7 replies to this topic

[ScrapIron Prime]

Watching Baradul play through the new DLC, and I noticed something that I'd not noticed in my first playthrough of the game last year, making me wonder if the DLC changed it. heat sinks.

The mech lab in MW5 is true to tabletop battletech in that all engines come with 10 heat sinks. In the case of a Locust with a 160 rated engine, that means 6 internal and 4 externally mounted at no weight (their weight is included in the engine). Only... Baradul stripped those weightless heat sinks for 1 ton each to upgrade the mech, making the Locust effectively a 23 ton mech with only 7 total heat sinks.

You're not allowed to do that in tabletop, and you're not allowed to do that in MWO (which is why we have the clunky engine weight and heat sink warning system that we do).

So since both games are PGI... what's going on? The mech labs in the two games just have fundamentally different rules? They assumed that since you cannot change the engine in MW5 that nobody would mind?

Can of worms opened.

[Thorqemada]

I think that was bcs of public (aka Vocal Players) demand that these Heatsinks should be replaceable...

[ScrapIron Prime]

SomersetStriker, on 27 May 2021 - 07:27 AM, said:

I don't care. Why not just play the game and have fun? lol.

That IS the goal, of course! But for those of us who have been Battletech players since the 80's or 90's, seeing one software company give two different treatments to mech construction in two different games is an eyebrow raiser to say the least.

When hardpoints and hardpoint sizes got introduced, us tabletop folks were like... well, that's game balance, every game is doing it, so that's the way it is. Now we have one game (two if you count HBS Battletech) sticking to the original "thou must have at least 10 heat sinks" of the tabletop game, and another game (by the same set of developers as one of the other games, no less) saying "less than 10 is fine, enjoy the extra tonnage." Hence my can of worms analogy.

its not the fact that its a change to tabletop, its the fact that its not consistent between titles. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[ScrapIron Prime]

A system that is built on rules...

[LordNothing]

i think id have preferred mwo build rules over what we got. feel like the games ought to swap mechlabs. if there is a place for stupid op builds its in an sp game.

also mw2/mw3 build rules would have also been better. mw2 at least supported crit splitting.

keep in mind traditionally i played mechwarrior games more in the mechlab than in game. so a solid and versatile mechlab is critical to a proper mechwarrior experience.

Edited by LordNothing, 27 May 2021 - 06:27 PM.

[Wildstreak]

You would think it would be a big deal but look at how many other issues MW5 should bring up that are ignored by the MWO community.

- Destructible buildings.
- Options for PPFLD or Burst Fire ACs.
- Two options for IS LRMs.
- Two fire options for LBX.
- Differences in weapon stats, small but interesting.
- ECM and counter ECM.
- effect on HUD when shooting PPCs.

Not a peep out of any MWO player.
That's telling and not in a good way.