136 replies to this topic

[Aldrai Sedai]

Well I'd look at it from a more scientific point of view. Things that are heated up and cooled rapidly almost always shatter. Think about putting ice cubes in some water. They crack because they're being heated up rapidly by the surrounding liquid.

If we ever have a coolant flush system, you could use it but risk damaging/destroying your heat sinks, meaning that they'd be less effective or crack open and cause your 'mech to go critical. This would prevent people from alpha striking to get into critical, flush, critical, flush, ad infinitum. I also think that an ammount of damage to the heat sink directly proportional to the ammount of heat you have would be applied simply for using it.

Could also make it a targetable area on the 'mech, give it low hit points and have it cause damage when ruptured. much like this: http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Coolant_Pod

[Shizzwhizz]

Victor Morson, on 19 April 2012 - 10:12 AM, said:

Well just speaking of canon, 'mechs are fully sealed to (as others have said) fight in vacuums, let alone under the water. There's been actual missions in past games such as Ghost Bear Legacy entirely underwater.

That said both water and vacuum fighting are terrible ideas with huge counterpoints not represented in past games. ANY armor breach in an area that's currently in the water will be immediately flooded - something I'd love to see in MWO. Sure standing in water with heat sinks in your legs cools you down - but if your armor gets blown off that leg, say goodbye to it!

Vacuum fighting would be harder to represent in MWO due to the lack of pilot death / total 'mech destruction, since it's biggest risk is getting damage to the cockpit. The pilot inside, due to needing to wear typical MechWarrior clothing, isn't exactly in a space suit and is subject to getting all his or her oxygen blasted out / extreme cold blasted in.

Another thing about fighting in vacuum... There's no matter for your heat sinks to radiate that extra engergy to. Standing in water will cool a mech faster because water is denser than the gaseous atmosphere so it more readily absorbs heat. In a vacuum? I'd give your mech's heat sinks maybe 20% effeincy because they will radiate heat away as Electromagnetic radiation, but not fast enough to cool a 100-ton reactor on legs firing incredibly powerfull energy weapons into another mech. (feel free to correct me if my science is wrong... Wait... Crappapoloooza i'm way off. Just did a little way more research into the topic of space and hot things losing heat in space...The more you know! *RAGENBOGEN*)
A lot of energy can be radiated away through infrared apparently... But I still would like to see a 100 ton mech firing 3 ppc's in space. (see here http://helios.gsfc.n...v/qa_sp_ht.html)
So i'm just going to bow and duck out before the trolls come in....

[Rikogu]

I couldn't care less if flushing was in the game or not, but the whole argument confuses me. I don't see how having maybe 5-10 seconds of extra cooling in a twenty minute match could break the game. Actually, even if it was available, the tonnage cost would not be worth it when I could have just added another heat sink.

[noobler]

I gotta say, as much as I enjoy some good ol' beam spam, I don't think I'd mind coolant flushing being removed or replaced by pods. I've never had the opportunity to play the tabletop and didn't get into multiplayer with the earlier games, so I'd like to see how MW plays when you can't lean on the flush key to buy an easy alpha or to escape an overheat.

[Aldrai Sedai]

Rikogu, on 26 May 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

I couldn't care less if flushing was in the game or not, but the whole argument confuses me. I don't see how having maybe 5-10 seconds of extra cooling in a twenty minute match could break the game. Actually, even if it was available, the tonnage cost would not be worth it when I could have just added another heat sink.

Yeah but putting more heat sinks on (should) give you less of a return the more you add. Putting on 2 ERPPC and 20 heatsinks just to make you never overheat would be a bit wrong. Flushing your coolant to give you an extra alpha strike could make a fight you're not doing so hot in turn to your favor. Which is why having a coolant flush system has to come with some kind of risk to the user. This is of course if they ever add it in.

[Rikogu]

Aldrai Sedai, on 26 May 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

Yeah but putting more heat sinks on (should) give you less of a return the more you add. Putting on 2 ERPPC and 20 heatsinks just to make you never overheat would be a bit wrong. Flushing your coolant to give you an extra alpha strike could make a fight you're not doing so hot in turn to your favor. Which is why having a coolant flush system has to come with some kind of risk to the user. This is of course if they ever add it in.

In my mind, the risk is that you MIGHT be able to take advantage of it once in an entire match. What I'm saying is that I'd rather be benefiting from every ton I use on my mech every second of the match than risk wasting it just so I might be able to pull of a game-winning alpha strike. I could see why some would choose to use it, but it's not my style.

[Christopher Dayson]

How many times is this topic going to keep coming up? There is a search feature after all.

If Heat Sinks work properly like they do in TT, Coolant Flushing is a completely unnecessary mechanic. The problem that came was when weapons applied heat immediately, and heat sinks did not flush the heat immediately. In Table Top you can shoot 3 PPC's and if you had 15 double or 30 normal heat sinks not generate any excess heat if you were standing still. You don't risk shut down, you don't risk ammo explosion (If you have any), and you don't get any other heat modifiers.

By making heat sinks less efficient than they were in TT, they had to add broken coolant flushing mechanic. An ER Large Laser shouldn't cause overheat in one fire on any mech, heck, it only has 12 heat, every mech has 10 heat sinks. You should fire that thing off 15 times in rapid succession before you are forced to shut down. Adding 2 heat sinks and you should be able to fire it indefinitely.

By keeping true to the TT system of heat, then coolant flushing becomes entirely unnecessary, the problem starts when you have weapons generating more heat than they should over a space of time than the heat sinks ability to vent it.

It shouldn't be Fire once and shut down unless you design so poorly that you generate 30 excess heat in one volley.

Coolant flushing is completely unnecessary.

Oh and for the comment that it'll drive noobs away? No it won't. People /like/ a challenge in their games or else there is no sense of accomplishment. That's why people /like/ pvp, harder opponent, more fun. Those who bail over heat issues aren't going to like the game for a lot more reasons than that.

[Strum Wealh]

Christopher Dayson, on 26 May 2012 - 12:51 AM, said:

How many times is this topic going to keep coming up? There is a search feature after all.

If Heat Sinks work properly like they do in TT, Coolant Flushing is a completely unnecessary mechanic. The problem that came was when weapons applied heat immediately, and heat sinks did not flush the heat immediately. In Table Top you can shoot 3 PPC's and if you had 15 double or 30 normal heat sinks not generate any excess heat if you were standing still. You don't risk shut down, you don't risk ammo explosion (If you have any), and you don't get any other heat modifiers.

By making heat sinks less efficient than they were in TT, they had to add broken coolant flushing mechanic. An ER Large Laser shouldn't cause overheat in one fire on any mech, heck, it only has 12 heat, every mech has 10 heat sinks. You should fire that thing off 15 times in rapid succession before you are forced to shut down. Adding 2 heat sinks and you should be able to fire it indefinitely.

By keeping true to the TT system of heat, then coolant flushing becomes entirely unnecessary, the problem starts when you have weapons generating more heat than they should over a space of time than the heat sinks ability to vent it.

It shouldn't be Fire once and shut down unless you design so poorly that you generate 30 excess heat in one volley.

Coolant flushing is completely unnecessary.

Oh and for the comment that it'll drive noobs away? No it won't. People /like/ a challenge in their games or else there is no sense of accomplishment. That's why people /like/ pvp, harder opponent, more fun. Those who bail over heat issues aren't going to like the game for a lot more reasons than that.

Part of the issue is that what is described as a problem is how heat sinks have always worked.

Standard heat sinks (SHSs) vent heat at a rate of one unit of heat per turn, while double heat sinks (DHSs) vent heat at a rate of two units of heat per turn.
One turn is equivalent to a 10-second time-frame.

As such, each SHS would vent heat at a rate of 0.10 units of heat per second, while each DHS would vent heat at a rate of 0.20 units of heat per second.
As a result, a 'Mech with only 10 SHSs would be able to vent a total of 1.00 units of heat per second (or 10 units of heat over a 10-second turn) while the same 'Mech with only 10 DHSs would be able to vent a total of 2.00 units of heat per second (or 20 units of heat over a 10-second turn).

Walking and running generate so little heat (1 unit per turn (or 0.10 units per second) for walking and 2 units per turn (or 0.20 units per second) for running, regardless of speed (MP expended)) as to be generally negligible by itself.
Even jumping, with its greater heat build-up (3 units of heat plus an additional 1 unit of heat for each 30 meters (1 hex) of distance covered), generally pales in comparison to the heat generation of firing BattleMech-scale weapons.
And weapons not only generate substantial amounts of heat, but they do so in fairly short time-frames; lasers and PPCs don't have 10-second beams, Gauss Rifles don't take 10 seconds from the pull of the trigger to launch the projectile, AC bursts are shorter than 10 seconds so that the weapon can reload and be ready to fire for the next turn, and so on, yet each weapon would generate its full per-salvo heat with each firing.

The result, then, is that weapons are the primary source of heat generation and generate heat quickly, while heat sinks dissipate heat slowly but are able to keep up by virtue of having multiple heat sinks working in parallel.
Heat sinks don't - and can't - prevent the initial heat spike, but having them helps the BattleMech cool itself back to a reasonable temperature more quickly than it could do so without them.

Moreover, a heat-induced shutdown only occurred with prolonged instances of severe overheating.
That is, if a 10 SHS 'Mech (which is capable of venting 1 full unit of heat every second) still has a heat level of at least 14 after 10 seconds (that is, at the end of a turn), it risks shutdown.
Likewise, if a 10 DHS 'Mech (which is capable of venting 2 full units of heat every second) still has a heat level of at least 14 after 10 seconds (that is, at the end of a turn), it also risks shutdown.
For the SHS 'Mech, this would mean that at least 24 units of heat were generated in fairly short order during the turn (say, by group-firing a quartet of Large Lasers while standing still); for the DHS 'Mech, this would mean that at least 34 units of heat were generated in fairly short order during the turn (say, by group-firing a trio of PPCs and a Medium Laser while walking).

By contrast, a 10 DHS 'Mech that fired a single ER-PPC while at a full-speed run during a turn would generate 15 units of heat plus a bit from the run. The TT rules would add the full 2 units of heat all at once, for a total of 17 units of heat for that turn. Again, the 10 DHS would not and could not prevent the initial heat spike; they would, however, let the 'Mech cool to a neutral heat level within the turn (that is, after 10 seconds).
In real-time, however, the heat spike should only be a little more than 15 (the heat already generate from running - approximately 0.2 units of heat per second - plus the effectively-instantaneous 15 units of heat from the ER-PPC); again, the existing heat sinks cannot prevent the initial spike, but they are more than adequate for addressing the task of venting the heat afterward.

Part of the issue with the video games and heat comes up when most of the weapons have recycle times that are less than 10 seconds (that is, they would fire more than once per turn). If the full heat-per-salvo is maintained, then 'Mechs that are typically considered "cool running" are suddenly generating heat at a much higher rate than they would with the TT's "one shot per 10 seconds" limitation in place (though, this also assumes that the player is failing to control their fire in such a way as to manage their heat while still being combat-effective... with such a failing likely being the case for the vast majority of players for the vast majority of play-time).
This inability to control one's fire, combined with a general inability to produce heat-balanced 'Mechs that can match the OHKO ability of such heat-imbalanced designs as 7 CERLL, 90+ kph Nova Cats and Black Knights, usually results the same players making calls to either tune down heat generation and/or buff heat sinks, along with calls for features like the coolant flush and implementation of NH/UA modes.

The coolant flush isn't necessary; what's needed, IMO, is a widespread paradigm shift away from the "i can haz eternal pwnage of teh n00bs wit mah GOD-ALPHA!!!1!one" mentality.
And, IMO, the steps already taken by PGI for MWO are steps in the right direction.

Your thoughts?

[Christopher Dayson]

My thoughts is that if you're going to increase the rate of fire to create massive amounts of increased heat then heat sinks need to be increased in efficiency to work as they should.

It's that simple. If I generate 20 heat while moving at top speed and firing everything, then my 20 heat sinks should allow me to run heat neutral at all times. I don't know why this is even an issue other than poor coding. It's creating an artificial problem that shouldn't exist, and then creating a horribly broken mechanic to try and deal with it that has heinous consequences.

Sort of like Heat Sinks not taking up space, that was a horrid mechanic and part of why I am loving the mechlab in MW:O, it's a combination of hard points /and/ critical slots along with weight. Each mech remains unique and it eliminates hard point saturation as a problem.

[Rot Wulf]

Strum Wealh, on 26 May 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

Part of the issue is that what is described as a problem is how heat sinks have always worked.

Standard heat sinks (SHSs) vent heat at a rate of one unit of heat per turn, while double heat sinks (DHSs) vent heat at a rate of two units of heat per turn.
One turn is equivalent to a 10-second time-frame.

As such, each SHS would vent heat at a rate of 0.10 units of heat per second, while each DHS would vent heat at a rate of 0.20 units of heat per second.
As a result, a 'Mech with only 10 SHSs would be able to vent a total of 1.00 units of heat per second (or 10 units of heat over a 10-second turn) while the same 'Mech with only 10 DHSs would be able to vent a total of 2.00 units of heat per second (or 20 units of heat over a 10-second turn).

Walking and running generate so little heat (1 unit per turn (or 0.10 units per second) for walking and 2 units per turn (or 0.20 units per second) for running, regardless of speed (MP expended)) as to be generally negligible by itself.
Even jumping, with its greater heat build-up (3 units of heat plus an additional 1 unit of heat for each 30 meters (1 hex) of distance covered), generally pales in comparison to the heat generation of firing BattleMech-scale weapons.
And weapons not only generate substantial amounts of heat, but they do so in fairly short time-frames; lasers and PPCs don't have 10-second beams, Gauss Rifles don't take 10 seconds from the pull of the trigger to launch the projectile, AC bursts are shorter than 10 seconds so that the weapon can reload and be ready to fire for the next turn, and so on, yet each weapon would generate its full per-salvo heat with each firing.

The result, then, is that weapons are the primary source of heat generation and generate heat quickly, while heat sinks dissipate heat slowly but are able to keep up by virtue of having multiple heat sinks working in parallel.
Heat sinks don't - and can't - prevent the initial heat spike, but having them helps the BattleMech cool itself back to a reasonable temperature more quickly than it could do so without them.

Moreover, a heat-induced shutdown only occurred with prolonged instances of severe overheating.
That is, if a 10 SHS 'Mech (which is capable of venting 1 full unit of heat every second) still has a heat level of at least 14 after 10 seconds (that is, at the end of a turn), it risks shutdown.
Likewise, if a 10 DHS 'Mech (which is capable of venting 2 full units of heat every second) still has a heat level of at least 14 after 10 seconds (that is, at the end of a turn), it also risks shutdown.
For the SHS 'Mech, this would mean that at least 24 units of heat were generated in fairly short order during the turn (say, by group-firing a quartet of Large Lasers while standing still); for the DHS 'Mech, this would mean that at least 34 units of heat were generated in fairly short order during the turn (say, by group-firing a trio of PPCs and a Medium Laser while walking).

By contrast, a 10 DHS 'Mech that fired a single ER-PPC while at a full-speed run during a turn would generate 15 units of heat plus a bit from the run. The TT rules would add the full 2 units of heat all at once, for a total of 17 units of heat for that turn. Again, the 10 DHS would not and could not prevent the initial heat spike; they would, however, let the 'Mech cool to a neutral heat level within the turn (that is, after 10 seconds).
In real-time, however, the heat spike should only be a little more than 15 (the heat already generate from running - approximately 0.2 units of heat per second - plus the effectively-instantaneous 15 units of heat from the ER-PPC); again, the existing heat sinks cannot prevent the initial spike, but they are more than adequate for addressing the task of venting the heat afterward.

Part of the issue with the video games and heat comes up when most of the weapons have recycle times that are less than 10 seconds (that is, they would fire more than once per turn). If the full heat-per-salvo is maintained, then 'Mechs that are typically considered "cool running" are suddenly generating heat at a much higher rate than they would with the TT's "one shot per 10 seconds" limitation in place (though, this also assumes that the player is failing to control their fire in such a way as to manage their heat while still being combat-effective... with such a failing likely being the case for the vast majority of players for the vast majority of play-time).
This inability to control one's fire, combined with a general inability to produce heat-balanced 'Mechs that can match the OHKO ability of such heat-imbalanced designs as 7 CERLL, 90+ kph Nova Cats and Black Knights, usually results the same players making calls to either tune down heat generation and/or buff heat sinks, along with calls for features like the coolant flush and implementation of NH/UA modes.

The coolant flush isn't necessary; what's needed, IMO, is a widespread paradigm shift away from the "i can haz eternal pwnage of teh n00bs wit mah GOD-ALPHA!!!1!one" mentality.
And, IMO, the steps already taken by PGI for MWO are steps in the right direction.

Your thoughts?

As a fellow TT player, this is what I want!!!!

in other words

0|\|L'/ \/\/1/\/\P$ |\|33D (00L4|\|7 PhLU$|-|

[Strum Wealh]

Christopher Dayson, on 26 May 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

My thoughts is that if you're going to increase the rate of fire to create massive amounts of increased heat then heat sinks need to be increased in efficiency to work as they should.

It's that simple. If I generate 20 heat while moving at top speed and firing everything, then my 20 heat sinks should allow me to run heat neutral at all times. I don't know why this is even an issue other than poor coding. It's creating an artificial problem that shouldn't exist, and then creating a horribly broken mechanic to try and deal with it that has heinous consequences.

Sort of like Heat Sinks not taking up space, that was a horrid mechanic and part of why I am loving the mechlab in MW:O, it's a combination of hard points /and/ critical slots along with weight. Each mech remains unique and it eliminates hard point saturation as a problem.

Except it shouldn't run heat-neutral "at all times" - there should be a brief heat spike to 20, and the 20 (standard) heat sinks should be able to return it to a heat-neutral state over the course of approximately 10 seconds (assuming another salvo isn't fired in the interim - weapons don't have to be fired as soon as they recycle).

Though, IMO, if the 'Mech stays at a high heat level (through continuously firing the weapons as they recycle, for example) for an extended period (e.g. more than 10 seconds), then the consequences (movement penalties, risk of shutdown or ammunition explosion, etc) should take effect.

Your thoughts?

-----

As an alternative thought experiment, the S7 rules had recycle rates for various weapons of 2.5 seconds (one "turn"), 5.0 seconds, 7.5 seconds, and 10.0 seconds, with each weapon dealing its full heat and damage with each firing.
Along with that, SHS would vent one unit of heat every 2.5 seconds (an average dissipation of 0.4 units of heat per second, versus the 0.1 units of heat per second determined by the standard TT rules) and DHS would vent two units of heat every 2.5 seconds (an average dissipation of 0.8 units of heat per second, versus the 0.2 units of heat per second determined by the standard TT rules).

Suppose MWO were to use weapon recycle times (with full damage and heat for each firing) and heat dissipation rates more similar to the S7 rules than to those of the standard TT. What is your take on that?

[Nik Van Rhijn]

From what we have seen so far in the videos weapon recycle times are quicker than TT, what we don't know is the rate at which heat sinks dissipate the heat or the levels at which heat is generated. Most of the mechs seem to be running fairly hot, but that is to be expected if they don't have DHS.

[Christopher Dayson]

Strum Wealh, on 26 May 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Except it shouldn't run heat-neutral "at all times" - there should be a brief heat spike to 20, and the 20 (standard) heat sinks should be able to return it to a heat-neutral state over the course of approximately 10 seconds (assuming another salvo isn't fired in the interim - weapons don't have to be fired as soon as they recycle).

Though, IMO, if the 'Mech stays at a high heat level (through continuously firing the weapons as they recycle, for example) for an extended period (e.g. more than 10 seconds), then the consequences (movement penalties, risk of shutdown or ammunition explosion, etc) should take effect.

Your thoughts?

-----

As an alternative thought experiment, the S7 rules had recycle rates for various weapons of 2.5 seconds (one "turn"), 5.0 seconds, 7.5 seconds, and 10.0 seconds, with each weapon dealing its full heat and damage with each firing.
Along with that, SHS would vent one unit of heat every 2.5 seconds (an average dissipation of 0.4 units of heat per second, versus the 0.1 units of heat per second determined by the standard TT rules) and DHS would vent two units of heat every 2.5 seconds (an average dissipation of 0.8 units of heat per second, versus the 0.2 units of heat per second determined by the standard TT rules).

Suppose MWO were to use weapon recycle times (with full damage and heat for each firing) and heat dissipation rates more similar to the S7 rules than to those of the standard TT. What is your take on that?

My take on that is that it's complete garbage. The Solaris Rules are not better than standard rules or they would have been made the standard rules. They skew balance in completely crazy ways.

My point is simply this: If a PPC generates ten heat in a 'turn' of firing, and ten heat sinks can dissipate ten heat in a 'turn' of firing, then the heat should be completely dissipated before that PPC can fire again otherwise there is zero point in running a 'cool' mech that is balanced to not overload on heat.

There is no need for a coolant flushing system if heat sinks work comparably to the heat generated by weapons. I don't know why you are so dead set on forcing heat sinks to remain on a 10 second cooling period if weapons aren't set on 10 second recycle times. Make them balance. It isn't hard to do. If you reduce recycle time, increase heat sink function to match. Simple.

[Rakash]

So what if you diffuse the rates?  The Medium Laser does 5 damage, generates 3 heat per turn (10 seconds) but the video games have never made you wait 10 seconds between firings.  So, if the medium laser fires faster (2.5 seconds), then it fires 4 times per turn, doing 1.25 damage and generating .75 heat per shot, maintaining its TT specs but translating better into a realtime application?
Actually, that also works for the difference between the smaller, faster weapons like small and medium lasers, low-caliber autocannons, etc. and heavier guns like PPCs and Gauss Rifles that do all their damage in one big smack, but fire less often.

Edited by Rakash, 26 May 2012 - 11:57 AM.

[Christopher Dayson]

Rakash, on 26 May 2012 - 11:51 AM, said:

So what if you diffuse the rates? The Medium Laser does 5 damage, generates 3 heat per turn (10 seconds) but the video games have never made you wait 10 seconds between firings. So, if the medium laser fires faster (2.5 seconds), then it fires 4 times per turn, doing 1.25 damage and generating .75 heat per shot, maintaining its TT specs but translating better into a realtime application?

If that happened then you're still at Table Top Ratio's (I guess, I am not checking your math atm) and thusly heat sinks work fine. The thing is we /know/ that they won't work fine if a Medium Laser fires 4 times in 10 seconds, doing 5 damage each time, and generating 3 heat each time. That Medium Laser now puts out more heat than a PPC and requires 12 heat sinks on it's own if you have heat sinks still on the same ratio of 10 seconds of cooldown.

It doesn't matter which way the ratio's are tuned, so long as heat sinks are tuned comparably, or weapons are tuned to not generate more heat in whatever stretch of time that the heat sinks are set to work on.

For example: If a PPC can shoot every 5 seconds say, it'll be generating 2 heat per second. Ten heat sinks therefor need to be able to dissipate 2 heat per second also. Once heat sinks balance as they should then you no longer need to make up some broken coolant flushing mechanic that allows for idiotic alpha strike energy weapon boats.

[Rakash]

Christopher Dayson, on 26 May 2012 - 11:56 AM, said:

If that happened then you're still at Table Top Ratio's (I guess, I am not checking your math atm) and thusly heat sinks work fine. The thing is we /know/ that they won't work fine if a Medium Laser fires 4 times in 10 seconds, doing 5 damage each time, and generating 3 heat each time. That Medium Laser now puts out more heat than a PPC and requires 12 heat sinks on it's own if you have heat sinks still on the same ratio of 10 seconds of cooldown.
It doesn't matter which way the ratio's are tuned, so long as heat sinks are tuned comparably, or weapons are tuned to not generate more heat in whatever stretch of time that the heat sinks are set to work on.

For example: If a PPC can shoot every 5 seconds say, it'll be generating 2 heat per second. Ten heat sinks therefor need to be able to dissipate 2 heat per second also. Once heat sinks balance as they should then you no longer need to make up some broken coolant flushing mechanic that allows for idiotic alpha strike energy weapon boats.

Well, no.  Of course not.  If you amplify the weapon damage by 4, then heat goes up by a factor of 4 as well.  So you tune heat sinks to match that or everyone fries.  But then, hey, that medium laser is doing 4 times normal damage in the same amount of time.  We gonna tune armor to match that, or melt an Atlas down with a medium laser in less than a minute?

[Christopher Dayson]

Rakash, on 26 May 2012 - 12:01 PM, said:

Well, no. Of course not. If you amplify the weapon damage by 4, then heat goes up by a factor of 4 as well. So you tune heat sinks to match that or everyone fries. But then, hey, that medium laser is doing 4 times normal damage in the same amount of time. We gonna tune armor to match that, or melt an Atlas down with a medium laser in less than a minute?

This is what is called the butterfly effect. Once you start retuning one thing you end up having to retune a LOT of things if not everything and why some people think that changing anything is just an effort in futility as it will never balance right. Right now they're using two times armor and internal structure, so every mech is twice as tough as it was, which makes weapons fire a lot less intimidating. I mean when a Jenner can take a Gauss to the chest and not even hit internal structure it makes smart driving a lot less important. It skews the battlefield cuz now Jenners will do mad charges to get into the back of a mech for example with little risk.

Point is: More you 'adjust' or 'rebalance' the more it ends up not being the way it should be and you end up with artificially contrived mechanics like the 'Coolant Flush'.

[Sleeping Bear]

Christopher Dayson, on 26 May 2012 - 08:46 AM, said:

My thoughts is that if you're going to increase the rate of fire to create massive amounts of increased heat then heat sinks need to be increased in efficiency to work as they should.

It's that simple. If I generate 20 heat while moving at top speed and firing everything, then my 20 heat sinks should allow me to run heat neutral at all times. I don't know why this is even an issue other than poor coding. It's creating an artificial problem that shouldn't exist, and then creating a horribly broken mechanic to try and deal with it that has heinous consequences.

Sort of like Heat Sinks not taking up space, that was a horrid mechanic and part of why I am loving the mechlab in MW:O, it's a combination of hard points /and/ critical slots along with weight. Each mech remains unique and it eliminates hard point saturation as a problem.

Running/building a heat neutral design in the game seems completely possible. The problem involved in this thread is the boaters out there crying for coolant flush. It's a matter of simple mathematics, most boaters will generally run a mech that will produce 150%-200% heat capacity with their loadouts. You might argue that it is simply a matter of more heatsinks then. Devs have stated that TT rules are what the game is based on. So then it boils down to a matter of space. Inner Sphere double heatsinks take up a bunch of space, in the TT they take up as much space as an PPC/ERPPC. About the most double heatsinks a design will have is 20, so when a boater wants to load up 4 ERPPCs on his design, according to tabletop rules he will be running around +30% heat each round. So in about 3-4 salvoes, your typical boater will shutdown or explode. Older mechwarrior games tried to satisfy the boaters with the aforementioned coolant flush. In my mind, this has always been a copout. It's human nature to want something without having to pay the price, and online gamers desire to be overpowered. If the devs keep coolant flushing out of the game, then I would greatly appreciate it. In my mind, it would force players to create more heat efficient and varied designs then your typical no-brain boater variant.

[Rakash]

No, I totally agree that a) coolant flush is unnecessary as a base mechanic, if you're going to have it you rock coolant pods costing cash, tonnage, and crits, and subject to ammo explosion rules like the TT version, and c) changing the video game mechanics to work in real time while maintaining the core TT mechanics is awesome, sacrificing one for the other is stupid and, frankly, unnecessary.

And yes, I design heat-balanced units all the time that are energy-heavy. It can be done. BattleTech is a game of math, where math has been equipped with lasers and told to kill.

[DDM PLAGUE]

a well designed weapon platform would have have an emergency override & a limited emergency cooling system, Specifically a energy weapon platform. Like a Nova. And in the previous mech games even with the override & coolant, you still had to have good weapon control to survive an encounter with another SKILLED pilot. I personally liked to hunt energy mechs with a Shadow cat armed with twin clan lbx10s 2 flamers & a srm 4. Some of you have run into that combo before.