950 replies to this topic

[Melcyna]

Interesting, so shave almost half the speed, 15% of the armor on arms, and some from legs and some from torso and you get 6% better heat eff??

okay, i stand corrected... you can have it working... though i am honestly flabbergasted that someone would shave that much speed and armor covering the only weapons it has (since it's literally completely disarmed without the arms) for 6% of heat eff...

I do however think i've seen Atlas moving that slowly before... so i cannot discredit it as someone have tried it and used it (his performance was a different story and fully deserves criticism).

Now show me the Stalker one...

I am very interested now to see what kind of price they pay for this odd Stalker with no endo and for what gain.

Edited by Melcyna, 15 May 2013 - 08:01 PM.

[Just wanna play]

Melcyna, on 15 May 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Interesting, so shave almost half the speed, 15% of the armor on arms, and some from legs and you get 6% better heat eff??

okay, i stand corrected... you can have it working... though i am honestly flabbergasted that someone would shave that much speed and armor covering the only weapons it has (since it's literally completely disarmed without the arms) for 6% of heat eff...

I do however think i've seen Atlas moving that slowly before... so i cannot discredit it as someone have tried it and used it (his performance was a different story and fully deserves criticism).

Now show me the Stalker one...

I am very interested now to see what kind of price they pay for this odd Stalker with no endo and for what gain.

that one may take a bit of searching to find.......... it mainly had lrm20s and various double heat sinks, hence why it didnt have room for endo

and heat eff is a relative term, with weapons as hot as ppcs that can be quite a difference, colder weapons would have a bigger shown difference in eff, hotter weapons see a smaller increase, but its actually quite an upgrade


with large pulses its a 10% heat eff differences, with regular large laserz its a 12% heat eff difference, see what i mean?

just to get the point across....

with all medium laserz its a 20% heat eff difference so you cant entirely use that stat to say its a small/big upgrade

Edited by Just wanna play, 15 May 2013 - 08:11 PM.

[Melcyna]

Except with medium lasers the weight tonnage means more weapons that are heat efficient on the other weapon slots in the first place... since most mechs don't have that many weapon mounts to begin with so since the ML is so light, the weight saving there surely goes somewhere else most likely on weapons... which means most of the weapons on the other mounts (ie: non energy mounts) are probably going to be the larger chunk of the effective damage dealer and the baseline of the mech build's role.

I do give it a point though that being able to fire a single ER PPC as fast as it can cycle is a good thing...

though unfortunately if something do get THAT CLOSE... i would be more concerned of the fact that this SHS no endo Atlas striped off a noticeable chunk of armors off it's arms and torso... so anything that gets that close to it, is going to disarm or kill that Atlas THAT much faster in exchange as well... and there's obviously no way that Atlas is going to move back to a teammate in time at that speed...

The other unfortunate price for having that weak of an engine and being that slow is that your ability to move and maneuver around bearing your weapons on something is partially dependent on your movement capability as well...

any fast mech literally will have no trouble keeping itself on the rear of this incredibly slow Atlas (even for Atlas standard) so while you may be able to fire an ER PPC every time it cycles... this Atlas... in all likelihood will have the most difficulty to bear it's weapon against the fast mech to begin with.

Edited by Melcyna, 15 May 2013 - 08:24 PM.

[Just wanna play]

Melcyna, on 15 May 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Except with medium lasers the weight tonnage means more weapons that are heat efficient on the other weapon slots in the first place... since most mechs don't have that many weapon mounts to begin with so since the ML is so light, the weight saving there surely goes somewhere else most likely on weapons... which means most of the weapons on the other mounts (ie: non energy mounts) are probably going to be the larger chunk of the effective damage dealer and the baseline of the mech build's role.

I do give it a point though that being able to fire a single ER PPC as fast as it can cycle is a good thing...

though unfortunately if something do get THAT CLOSE... i would be more concerned of the fact that this SHS no endo Atlas striped off a noticeable chunk of armors off it's arms and torso... so anything that gets that close to it, is going to disarm or kill that Atlas THAT much faster in exchange as well... and there's obviously no way that Atlas is going to move back to a teammate in time at that speed...

well you shouldn't exactly be disconnected from your group if your a gunner offering lots of heavy fire....

and its not a brawler so it shouldn't have 2 worry all that much about having to move fast to keep its aiming cursor on its target

Melcyna, on 15 May 2013 - 08:21 PM, said:

Except with medium lasers the weight tonnage means more weapons that are heat efficient on the other weapon slots in the first place... since most mechs don't have that many weapon mounts to begin with so since the ML is so light, the weight saving there surely goes somewhere else most likely on weapons... which means most of the weapons on the other mounts (ie: non energy mounts) are probably going to be the larger chunk of the effective damage dealer and the baseline of the mech build's role.

well this just reinforces my point that mine would have a greater then 6% heat eff difference with more heat eff , and more common, weapons on there, you just gave a reason as to why there would be cooler weapons on there and helps the fact that my type of layout would cool these weapons faster then yours, but it wouldn't necessarily be a trade off in armor and mobility for a small boost in cooling, just a trade off in how much there is to cool magnifying the better coolings effect

Edited by Just wanna play, 15 May 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Just wanna play]

lets take a look at a cheap upgrade from the stock rs
, more firepower then the stock version up close (think within 270m, although cant hit at the ranges of the lrm 15) runs twice as cool and is somewhat slower, and keep in mind you dont have to pay 1.5 mil for heat sinks that dont even keep it as cool, manly has less armor where it isn't needed as much

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...97ce2991a39f3f5

[Melcyna]

Actually read it carefully, since it's exactly the opposite

if the focus of the weapon on the mech is on the more heat efficient weapons (ie: non energy) then the Heat Sinks effect on them is equally less relevant since they need less heatsinks to cool effectively and the weight is the bigger concern...

the one part where the SHS and no endo do have an advantage of course is that they have lots of crit space so weapons that are not slot efficient benefit from it... what they lack is the actual tonnage to mount it.

Just wanna play, on 15 May 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

well you shouldn't exactly be disconnected from your group if your a gunner offering lots of heavy fire....

and its not a brawler so it shouldn't have 2 worry all that much about having to move fast to keep its aiming cursor on its target

2 problems there, 1 not being disconnected from the group... ie: within reasonable distance from them means being within the range of the firefight as well to which the armor shaved off becomes a concern

2. this assumes that the group moves as slow as you are... but most mechs in general even the assaults don't move that slow... though on the smaller maps i think it's within realm of possibility to get your idea to work.

It doesn't want to brawl? that's ok... but if the enemy brings the fight to it (and let's face it at that speed, it doesn't get to vote on fighting or not, if the enemy wants to fight you at close range... they will.) then the above problems affects it as well.

[Just wanna play]

or with 2 srm 6s
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b766c86b2093d21

said its not intended to brawl, its not that it doesn't want to it just doesn't really have to go rushing in to be effective

your really saying "the weapons dont NEED more heat sinks to be cooled by because they run cooler already, so i can put the tonnage else where" thats more of a personal decision, and if you put lots on the mech even if each weapon is relatively cool, more heat sinks never hurt any1

[Melcyna]

That's true, can't argue with that... and solid close range designs for Atlas incidentally... though the trouble now of course is how this Atlas is going to get to that range intact... before it takes sizable damage.

at least with the last 2 designs though i can see how it works once it gets into that range, since even with arms gone it can still fight so even with less armor there i don't feel as alarmed

though since it was based on the modification of the original design, i guess that's expected since it's essentially an improvement of the original intention.

Edited by Melcyna, 15 May 2013 - 09:01 PM.

[Just wanna play]

Melcyna, on 15 May 2013 - 09:00 PM, said:

That's true, can't argue with that... and solid close range designs for Atlas incidentally... though the trouble now of course is how this Atlas is going to get to that range intact... before it takes sizable damage.

at least with the last 2 designs though i can see how it works once it gets into that range, since even with arms gone it can still fight so even with less armor there i don't feel as alarmed

though since it was based on the modification of the original design, i guess that's expected since it's essentially an improvement of the original intention.

yep of course i think once you have 35 sd heat sinks your probably better off with doubles so hard to say how far off the originial design you can go before stds just arent viable anymore unless your poor

[Spirit of the Wolf]

In 3050, forum topics won't stay on topic anymore!

[Just wanna play]

Spirit of the Wolf, on 20 May 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

In 3050, forum topics won't stay on topic anymore!

Yep! wait, when did they????

[Melcyna]

Just for him then, reiterating what's stated before but probably will not be noticed since they are buried inside the text:

Large group of missiles flying in ultra tight cluster (what's air collision???)

AMS that fires solid slugs (or flechettes as in the case of the clan) instead of the more logical proximity fuzed airburst (flak), or continuous rod warhead, since their missiles for some reason are fired in tight cluster salvo.

And of course, funny weapons and armor that don't behave with any basic ballistic property design.

Ablating against laser is one thing after all, but ablating against kinetic projectiles? Now that's amusing... especially when it has no thickness to back it up. Equally amusing of course is the kinetic projectiles having no basic ballistic design to maximize it's kinetic energy transfer on impact or conserving it's kinetic energy while on transit... gauss rifle 'slug' being the worst offender.

ed:
Incidentally, the last update buffed MG MASSIVELY..

Spoiler

how massive is massive? double dps, 30% extra range kind of massive... i withhold judgement for now on whether this improved MG now finally have some actual use worth a damn of their weight since i haven't used the improved MG enough to warrant opinion, but that kinda gives an idea of how UTTERLY useless they were before.

And for the love of god, FINALLY we have an ECCM that doesn't REQUIRE ECM, ie: BAP... perhaps there is sanity in PGI dev after all that their previous state of ECM were bonkers.

and amusingly enough, they buffed AMS as well substantially 75% effectiveness increase to be exact, slightly mitigated by the buff LRM gets as well which improved their speed by 20%, but still... that's a massive buff even at 55%, now it might actually be effective compared to it's previous 5LRM worth.

So, almost all the ineffective equipment and weapon gets buffed... almost... now i am just wondering if the improved version is actually any good now.

Edited by Melcyna, 21 May 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[Oblong Bob]

Hmm... I might have missed this if it's already popped up, but I have a theory...

What if the "max tonnage" completely excludes the Mech's base structural weight? Realistically, an Atlas would weigh in at many many many...

(some time later)

...many many tons, and yet the maximum weight is strictly 100 tons? Far more likely that the Mech's core materials and equipment is already spoken for and the described tonnage applies only to the combat and motor systems (i.e. weapons and engine).

So when you strip a 'Mech of its heat sinks, engine, armour, weapons, etc... that's not the thing's TOTAL weight, rather it's the Mech's weight minus its structure and reactor.

Just a thought... I hope it makes sense to someone else too.

[Sug]

What the hell happened to the facts?

[Skylarr]

OOWWW NNNOOO! I was hoping this thread was dead. Now it is back.

[Melcyna]

Oblong Bob, on 21 June 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Hmm... I might have missed this if it's already popped up, but I have a theory...

What if the "max tonnage" completely excludes the Mech's base structural weight? Realistically, an Atlas would weigh in at many many many...

(some time later)

...many many tons, and yet the maximum weight is strictly 100 tons? Far more likely that the Mech's core materials and equipment is already spoken for and the described tonnage applies only to the combat and motor systems (i.e. weapons and engine).

So when you strip a 'Mech of its heat sinks, engine, armour, weapons, etc... that's not the thing's TOTAL weight, rather it's the Mech's weight minus its structure and reactor.

Just a thought... I hope it makes sense to someone else too.

Unfortunately, nope.. as absurd as it is... 100ton Atlas?

they mean it... that Atlas somehow weighed 100ton... everything included.

There's an information list of the mech's internal parts weight etc...
And this is also why when you strip down the mech off it's engine, heatsink, weapon, armor, etc.... that one can do in mechlab, it does not come to zero after you take everything you can short of servo, myomer, and internal skeleton.

it's BT...

don't think too deep about it... they uhhh... well... weren't thinking that hard either when they came up with it in terms of these kinds of details back then (it's soft sci fi, so i guess they deserve a bit more leniency).

[Just wanna play]

Melcyna, on 23 June 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

Unfortunately, nope.. as absurd as it is... 100ton Atlas?

they mean it... that Atlas somehow weighed 100ton... everything included.

There's an information list of the mech's internal parts weight etc...
And this is also why when you strip down the mech off it's engine, heatsink, weapon, armor, etc.... that one can do in mechlab, it does not come to zero after you take everything you can short of servo, myomer, and internal skeleton.

it's BT...

don't think too deep about it... they uhhh... well... weren't thinking that hard either when they came up with it in terms of these kinds of details back then (it's soft sci fi, so i guess they deserve a bit more leniency).

WAIT WAIT WAIT, now i have a theory, what if... the planet the designers where on when they determined its weight had LESS GRAVITY then earth???? so on earth it really would have been a lot more then 100 tons, but not on their planet (perhaps they didn't have a scale that could take its full weight on a planet with as much gravity as earth so they went to low a gravity planet so their scale could support the mechs)?

Skylarr, on 22 June 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

OOWWW NNNOOO! I was hoping this thread was dead. Now it is back.

lol i hoped so to of course theres always the one guy that has to think about it to much and kill the fun instead of just going along with the joke...

[Just wanna play]

Sug, on 21 June 2013 - 09:26 PM, said:

What the hell happened to the facts?

the makers of battle tech where watching and removed the facts so we couldn't know the truth they must be north korean.......

[Melcyna]

Just wanna play, on 27 June 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

WAIT WAIT WAIT, now i have a theory, what if... the planet the designers where on when they determined its weight had LESS GRAVITY then earth???? so on earth it really would have been a lot more then 100 tons, but not on their planet (perhaps they didn't have a scale that could take its full weight on a planet with as much gravity as earth so they went to low a gravity planet so their scale could support the mechs)?

weight = mass x gravity constant

the mass never changes, but the weight can indeed depending on the gravity constant affecting the mass like on a low gravity planet. In such cases however the sensible thing is to express the weight in newton, as it is simple common sense that if the gravity constant is not earth based that the weight value expressed in mass unit like kg etc becomes incorrect.

alternatively is to state the gravity constant at measurement or the gravity multiplier... basic stuff.

These incidentally for the purpose of Battletech should've been measured and defined accurately without fail as the mass of the battlemechs MUST be known for them to gauge how much a dropship can carry, how much thrust a dropship needs to both liftoff and to decelerate on a landing. Similarly the gravity constant of any planet they approach MUST be known accurately as well.

Failure to do so leads to obvious problem if not potential crash, so unfortunately BT is NOT excused here should their battletech mass or weight (whichever they are referring here though mass is the logical choice technically, but weight is more likely since BT is not made by ppl with science conscious mind) are not accurately measured and defined.

Or to put it another way, they can't use the excuse of 'it's on a lighter gravity planet'...

The problem basically stems from the fact that ppl (who fell asleep in their physics class) generally mix both mass and weight together... as far as the Battletech is concerned though since they are supposedly traveling across the galaxy, the mass is the more relevant unit, not the weight.

Edited by Melcyna, 29 June 2013 - 07:16 PM.

[Stalephreak]

Melcyna, on 29 June 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

weight = mass x gravity constant

the mass never changes, but the weight can indeed depending on the gravity constant affecting the mass like on a low gravity planet. In such cases however the sensible thing is to express the weight in newton, as it is simple common sense that if the gravity constant is not earth based that the weight value expressed in mass unit like kg etc becomes incorrect.

alternatively is to state the gravity constant at measurement or the gravity multiplier... basic stuff.

These incidentally for the purpose of Battletech should've been measured and defined accurately without fail as the mass of the battlemechs MUST be known for them to gauge how much a dropship can carry, how much thrust a dropship needs to both liftoff and to decelerate on a landing. Similarly the gravity constant of any planet they approach MUST be known accurately as well.

Failure to do so leads to obvious problem if not potential crash, so unfortunately BT is NOT excused here should their battletech mass or weight (whichever they are referring here though mass is the logical choice technically, but weight is more likely since BT is not made by ppl with science conscious mind) are not accurately measured and defined.

Or to put it another way, they can't use the excuse of 'it's on a lighter gravity planet'...

The problem basically stems from the fact that ppl (who fell asleep in their physics class) generally mix both mass and weight together... as far as the Battletech is concerned though since they are supposedly traveling across the galaxy, the mass is the more relevant unit, not the weight.

I never did like having to use the identity property when writing proofs. Maybe that's why I tend to ignore the C in the weight = m x C formula.