Jump to content

Dear Pgi, Remove Minimum Heat Sinks! It Only Buffs Commandos And Locusts!


96 replies to this topic

Poll: Dear PGI, Remove minimum heat sinks! It only buffs Commandos and Locusts! (176 member(s) have cast votes)

Remove Minimum Heatsink Requirement?

  1. Yes (81 votes [46.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 46.02%

  2. No (80 votes [45.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.45%

  3. Buff Machine Guns and Moxie (15 votes [8.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.52%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 CeeKay Boques

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 3,371 posts
  • LocationYes

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:28 AM

I'm just thinking of what I can do with my Gaussapult and Cataphract 2 Gauss machines if I had 10 more tons.

#22 Amsro

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 3,377 posts
  • LocationCharging my Gauss Rifle

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:29 AM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Every Mech in the BattleTech universe gets screwed that way Jobe. Not just MW:O.
CORRECTION:
I did just pull my 10th heat sink off my Locust. The weight dropped. That IS wrong. The first 10 sinks should not take up mass even if they must be put in Crit slots.


Your "BattleTech Canon OMG Don't CHANGE IT" ideal has no true bearing here anymore, that train left the station a long time ago as this game is a FAR CRY from battletech now.

The table top rules just don't translate well to MWO, or weren't implemented correctly. Either way at this point its 3-4 tons of useless tech in a mech BECAUSE CANON doesn't make sense to me. Especially when many other things in this game are no longer canon.

Table Top need be left at the door for this game. I don't use any engine less then 250 as it is, no benefit can be had doing so because the tonnage saved goes into less effective heat sinks.

#23 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:29 AM

View PostTechnoviking, on 23 October 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

I'm just thinking of what I can do with my Gaussapult and Cataphract 2 Gauss machines if I had 10 more tons.

:D Explode?

#24 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:32 AM

View PostAmsro, on 23 October 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Your "BattleTech Canon OMG Don't CHANGE IT" ideal has no true bearing here anymore, that train left the station a long time ago as this game is a FAR CRY from battletech now.

The table top rules just don't translate well to MWO, or weren't implemented correctly. Either way at this point its 3-4 tons of useless tech in a mech BECAUSE CANON doesn't make sense to me. Especially when many other things in this game are no longer canon.

Table Top need be left at the door for this game. I don't use any engine less then 250 as it is, no benefit can be had doing so because the tonnage saved goes into less effective heat sinks.

That's where you are wrong. It is very similar. I'd say we are about 15%-20% off the canon Mechanics. Our fist 10 sinks should cost us no mass but take crits if the engine is small enough. That works just fine on TT. It would also work right here.

#25 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:42 AM

First... this is a feature suggestion, not a balance discussion, so I will move the thread after I said, what I want to say.

second... we had this discussion at least a hundred times already. It always started on a false assumption.

third... here is how it really works and why the light mechs are not limited by the ten heatsink rule in any way. I'll quote a post I made on the exact same topic back in august.

Quote

This thread again?

Ok... let's take that example build from the OP. It mounts a 170 std-engine. All engines in Battletech come with 10 weight free heatsinks. For every 25 points of engine rating, one of those heatsinks can be mounted within the engine.

This engine would weigh 6 tons in the tabletop. In MWO the weight of the gyro and the cockpit are included into the engine weight. The cockpit always weighs 3 tons and the gyro weight engine-rating/100 (round up) tons. So in MWO the engine weight becomes 11 tons.

But behold...
Why does the engine only weigh 7 tons when we look it up in the MWO mechlab?

Answer:
Because the weight for the 4 extra heatsinks you need to mount has been substracted from the engine weight, as those heatsinks are supposed to be weight free.

If you don't want to mount those 4 extra heatsinks, the weight for the engine needs to be raised to 11 tons again to bring it back to it's original weight, or else you would be tricking the difference between the original construction rules and the MWO implementation, to gain an advantage that shouldn't exist.


To make it more simple (excluding cockpit and gyro):
True engine weight = 6 tons with 10 weight free heatsinks = 6 tons
MWOs engine weight = 2 tons with 6 weight free heatsinks + 4 Heatsinks = 6 tons
OPs proposal = a legal cheat, tricking the "true weight" system with the "MWO weight" system to gain 4 tons that shouldn't be


Did that clear up your confusion?

#26 Curccu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 4,610 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:51 AM

View PostTechnoviking, on 23 October 2013 - 05:28 AM, said:

I'm just thinking of what I can do with my Gaussapult and Cataphract 2 Gauss machines if I had 10 more tons.

Sure thing how small engine do you want to run those things with? both will die easily if they are too slow

#27 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 05:57 AM

Nevermind.

Edited by stjobe, 23 October 2013 - 05:57 AM.


#28 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 06:02 AM

View Post***** n stuff, on 23 October 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

You can only barely do that on a raven and you can't do it at all on a locust. You're limited to 12.5 tons for weapons, ammo and armor, that's with a 100 XL, the 6 required heat sinks and endo steel. ...

Hello? Hello? This topic is about _removing_ minimum heatsink requirement. So, if it'd be done, then "6 required heatsinks" would - duh! - no longer be required. Which would increase the limit from 12.5 tons to 18.5 tons. Which means the little ****** could run around with an AC/20 and up to 4 tons of ammo. Even if he'd go with just 2 tons of ammo - 14 shots, - intentionally hitting people in the back with 280 damage is not a joke you know. Especially if it's from where people don't expect it to come.

Which is exactlty why i mentioned AC/20 locusts - if what the author of this topic proposes will be done, then it _will_ be possible to set up an AC/20 locust.

To expand on it a bit,

Like i said, it's crazy idea, sure, very inefficient use of the mech, - but if done "right", it can be "ouch ouch". Just imagine a lance of these totally paper-made locusts, running around at some 110 kph (edit: ok, probably 106.9 kph using XL120, whatever) together, only getting involved in a firefight if there are bigger friendlies who take the beating - and then every one of the 4 hits an enemy in the back with an AC/20 once. Just once. 80 damage to the back - few things could survive, eh. So, in a brawl, once these buggers are around, evenmies will start to fall down like leaves in late autumn - aplenty per minute. A light mech needs time to manuever, and a weapon which is able to dish out lots of damage instantly and then cooldown while the mech is running into next "good time to shoot" moment - is obviously most potent for a light mech; and then, their ability to hit most things in the back easily - seals the deal.

Another way to imagine this is: you see a lance of locusts, but then you take damage as if two AC/40 jagers hit ya in the back, outta nowhere (again, 'cause people wouldn't really suspect AC/20s on locusts, you know) - and if you live, they do it again in a few seconds. "Geez", eh? =)

Edited by FinsT, 23 October 2013 - 06:16 AM.


#29 CrashieJ

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,435 posts
  • LocationGalatea (Mercenary's Star)

Posted 23 October 2013 - 06:10 AM

View PostFinsT, on 23 October 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Hello? Hello? This topic is about _removing_ minimum heatsink requirement. So, if it'd be done, then "6 required heatsinks" would - duh! - no longer be required. Which would increase the limit from 12.5 tons to 18.5 tons. Which means the little ****** could run around with an AC/20 and up to 4 tons of ammo. Even if he'd go with just 2 tons of ammo - 14 shots, - intentionally hitting people in the back with 280 damage is not a joke you know. Especially if it's from where people don't expect it to come.

Which is exactlty why i mentioned AC/20 locusts - if what the author of this topic proposes will be done, then it _will_ be possible to set up an AC/20 locust.

Like i said, it's crazy idea, sure, very inefficient use of the mech, - but if done "right", it can be "ouch ouch". Just imagine a lance of these totally paper-made locusts, running around at some 110 kph together, only getting involved in a firefight if there are bigger friendlies who take the beating - and then every one of the 4 hits an enemy in the back with an AC/20 once. Just once. 80 damage to the back - few things could survive, eh. Pretty much in no time once these buggers are around. Geez, eh? =)



yeah but how much do you think will register? 5... 10 at most before getting chewed up by faster, better, mechs

#30 CygnusX7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts
  • LocationA desolate moon circling a desolate planet

Posted 23 October 2013 - 06:15 AM

XL190 6T + 3T HS - 9T - 154khp
XL185 6T + 3T HS - 9T
XL180 5.5T + 3T HS - 8.5T
XL175 5.5T + 3T HS - 8.5T
XL170 4T + 4T HS - 8T
XL165 4T + 4T HS - 8T
XL160 4T + 4T HS - 8T
XL155 4T + 4T HS - 8T
XL150 4T + 4T HS - 8T
XL145 2.5T + 5T HS - 7.5T - 117.4KPH
XL140 2.5T + 5T HS - 7.5T
XL135 2.5T + 5T HS - 7.5T
XL130 2.5T + 5T HS - 7.5T
XL125 2T + 5T HS - 7T
XL120 1T + 6T HS - 7T
XL115 1T + 6T HS - 7T
XL110 1T + 6T HS - 7T
XL105 1T + 6T HS - 7T
XL100 .5T + 6T HS - 6.5T - 81kph

On a Locust an XL100 is 73kph slower than an XL190 at a savings of only 2.5 tons. If there were no HS limits the XL100 equipped Locust would weigh 5.5 tons less than the XL190 equipped locust at the expense of heat dissipation and speed.

Looking at the raw engine weights an XL190 weighs 6 tons and has 7 internal heat sinks. Does the engine itself weigh nothing or some of the HS or both? Like wise an XL100 raw weight is .5 tons with 4 internal HS.

Edited by CygnusX7, 23 October 2013 - 07:52 AM.


#31 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 23 October 2013 - 06:30 AM

View PostEgomane, on 23 October 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

First... this is a feature suggestion, not a balance discussion, so I will move the thread after I said, what I want to say.

second... we had this discussion at least a hundred times already. It always started on a false assumption.

third... here is how it really works and why the light mechs are not limited by the ten heatsink rule in any way. I'll quote a post I made on the exact same topic back in august.


Did that clear up your confusion?

So I looked this up. A 220 XL in the TRO weighs 5 tons an the Gyro 3 for an 8 Ton total. Plus the Cockpit 9 tons.

Removing one of the free heat sinks from my 190 rate engine (3 tons of engine, 2 ton Gyro, 1 ton cockpit) lowered the weight of my Locust by a ton. That is not supposed to happen. Base 10 Sinks cannot be removed. So should not be able to be removed. IIRC HeavyMetal Pro, one could not remove the base 10 sinks. and that was the same as (better actually) then our MechLab 11 yeas ago!

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 23 October 2013 - 06:31 AM.


#32 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 06:32 AM

cockpit weighs three tons not one

#33 Pjwned

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Little Helper
  • 4,731 posts
  • LocationDancing on the grave of Energy Draw LOL

Posted 23 October 2013 - 07:07 AM

There are a couple builds I've thought about using a standard engine with, but in order to get a standard engine small enough to fit any amount of weaponry worth a damn I have to use something smaller than a 250, and consequently it forces me to stick extra heat sinks on which aren't even that effective outside of the engine.

It really is annoying, the SIGNIFICANTLY higher weight of standard engines is already punishment enough, so there's really no need to force people to use 10 heat sinks when they don't even need that many.

#34 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 07:32 AM

View PostEgomane, on 23 October 2013 - 06:32 AM, said:

cockpit weighs three tons not one

Which is kind of missing the point, really.

Take a 195-rated TT engine with 10 heat sinks. Remove a heat sink, what happens to the weight? Nothing.
Now do the same with 195-rated MWO engine with 10 heat sinks. Your 'mech just lost a ton of weight.

The TT engine comes with seven heat sinks, just like the MWO one, but you've already paid the weight for 10 heat sinks. All you need to do is to allocate crit space for three more heat sinks.

The MWO engine comes with the same seven heat sinks and weighs three tons less than the TT engine, but you have to both allocate crit space and pay a ton of weight for the three remaining sinks. It means it's really easy to find yourself unable to drop with a new load-out since you forgot to put in a heat sink or two and you're now ineligible to drop and have to re-think your load-out.

Weight-wise it works out once both engines have 10 heat sinks, but it breaks down in several places: Sub-100 rated engines aren't possible in MWO, for one. DHS having different capacities and dissipation depending on whether they're internal or external is another.

The current system also makes things like Small Cockpits and Compact Engines impossible.

#35 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 07:43 AM

So the system isn't perfect and doesn't allow tech that is, in the current timeline, at least 15 years away? Is that your point? Sorry, but that is not what the thread is about.

The weight and space requirements for engine, gyro, cockpit and 10 heatsinks is exactly the same, in MWO and in the original rules. The rules are also the same, they are just implemented differently. That is the point I'm making to the OPs suggestion. I'm not concerned about your side discussion.

Edited by Egomane, 23 October 2013 - 07:44 AM.


#36 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:03 AM

View PostEgomane, on 23 October 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

So the system isn't perfect and doesn't allow tech that is, in the current timeline, at least 15 years away? Is that your point? Sorry, but that is not what the thread is about.

"The system isn't perfect". That is exactly what the thread is about. The OP wants to change it in a specific way, I'm pointing out some other issues with the system; that it breaks in several ways, some of which are of immediate concern (sub-100 rated engines and the Urbie), some only for future considerations (cockpit and engine variations).

View PostEgomane, on 23 October 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

The weight and space requirements for engine, gyro, cockpit and 10 heatsinks is exactly the same, in MWO and in the original rules.

Almost, but not quite. There's about four engines that have different weights in TT and MWO still.

View PostEgomane, on 23 October 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

The rules are also the same, they are just implemented differently. That is the point I'm making to the OPs suggestion.

The two implementations work out to the same end weight in most cases, yes. There are several differences though, as I said above.

View PostEgomane, on 23 October 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

I'm not concerned about your side discussion.

So let the side discussion be between posters it does concern. You've said your piece, now please let the ones interested in the side discussion carry on with it.

#37 Egomane

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,163 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:34 AM

View Poststjobe, on 23 October 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

So let the side discussion be between posters it does concern. You've said your piece, now please let the ones interested in the side discussion carry on with it.

I have been adressed because of my post on the original point of the thread. I made my statement and explained it to you after you told me I missed the point. When and were did I interrupt your side discussion to begin with, that you had to adress me in the first place, involving me in it?

I'll follow your suggestion, but in return I suggest to you to work on your manners or we will collide.

#38 Deathlike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 29,240 posts
  • Location#NOToTaterBalance #BadBalanceOverlordIsBad

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:30 AM

View PostEgomane, on 23 October 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

The weight and space requirements for engine, gyro, cockpit and 10 heatsinks is exactly the same, in MWO and in the original rules. The rules are also the same, they are just implemented differently. That is the point I'm making to the OPs suggestion. I'm not concerned about your side discussion.


stjobe's point wasn't really about the semantics of how heatsinks are distributed, as this is probably more of a coding decision than anything (separating the heatsink requirement from the engine, while reminding you that you need more heatsinks, which is a UI-mechlab issue). This is more cosmetic than anything and isn't vital to anything really. If you buy the engine, you have to supply your own heatsinks (which in many cases is better, since you should have collected many).

The more important issue is really how external HS work with the system... primarily DHS. Since DHS external to the engine literally functions differently than the internal (different dissipation and different heat capacity bonus), it has a profound impact on heat critical mechs, like the energy Locust (3M) or the Commando-1B (or TDK for that matter).

#39 Serious Table

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 78 posts
  • LocationTexas

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:19 PM

View PostJoseph Mallan, on 23 October 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

So I looked this up. A 220 XL in the TRO weighs 5 tons an the Gyro 3 for an 8 Ton total. Plus the Cockpit 9 tons.

Removing one of the free heat sinks from my 190 rate engine (3 tons of engine, 2 ton Gyro, 1 ton cockpit) lowered the weight of my Locust by a ton. That is not supposed to happen. Base 10 Sinks cannot be removed. So should not be able to be removed. IIRC HeavyMetal Pro, one could not remove the base 10 sinks. and that was the same as (better actually) then our MechLab 11 yeas ago!


Removing one of the heat sinks from your 190 rated engine drops the weight of the Locust by a ton, but because of the rules of the game, you're *not allowed to launch*. It's generally the exact same system, you're literally arguing semantics about this.

The weight of the engines are designed in such a way so that the engine weighs EXACTLY the amount less compared to Tabletop so that putting in the required heatsinks to add up to 10 weighs the exact same amount as the Mech in Table Top. We tested this on a Reddit Thread and rebuilt, to exact specifications, a standard Locust using all of the same parts between TT and MWO, and their weights were exact. The only difference was that the armor values were doubled.

Deathlike has the right idea, though, into an issue that should be addressed. The heat sinks required to total 10 should work the same as 20 single heatsinks, rather than less because they have to be external.

#40 CygnusX7

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,803 posts
  • LocationA desolate moon circling a desolate planet

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:31 PM

..and now it all makes sense.
Except.. how do you fit 4HS in a .5 ton mech engine? ;)





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users