I see the Thor Prime got an LBX20, discretion and primes.

[xInVicTuSx]

Tried it out, good call I say.

But it got me thinking, where do you draw the line on beefing up or just overall changing around primes?
Why was there a powerful enough consensus to warrant the LBX20 buff to the thor prime when it was clear it was meant to be an LBX10?
I could've lived with LBX10, but honestly 20 makes it more useful and see more action.
Yet at the same time there is a "don't fapp with the primes" attitude that swells up in many when you start thinking about changing around the primes too much.

There seem to be primes that have been upgraded and ones that haven't. But which is the right direction? Sticking to the primes or upgrading them?

Would it be better to force the LBX10 to be "useful" almost to the point of perhaps better than it was meant to be, or rather just upgrade the weapon instead, like what was done with the Thor?

Take the Bushwhacker Prime for example. Should the LRM5s and UAC10 get pimped out? Or rather should those weapons look to be replaced?
How sacrilegious would that be? Yet let us not pretend it has not already been upgraded, the bushwacker started out with an AC10 and LBL, now its ER and UAC.

Yet then there are cases like the Thanatos Prime. The weapons all feel like they work like they should, but the Prime is not more than the sum of its parts. It has the feeling of being undergunned much like the Thor felt undergunned with the LBX10. Should it get an upgrade to a weapon or an added pulse laser or some such?

It is my understanding that build rules are evolving as the mod marches toward 1.0, so let us not get TOO caught up on what would be "overweight".
Rather, I would like to discuss what direction perhaps should be taken.

[~SJ~ Xarg Talasko]

Well the canon Madcat prime only has 1 MPL, and people have observed it has heat issues, swapping that extra MPL for 1 more DHS would make it 100% canon and ease its heat issues.

[xInVicTuSx]

Good point, but I wonder if leaving pods "empty" is allowed in the build rules? I have the same feeling about the Thanatos C, but I'm not sure you can just "remove things" and not replace them with something.

[Toth]

You can but its awkward. What do you do with the pod? Does it just not appear on the model. What if its an arm? Do you remove the arm?  This is just one small aspect of why creating mech lab is a pain in the ass.

[Az]

I wouldn't call the Thor Prime "overweight", it's in fact very close to CBT "correctness". If we remove all ammo and 1 DHS, we gain 4 tons. Replacing the LB-X/10 by a 20 costs us 2 tons (and it does fit). That leaves us with 2 free tons, just like in MWLL.

So the only bent rule is the "preloading" of ammunitions-based weapons. It's something I agree with, because in MWLL enemies respawn and ammo dependency is a big drawback. Nevertheless, the freed tons can add up fast and substantially alter designs. Here it's only two tons and it already upgrades a LBX10 to a LBX20.

Good point, but I wonder if leaving pods "empty" is allowed in the build rules? I have the same feeling about the Thanatos C, but I'm not sure you can just "remove things" and not replace them with something.

I found an answer in one of your own threads

The H.Gauss is mounted to the Right Arm for that variant of the Atlas.
 
Depending on the programmatic slot type parameters, some missile bays may require a weapon assignment, whereas others allow it to be optional.  An example of this is the Cougar B, which has "empty" missile hardpoints.
 
For some variants, it would look fairly unbalanced/silly to have slots allowed to be empty.  What would a Madcat look like without weapons mounted on its arms?  These are considerations that we are including in the development of our build rules and subsequent MechLab implementation.

[Arghy]

Forcing people to equip something in every slot would also make people not boat since they'd be required to spend points on small lasers/SRM2's at the very least. I love the madcat prime because its extremely versatile and engages at all ranges so forcing people to put something in the slot would encourage more tactical play instead of boating.

Leaving pods open for variants is fine but mechlab should require something in them--maybe some sort of 'ammo' pod for ballistic weapons so instead of getting 2 MG's for the uziel you could get 2 ballistic ammo pods.

[=CJW=YalK]

Who needs a mech lab? Only reason to have one is to cheese create a variant that the game doesn't have....by the time the game gets to the point of implementing a mechlab we will have, how many variants of each chassis? More than sarna probably says there are....so 10 or so lol

Mech lab is just a way to bastardize the soul of a mech to whatever you want....find a mech that fits you instead of forcing a mech to fit you...

Just keep the Var and chassis' coming and we won't need a mechlab my two cents

[xInVicTuSx]

@Az; again, weight computations are in such flux and ignorance(on the part of non devs) that arguing over weight is really not what I'm trying to do here.
It is a more complex issue on IS mechs than Clan mechs I suppose because clan mechs are basically assumed to have DHS. But this is not the case and is a very contentious issue on the IS side. For instance, the Thanatos Prime has 10 HS, the CBT has 6 DHS. It is not really possible to build the Thanatos prime as it is in MWLL. But let us look at it from a different perspective; 10 HS do not deal with as much heat as 6 DHS, which are four tons less. So what if we had 5 DHS instead? Certainly it would make the Thanatos more expensive, but would also free up 5 whole tons. What then could we do with it?

The question is what makes a good mech in MWLL? And if it isn't a good mech, why? Is it the mech or the weapons fault? I go back to the Bushwacker Prime as an example, and still hold to the Thor prime, it doesn't matter that you can tweak and torture mechs with the build rules in CBT, what does matter is that LBX10 was considered not good enough and thus was changed. Is this a general trend to keep going onto other mechs? Is it fair? Is it a bad idea? Or is it as simple as politics, do we really care if the Thanatos Prime is a rape machine as long as the Iconic Summoner is? 

@YalK; My question to you is, if people largely consider a variant "useless" or "underpowered" is it ok for the devs to minmax and torture the chassis until it is considered good enough? A process which would happen in mechlab, but you would rather have the devs do? But to the same end?

Oh and THIS ISNT A MECHLAB THREAD. What I am getting at is where are we going with certain variants, and how will it change the way mechs are used in the MONTHS between now and when mechlab will be released.
THIS IS WHAT I AM ULTIMATELY CONCERNED WITH IN THE BETA PROCESS, NOT ARGUMENTS ON MECHLAB FROM PRINCIPLE.

[Frostiken]

It needs the LB-20X to be competitive with the other versions - though I still say the LB-10X itself should be improved.

However I'm sympathetic to the desire to have 'original' primes all around, regardless. To that end, the Summoner Prime with the LB-10X could actually work fine, if you heavily discounted it. This goes back to my 'boat tax' idea and making 'less efficient' mechs cheaper and available earlier.

[Nitro_R]

LBX10 Refire Rate should be improved.

And the best idea is the Boat Tax.

[=CJW=YalK]

Easy there big guy, it's ok...

[(TLL)TheLastSnowman]

I see what your saying invictus. Personally i think game play should take precedence over sticking to the primes and how weapons "should" work and what not. I think that one way of approaching it is like Frost said with them being cheaper but I'm not sure that is the right way to go either. Look at the warhammer with the two ac10s and mrms. It's one of the cheapest heavies and yet I almost never see it. I know personally when I used it it felt under powered in the sense that I could have a medium with maybe a little less firepower but a lot more mobility. I'm not saying lets just change everything around for the sake of game play  because then you no longer have mechwarrior but something else entirely. Balance is needed. So to answer your question I think the devs shouldn't be afraid to change up the primes a bit if it helps the game but not to the point that it no longer resembles the CBT prime. Example: I think the Thor situation you highlighted was a good change that still keeps it very similar and plausible in relation to the CBT prime, but at the same time has made it a much more viable asset.

[xInVicTuSx]

It needs the LB-20X to be competitive with the other versions - though I still say the LB-10X itself should be improved.

However I'm sympathetic to the desire to have 'original' primes all around, regardless. To that end, the Summoner Prime with the LB-10X could actually work fine, if you heavily discounted it. This goes back to my 'boat tax' idea and making 'less efficient' mechs cheaper and available earlier.

How does a "Boat" tax have anything to do with efficiency? A LBX20 on a Thor is going to be more expensive de facto than a LBX10 Thor, no taxes required.
Further, this has nothing to do with boating, if they had replaced it with say, two more ERPPCs or some shit, that would be boating.

I keep hearing (LBX10 should be improved) no doubt, but to what degree? Should an LBX10 working "properly" have only the discount of a cheaper weapon over the LBX20 Thor if it is of "equal value on the battlefield if able to be used correctly"? Is it only theoretical that a "satisfactory" LBX10 would automatically be less of a force than a LBX20 Thor at the cost of heatsinks? Or is that just fact? 10s will always suck just like 5s, because we generally cant keep our enemy at a distance long enough to wear him down and all fights will just boil down to knife fights. Which is basically what we've just said with the Thor here.

In some cases there might be a stubborn adherence to prime rules, then suddenly in other cases those rules are completely thrown out the window because the prime was termed "undergunned."

I said the Thor was a good call because it makes the Thor more "useful" but am also disturbed that it was resorted to. In a way I see it as a step backward in the larger scheme of things. As some have pointed out, price taxes alone aren't really gonna help in the end. Pimped out medium? Or shitty heavy? About the same price, which are you gonna take?

I suppose though that the Thor was given the green light on LBX20 to make it unique in relation to the Loki and Madcat, which just had their assault pods removed but have more weapons overall.

[Frostiken]

The boat tax idea was in some god damn thread- basically every weapon has a list of values relative to every other weapon. The more 'useful' the weapon is in regards to heat, ideal range, precision, rate of fire, etc, to another weapon, the higher the 'boat value' is. So since an LB-10X alongside an LB-20X is far more boaty than an AC-10 alongside an LB-20X, it would infer a higher value. Weapons that are extremely dissimilar have negative values. You sum up all these weapons relative to each other, giving you a number (in an example I used, the Timberwolf-E had a 'boat value' of 18 or something, vs. some mech I made up with a mix of weapons which had a negative value). Multiply that number by whatever voodoo you want and that's your tax. Negative tax works as a tax refund of sorts, so mechs with dissimilar weapons that work all differently would be ultra-cheap. Mechs that mount dual-_____ would go up in price, and mechs that mount all of one type of weapon (Heavy Laser Adder) would be pricey as fapp.

Doesn't work too well without the mechlab but that would be where it'd be ideal. Go ahead and make a boat, but prepare to pay out the ass for it.

[Az]

it doesn't matter that you can tweak and torture mechs with the build rules in CBT, what does matter is that LBX10 was considered not good enough and thus was changed.

All I was saying is the Thor Prime wasn't tortured much. 1 DHS and 1 ton of ammo in exchange for a 2 tons heavier weapon. But it's not a free buff as you seem to imply; what would you sacrifice to upgrade the Thanny Prime's weaponry?

If the Mechlab is completely off-topic, the rules used to build the current beta variants aren't. Even if we don't know much about them. It's those rules who define the relative costs of each weapon, against which we'll judge their relative utility and effectiveness. And in turn, the relative utility and effectiveness of all variants, canonical or not.

You ask what makes a good mech in MWLL. I'd say the single biggest factor is simply ease of use, both in manoeuvrability and accuracy. But I feel like this whole thread asks if a good mech in CBT should also be a good mech in MWLL. That's a bit trickier.

If the LBX10 is buffed to improve the Thor Prime, so will be the Beatstick. How can we improve primes without improving boats?
In CBT the LBX10 has the advantage of longer range over LBX20. I never played CBT except for a few MegaMek skirmishes against AI so I don't know if it's worth it, but in MWLL it certainly isn't for me. Most ballistic weapons are not easy to use at long range, and the range gap is usually easily and quickly closed. For 2 mere tons, the increased damage is too valuable.

If ammo loaded into weapons weighted something, we'd have to choose between a LBX10 with 2 reloads and a LBX20 with none. Then I'd have to think about it. But that's not a suggestion I'm making here, because it would ruin many variants, and only promote more laser boating.


As for the boat tax: it could work, but it's probably far too complicated with an enormous number of coefficients to balance and maintain. And it would require me to buy a new mouse.

For instance, the Thanatos Prime has 10 HS, the CBT has 6 DHS. It is not really possible to build the Thanatos prime as it is in MWLL. But let us look at it from a different perspective; 10 HS do not deal with as much heat as 6 DHS, which are four tons less. So what if we had 5 DHS instead?

I'm glad you asked that question! Because the answer will be very easy.
5 DHS is what the Thanatos already has in 0.4.x. At least that's how it appears in the XML (<Elem idRef="idHeatTracking" name="hasDoubleHeatsinks" value="1"/>). So its 5 HS were turned into DHS, and there's no other change since 0.3.2 (aside from a generic change in armour distribution). The tooltips lie again?

Now why some primes got an upgrade and some didn't? XL engines for everyone seem to be a bigger factor than DHS, especially now that they're available to some IS chassis. And the fact that engines can only hold 10 single HS also artificially degrades many Clan Primes' performance. But it would be pretty hard to balance a fusion engine with 10 embedded HS against a XL fusion and 10 DHS. A Thanatos Prime with a regular fusion engine and single heat sinks would need to be 35t overweight to reach the same performance. (But there's just enough crits available to do that )


And I still don't know why I hit "Reply" sometimes, because it takes me hours to post each time -_-