86 replies to this topic

[MechMaster059]

feeWAIVER, on 25 September 2023 - 05:49 PM, said:

...
You don't need to ankle bite assaults when you're a locust at 600m.
...

Why are you playing a Locust if you're trying to snipe with LPPCs at 600m? There are so many better mechs if that's your playstyle.

[feeWAIVER]

MechMaster059, on 26 September 2023 - 03:20 AM, said:

Why are you playing a Locust if you're trying to snipe with LPPCs at 600m? There are so many better mechs if that's your playstyle.

Because it's a tiny, fast, hard to hit target that's far away, who can quickly get back into cover and avoid incoming binary laser spam.

[MechMaster059]

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 04:47 AM, said:

Because it's a tiny, fast, hard to hit target that's far away, who can quickly get back into cover and avoid incoming binary laser spam.

Seems to me the CDA-3F is far superior if that's the playstyle you're going for:

A\6:2:]0|KgpT0|G@|G@|i^|i^qT0|G@|G@|i^|i^r00s00tT0|OG|OGuT0|OG|OGv50w303030

+1 LPPC, +4 heat sinks, +4 Jump Jets, -10% heat quirk, +10% range quirk

[Gasboy]

Battlemaster56, on 19 September 2023 - 03:55 PM, said:

Heavies and assaults mechs can easily go around this restriction as they usually have more than enough tonnage to put the minimum amount of heatsinks in, while lights that want that tonnage for more ammo or equipment is screwed being the tonnage starve machines they're are with mediums following up but it's not as bad.

Nope, if you're going to remove the restriction from light mechs, all mechs should have the restriction lifted.

[Battlemaster56]

Gasboy, on 26 September 2023 - 09:28 AM, said:

Nope, if you're going to remove the restriction from light mechs, all mechs should have the restriction lifted.

Why would heavies and assaults care about the minimum heatsink requirement when they can easily meet said requirements unlike mediums and mostly lights who already tonnage and slot starved, most my heavies and assaults that running smaller engines doesn't have trouble fitting the minimum requirement.

[Duke Falcon]

Battlemaster56, on 26 September 2023 - 09:43 AM, said:

Why would heavies and assaults care about the minimum heatsink requirement when they can easily meet said requirements unlike mediums and mostly lights who already tonnage and slot starved, most my heavies and assaults that running smaller engines doesn't have trouble fitting the minimum requirement.

Because something adapted from lore but something not.
Protomechs shouldn't need a minimum 10 heat-sinks and I doubt that Roughneck also fall under the minimum 10 'cause not real mech but altered industrial-mech (but not suffers because of that just like Corsair not suffers despite it's a frankenmech cobbled together with near incompatible components).
My concern is that "fixed" heatsinks of the engine is swap as easily as the others a mech carry. Shouldn't be that have some extra cost? I am a bit confused, sorry, have terrible headache thus not quite sure about my thoughts are true or missed them lore-wise badly... Could easily happen...

[feeWAIVER]

MechMaster059, on 26 September 2023 - 08:58 AM, said:

Seems to me the CDA-3F is far superior if that's the playstyle you're going for:

A\6:2:]0|KgpT0|G@|G@|i^|i^qT0|G@|G@|i^|i^r00s00tT0|OG|OGuT0|OG|OGv50w303030

+1 LPPC, +4 heat sinks, +4 Jump Jets, -10% heat quirk, +10% range quirk

Cicada is considerably bigger and slower.
Like I said before, 2 snubs and 2 er small the way to go with the 3F. It can get in and out pretty quickly, and has a punch that justifies the body size. The locust, being smaller, is about avoiding hits and wearing people down with lots of smaller hits.

I'm more confident fighting an assault with a Locust than a Cicada.. but a Cicada eats Locusts.

Edited by feeWAIVER, 26 September 2023 - 10:03 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Gasboy, on 26 September 2023 - 09:28 AM, said:

Nope, if you're going to remove the restriction from light mechs, all mechs should have the restriction lifted.

Of course any such removal would have to affect all weight classes, but just out of curiosity: Which particularr heavy or assault with which loadout do you have in mind when considering the idea of

• running it with a sub 250 engine with 9 or fewer internal heat sink to gain anything between 1 to 5 tons of more pod space
  
• accepting both the incurred speed limitations as well as the lower heat capabilities

?

[MechMaster059]

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 10:00 AM, said:

Cicada is considerably bigger and slower.
Like I said before, 2 snubs and 2 er small the way to go with the 3F. It can get in and out pretty quickly, and has a punch that justifies the body size. The locust, being smaller, is about avoiding hits and wearing people down with lots of smaller hits.

I'm more confident fighting an assault with a Locust than a Cicada.. but a Cicada eats Locusts.

So you can't admit you're wrong.

I know you're wrong because I can't remember the last time I saw a Locust mounting ANY LPPCs and I play this game regularly. Boating ER Mediums / Mediums / ER Small + Small Pulse is so far superior on the mech due to better heat management and more alpha with 5x Medium lasers that players almost never run LPPCs on them.

Edit:
I've never seen a build like this: A[192:F0|6d|F@pB0qB0|i^r<0|i^|G@s<0|i^|G@t@0u@0v50w202020

Nor even this: A[192:E0|8d|G@p@0q@0|i^r:0|i^|F@|F@s:0|i^|F@|F@t?0u?0v10w101010

LPPCs place too much of a heat/weight burden to be worth it compared to alternative build arrangements for the Locust.

Edited by MechMaster059, 26 September 2023 - 11:01 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

MechMaster059, on 26 September 2023 - 10:42 AM, said:

LPPCs place too much of a heat/weight burden to be worth it compared to alternative build arrangements for the Locust.

Let's just say that there certainly is one particular LCT-1V build that involves a LPPC in combination with 4 machine guns - although many seem to insist that a snub nose PPC is "far better".

[feeWAIVER]

MechMaster059, on 26 September 2023 - 10:42 AM, said:

So you can't admit you're wrong.

I know you're wrong because I can't remember the last time I saw a Locust mounting ANY LPPCs and I play this game regularly. Boating ER Mediums / Mediums / ER Small + Small Pulse is so far superior on the mech due to better heat management and more alpha with 5x Medium lasers that players almost never run LPPCs on them.

Edit:
I've never seen a build like this: A[192:F0|6d|F@pB0qB0|i^r&lt;0|i^|G@s&lt;0|i^|G@t@0u@0v50w202020

Nor even this: A[192:E0|8d|G@p@0q@0|i^r:0|i^|F@|F@s:0|i^|F@|F@t?0u?0v10w101010

LPPCs place too much of a heat/weight burden to be worth it compared to alternative build arrangements for the Locust.

This thread is about removing the heat sync minimums, which would free up 3 tons for a Locust and allow it to run 3 LPPC.
So no, I'm not wrong. If they do it, I'm running a 3 LPPC Locust 3M.

If you see me in game there's a 90% chance you'll see me running a snub locust 1V.

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 September 2023 - 11:12 AM, said:

Let's just say that there certainly is one particular LCT-1V build that involves a LPPC in combination with 4 machine guns - although many seem to insist that a snub nose PPC is &quot;far better&quot;.

It is.

[Der Geisterbaer]

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 11:17 AM, said:

If you see me in game there's a 90% chance you'll see me running a snub locust 1V.

Which would kind of "prove" his point that LPPC are not typically mounted on LCTs

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 11:17 AM, said:

It is.

And we still have to agree to disagree on that.

[feeWAIVER]

Der Geisterbaer, on 26 September 2023 - 11:25 AM, said:

Which would kind of &quot;prove&quot; his point that LPPC are not typically mounted on LCTs

Again, try to remember the topic of the thread and put the conversation into that context.

We're discussing a hypothetical removal of heat sink requirements, allowing the LCT 3M to run 3 LPPC

Do you know what hypothetical means? English, I'm guessing isn't your first language.

[MechMaster059]

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 11:17 AM, said:

This thread is about removing the heat sync minimums, which would free up 3 tons for a Locust and allow it to run 3 LPPC.
So no, I'm not wrong. If they do it, I'm running a 3 LPPC Locust 3M.

...

I didn't dispute that your build would be possible if the sink cap were lifted. I disputed that it's a "good" build which it's obivously NOT. So if the heat sink limit gets removed you go ahead and run that trash build and see where it gets you.

[LordNothing]

Gasboy, on 26 September 2023 - 09:28 AM, said:

Nope, if you're going to remove the restriction from light mechs, all mechs should have the restriction lifted.

engine weight redux is the better way to go, because it will help larger mechs too. say goodby to the useless xl/lfe 275 where the upgrade to 280 is free. but tweaking engines at the lower end of the rating spectrum is more viable as a result.

[feeWAIVER]

MechMaster059, on 26 September 2023 - 12:15 PM, said:

I didn't dispute that your build would be possible if the sink cap were lifted. I disputed that it's a &quot;good&quot; build which it's obivously NOT. So if the heat sink limit gets removed you go ahead and run that trash build and see where it gets you.

You mad?
It's not likely to happen anyways, this topic really isn't worth getting upset about.

[Der Geisterbaer]

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 11:49 AM, said:

Again, try to remember the topic of the thread and put the conversation into that context.

With regards to that particular matter your comment about you running a LCT-1V with a snub nose was actually entirely irrelevant. His position was that no one runs LPPCs now on LCTs (which you don't do while I am "no one" who does) and that even under the stipulated change your proposed build would be "bad". Your unrelated and useless response: I run a singular snub on this LCT variant.

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 11:49 AM, said:

We're discussing a hypothetical removal of heat sink requirements, allowing the LCT 3M to run 3 LPPC

For which you driving a LCT-1V with a singular snub is no relevant argument but part of a non-sequitur fallacy.

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 11:49 AM, said:

Do you know what hypothetical means?

I also happen to know and understand words like "argument", "relevance", "fallacy" (as well as the various forms in which they present) and many others. So ...

feeWAIVER, on 26 September 2023 - 11:49 AM, said:

English, I'm guessing isn't your first language.

while this "guess" as an answer to your own rethorical (but ultimately stupid) question is technically correct - since English is indeed only my second language - it's in reality one of those fallacies you like to commit: an ad hominem that also verges on a direct insult.

TL;DR: Don't worry about my language and argumentation skills as long as you're the one who lacks in either.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 27 September 2023 - 05:12 AM.

[feeWAIVER]

feeWAIVER, on 25 September 2023 - 05:49 PM, said:

I almost feel dumb arguing the hypothetical, but here goes:

I knew it was a mistake to engage on this topic.
Sorry I said anything.

[TheCaptainJZ]

I think we should keep the heatsink rule generally. It's pretty ingrained in the game design. What we can talk about is reducing tonnage in other ways, like lowering engine weights at the lower end.

[Curccu]

TheCaptainJZ, on 27 September 2023 - 08:21 AM, said:

I think we should keep the heatsink rule generally. It's pretty ingrained in the game design. What we can talk about is reducing tonnage in other ways, like lowering engine weights at the lower end.

That would benefit lights generally even more, but it is even less likely to happen than 10HS must rule going away.