the game, if TT core rule is ignored.

I always wonder...
If it is okay to dink with TT values of the weapons, to abstractly double TT armor values and then keep messing with them over time, to ignore the random nature of TT weapons aiming, to give some mechs special bonuses and take away from others, to make all sorts of obvious changes that a FPS needs to make vs a turn based TT game, etc. etc. why not make others that would be a clear benefit?

If all those totally clear deviations from TT "rules" are acceptable, why not make some other changes that might also diverge a bit, especially if they make sense and would provide this here FPS stompy robot shooter with more balanced and enjoyable play? PGI tosses out the TT rules with damn near every monthly balance pass. Letting a Locust 1V get away with 1 less heat sink than the TT rules would allow, or letting a Cataphract 4X have a bigger engine limit, or whatever, is not going to harm ANYTHING, any more than giving an Atlas bonus armor or structure that the TT game fails to provide does.

This slavish dedication to maintaining some TT rules while clearly chucking others (are the TT weapons values just guidelines? Is giving your mech magical bonus armor within the TT rules?) drives me nuts especially when a variation to those rules would be a clear benefit. Now excuse me while I go look up ghost heat in my old Battletech manuals and figure out why my 10 second turn just doesn't seem to be working right in my 30 second long Solaris matches. Something is fishy here rule wise.

Edited by Bud Crue, 22 April 2018 - 02:54 AM.

[Alexander of Macedon]

The main problem is that PGI is clinging to some aspects of TT rules to try to keep the old hands around without really understanding why they existed, and meanwhile happily ignoring other pieces to nerf things.

Look at HBS with Weisman at the helm: they're ignoring as much as necessary to make their game fun and balanced. The HBS AC damage scale has AC/2s doing the equivalent of 5 damage because that was what was necessary to bring them up to par.

The 1V was fine in MWO until PGI nerfed its primary quirk and nerfed the LPLas into the ground.

[El Bandito]

Alexander of Macedon, on 22 April 2018 - 03:43 AM, said:

The 1V was fine in MWO until PGI nerfed its primary quirk and nerfed the LPLas into the ground.

If IS MGs were any good then 1V might have been more useful as well.

[Alexander of Macedon]

El Bandito, on 22 April 2018 - 04:01 AM, said:

If IS MGs were any good then 1V might have been more useful as well.

Honestly I've never seen why someone would run it with MGs when the SDR-5K exists. You get the same exact thing except with JJs.

These days the 1V is probably best off running with a SNPPC and fourth external heatsink.

[Signal27]

Alexander of Macedon, on 22 April 2018 - 03:43 AM, said:

Look at HBS with Weisman at the helm: they're ignoring as much as necessary to make their game fun and balanced.

If there is such a thing as old BattleTech fans who are slavishly devoted to the old rules, they really ought to sit up and take notice of the very guy (Jordan Weisman) who literally wrote all those rules all those years ago, and how even he is chucking them all out the window to keep pace with how game design has evolved over the past 30 years. Especially when it comes to translating a game from one medium over to another.

[DrxAbstract]

Inatu Elimor, on 22 April 2018 - 01:46 AM, said:

This locust is annoyingly forced to carry 4 heatsinks. Why?? It makes the mech mediocre at best.

*3 Heatsinks... Yes, it's stupid. Yes, they 'fix' it rather than adding an extra dissipation quirk.

Light Mechs break the game both mechanically and fundamentally because PGI has to somehow make them relevant in a big-mech world, and hasn't succeeded in doing so to date outside of a handful of short-lived instances. Can't say as I blame PGI... Not entirely, anyway--Toying with that kind of power is extremely hazardous and difficult to get right. That doesn't excuse the blatant dereliction the Light class has been subjected to from the onset of Open Beta. Insufficiency and mediocrity is the rule for Lights in MWO and will continue to be as the less-than-capable players' heads would explode if they ever had to deal with Lights being fully capable in combat.

[Appogee]

Nema Nabojiv, on 22 April 2018 - 02:20 AM, said:

Then the rules has to be changed for that one particular mech. It could be fun HMG boat without heatsinks.

Here, folks, we see the legendary 'slippery slope' in full effect.

[JediPanther]

lct-1v is the worst and I know. I got all seven. Technically there are eight if you count the champion (c) one. The worst thing about the 20 ton mechs is the forced heat sinks since at max the 190 only has seven forcing you to use three precious tons for those external heat sinks. In total the lcts have at best an entire seven tons for all weapons,ammo,heat sinks,bap,targeting computers etc.

The two best ways I've found to play the lcts is to go either at-range with lasers using optimal range stacking fire power for extra range or go full on knife fighter dps focusing on max mobility and cool down for dps. Out of all the lcts' the PB hero and 1E are the best. PB gives you ecm option and many use stealth with it. I don't since stealth just builds up your heat so the PB is my Ranger lct while the 1E I have set up as Knife dps build.

The others I used as test beds when skill tree came out so they have their own niche roles such as lrm5 spamer,dedicated sensor and bap scout, srm2 jihade jeep, five ml mini-jenner and one as an lmg spl vulture.

1V you can do ok with lmgs and spl as a vulture protecting the slows from enemy lights and looking for open armor. If you have really good aim and low ping it can make a great snub or ppc sniper as long as you put the five points for adv zoom. lpl or er ll if you suck with ppcs. Really you are far better off with any of the other six lcts than 1v. Even the spider 5k would make a better choice with the exact same load out but with the higher engine cap and 15 tons more weight for stuff.

Same build but better on spider:
LCT-1V lmgs
SDR-5K lmgs

[El Bandito]

Alexander of Macedon, on 22 April 2018 - 04:18 AM, said:

Honestly I've never seen why someone would run it with MGs when the SDR-5K exists. You get the same exact thing except with JJs.

Yeah, but you free up 10 tons in FP and GQ, if you use the Locust.

[Mystere]

Alexander of Macedon, on 22 April 2018 - 03:43 AM, said:

The main problem is that PGI is clinging to some aspects of TT rules to try to keep the old hands around without really understanding why they existed, and meanwhile happily ignoring other pieces to nerf things.

I'm not a great fan of PGI but on this point I'm going to have to disagree.

Alexander of Macedon, on 22 April 2018 - 03:43 AM, said:

Look at HBS with Weisman at the helm: they're ignoring as much as necessary to make their game fun and balanced. The HBS AC damage scale has AC/2s doing the equivalent of 5 damage because that was what was necessary to bring them up to par.

Did HBS throw away the BT construction rules to build their game?

[Alexander of Macedon]

Mystere, on 22 April 2018 - 06:05 AM, said:

Did HBS throw away the BT construction rules to build their game?

They pretty heavily altered a lot. CT and legs have four critical slots, which makes things like dual LLas CT possible. From the looks of things ammo explosions have been altered to function as if all 'mechs have CASE, which makes ST ammo bins much safer. Weapon damage has been altered, in some cases radically: AC/2s do the equivalent of 5 damage, with less dramatic increases to AC/5s and AC/10s. All 'mechs can use JJs. No engine swapping whatsoever is allowed. MGs, Flamers, and SLas have been separated out into their own hardpoint group. Hell, 'mechs have hardpoints.

So yeah. There are a lot of changes which pretty seriously change how you want to build your 'mechs.

e: In a topical example, you could build a LCT-1V with a CT MLas and SLas in the arms.

Edited by Alexander of Macedon, 22 April 2018 - 06:38 AM.

[Spheroid]

Nema Nabojiv, on 22 April 2018 - 02:39 AM, said:

I still think MW4 mechlab was the best one in the entire history of videogame BT. And it gave zero fuск to BT rules.

The MW4 mechlab was for simpletons. Weapon placement without regards to slots is moronic. Look at our system. Complexity makes for good gameplay. Crit padding, ammo placement and shielding potential are all important gameplay elements lacking in MW4.

MW4 was easily the worst in the series. It pissed on lore and was visually worse than MW3. Activision and Microprose were both better stewards of the IP. Also lasers were instant frontloaded pinpoint damage which is a horrible gameplay mechanic. Even the unrealistic projectile energy weapons of years past were better in this regard as they allowed evasion and damage mitigation.

MechWarrior 4 was so successful they(Microsoft) did nothing with the franchise for over ten years. What a triumph.

Edited by Spheroid, 22 April 2018 - 08:06 AM.

[FupDup]

I don't mind the 10-heatsink rule so much as the sub-250 engines not having all 10 sinks inside them. I'd like to change the Engines.XML file such that all engines got 10 by default, and then adjust engine tonnage accordingly (currently external heatsink weight is subtracted from engine weight).

Spheroid, on 22 April 2018 - 07:52 AM, said:

MW4 was easily the worst in the series. It pissed on lore and was visually worse than MW3. Activision and Microprose were both better stewards of the IP. Also lasers were instant frontloaded pinpoint damage which is a horrible gameplay mechanic. Even the unrealistic projectile energy weapons of years past were better in this regard as they allowed evasion and damage mitigation.

MechWarrior 4 was so successful they(Microsoft) did nothing with the franchise for over ten years. What a triumph.

Lasers were hitscan PPFLD in MW3.

Also, wasn't it Mechassault that "killed" the franchise for those long years?

[Nema Nabojiv]

Spheroid, on 22 April 2018 - 07:52 AM, said:

The MW4 mechlab was for simpletons. Weapon placement without regards to slots is moronic. Look at our system. Complexity makes for good gameplay. Crit padding, ammo placement and shielding potential are all important gameplay elements lacking in MW4.

It did not allow you equip weapons that were not supposed to be equipped on a certain chassis. That's good enough for me.

[Akillius]

All heat sinks have always taken up critical spaces, but for many years the first 10 had 0 weight.

1984 Battledroids (no locust in game yet btw)
Advanced Battledroids rules indicates all engines contain 10 heatsinks therefore weigh 0 tons.
Expert Battledroids rules also indicates first 10 heatsinks weigh 0 tons.
But every extra heat sink afterwards weighs 1 ton, and it does not mention critical spaces being used.
However all example sheets show all 10 heat sinks in 10 critical slots placed anywhere in mech.
- ie. page 13 Crusader has 5 heat sinks in RT and 5 in LT.
- ie. page 25 Merlin has 18 heat sinks, only 8 in torso's, rest in head/arms/legs.

1985 BattleTech 2nd Edition included LCT-1V Locust
* No longer have a copy but its basically Battledroids with few changes.

1986 TRO 3025 has the Locust LCT-1V page 9:
* 20 ton, internal structure 2 tons, Gyro 2 tons, Cockpit 3 tons, Armor 4 tons
* 1x Med Laser 1 ton, 2x MG 0.5 ton/each, MG Ammo(200) 1 ton
* 160 std engine 6 tons, 10x Heat Sinks 0 tons, and no specific crits slots allocated.

1989 TRO 2750 has all mechs with 10 built in double heat sinks.
- ie. page 16 Mercury 20 tons 10x Heat Sinks 0 tons, and no specific crits slots allocated.

1990 TRO 3050 has all mechs with 10 built in double heat sinks
- ie. page 12 Dasher 20 tons 10x Heat Sinks 0 tons But all 10 heat sinks are in crits RT/LT
This is when arguments for all engine heat sinks must be in RT/LT in attempts to starve clan mechs for crit spaces (imo).

1992 the BattleTech 3rd Edition page 43
* "Every BattleMech comes with ten heat sinks that do not count against total tonnage."
* "engine rating divided by 25 (rounding down). These heat sinks are assumed to be an integral part of the engine"
- ie. 210-rated engine "Eight heat sinks (210/25) do not have to be allocated" [crit slots]

I've no books between 1990 and 1992 but suspect 3rd Ed. gave heat sinks changes that's used today.