27 replies to this topic

[Lee Ving]

See the poll. Everyone loves polls. Feel free to provide reasoned and rational thought below. I know flamers love polls too, but try to keep it civil.

[Tice Daurus]

I've discussed this at length in the Consumable's post regarding this. Please refrain from making duplicate posts and post your thoughts in the Consumable's discussion.

[Adrienne Vorton]

*put emotionally loaded but well thought and pointed out rant against the need for CF at all here*

thx

[Commander Kobold]

what would the logic behind this be?

[Lee Ving]

Omni 13, on 20 March 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

what would the logic behind this be?

Coolant is understood to operate in a relatively closed-circuit system. If you're venting or flushing it, you're eliminating some of it, reducing the amount available to "cool" and thereby the base-line efficiency of a mech to be able to remove heat as normal.

Beyond that, justification that coolant flush has been in previous MW titles is being used as justification for its inclusion. In previous titles that included it, using the flush reduced your heat efficiency thereafter.

Adrienne Vorton, on 20 March 2013 - 07:40 AM, said:

*put emotionally loaded but well thought and pointed out rant against the need for CF at all here*

thx

But you didn't? Thanks for your non-contribution! I should expect nothing less from 3k posts.

Tice Daurus, on 20 March 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

I've discussed this at length in the Consumable's post regarding this. Please refrain from making duplicate posts and post your thoughts in the Consumable's discussion.

By "at length" you mean one paragraph with an opinion that it should be restricted to mastery, which doesn't even relate to my question. We won't even get into the fact that if something is mechanically present the idea that you have to "master" something to use it is ludicrous. Thanks for the herp post, great contribution/complaint.

Edited by Lee Ving, 20 March 2013 - 08:44 AM.

[Tice Daurus]

Lee Ving, on 20 March 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

By "at length" you mean one paragraph with an opinion that it should be restricted to mastery, which doesn't even relate to my question. We won't even get into the fact that if something is mechanically present the idea that you have to "master" something to use it is ludicrous. Thanks for the herp post, great contribution/complaint.

You're welcome and thank you for the smart*** remark. And yes, my multiple comments in the Consumable's thread does relate to your post although you're too dense to see how it relates. Smart*** remark begets another smart*** remark.

EDIT: My apologies for the tone of my smart***ery, if that is a word. And if it isn't a word, it should be. LOL!

I've stated in a later post that when you flush engine coolant on the heatsinks, it provides temporary cooling yet the overall cooling will be reduced due to less coolant in the engine. I know my mechanics when it comes to HVAC cooling, I work in a telecom office where I'm responsible for knowing how an HVAC system works so I can identify troubles for a system and notify what the problem is so it can be fixed quickly. I've gone through classes of training to now how HVAC/cooling systems work and the rough but same principles apply with heatsinks in a Battlemech.

Which is why I've stated in order to deal with this, a 1 ton/1 crit cooling tank should be made available for coolant extra coolant flush/shots in order to replace coolant that is initially flushed out to deal with loss of coolant.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 20 March 2013 - 09:09 AM.

[Lee Ving]

Tice Daurus, on 20 March 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

You're welcome and thank you for the smart*** remark. And yes, my multiple comments in the Consumable's thread does relate to your post although your too dense to see how it relates. Smart*** remark begets another smart*** remark.

I've stated in a later post that when you flush engine coolant on the heatsinks, it provides temporary cooling yet the overall cooling will be reduced due to less coolant in the engine. I know my mechanics when it comes to HVAC cooling, I work in a telecom office where I'm responsible for knowing how an HVAC system works so I can identify troubles for a system and notify what the problem is so it can be fixed quickly. I've gone through classes of training to now how HVAC/cooling systems work and the rough but same principles apply with heatsinks in a Battlemech.

Which is why I've stated in order to deal with this, a 1 ton/1 crit cooling tank should be made available for coolant extra coolant flush/shots in order to replace coolant that is initially flushed out to deal with loss of coolant.

Can't say I much disagree with your suggestions, but can you blame me for avoiding scouring a few pages for your post?

I never took HVAC classes, but I do build cars now and then.

Inter-thread links would be useful, IMO.

PS if you're calling someone dense, you might want to use the right version of "your."

tl;dr we agree but I SAID IT FIRST RAAAAAEEEEG

Edited by Lee Ving, 20 March 2013 - 09:06 AM.

[Tice Daurus]

Lee Ving, on 20 March 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

Can't say I much disagree with your suggestions, but can you blame me for avoiding scouring a few pages for your post?

I never took HVAC classes, but I do build cars now and then.

Inter-thread links would be useful, IMO.

PS if you're calling someone dense, you might want to use the right version of "your."

D'oh! Guess I'm dense sometimes too. Thanks, and sorry for being a bit of a smart*** with the tone myself.

[Lee Ving]

Tice Daurus, on 20 March 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

D'oh! Guess I'm dense sometimes too. Thanks, and sorry for being a bit of a smart*** with the tone myself.

No problem, I admittedly didn't place much effort in my search

Cheers

[MaddMaxx]

There is no Coolant lose. Why do so many think that.

The Flush simply replaces some of the current Very Hot coolant fluid with the exact same amount of Very Cold coolant fluid, thus the rapid, but one off, usage Heat lose.

It ain't rocket science really.

Poll is flawed at its source.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 20 March 2013 - 09:12 AM.

[Lee Ving]

MaddMaxx, on 20 March 2013 - 09:10 AM, said:

There is no Coolant lose. Why do so many think that.

The Flush simply replaces some of the current Very Hot coolant fluid with the exact same amount of Very Cold coolant fluid, thus the rapid, but one off, usage Heat lose.

It ain't rocket science really.

So where does that "very cold" come from? The non-existent cold-coolant reservoir tubes connected to your logistics supply?

Or from the same closed circuit system that it is already recirculating through?

If it is from an external source, why aren't you penalized with weight and crit slot usage for it?

You're absolutely right that it isn't rocket science, it is basic radiator-driven coolant mechanics.

[Th0rsten]

Comparing battletech andt actual mechanics/physics/insertTopicHere does not make too much sense most of the time, although I agree the current implementation is suboptimal.

But I think coolant flush is implemented in the way pgi wants it to be so I doubt they will change much to it.

Giving the coolant flush the drawback of decreasing the general heat dissipation might actually make it useless at all. Decreasing your performance for the whole match in order to have a little edge at one point? Which you already do by using the coolant instead of a module which might also be beneficial.

I might misjudge it, but in my opinion coolant flush is far from beeing the gamebreaking tool some people claim it to be.

[Lee Ving]

Th0rsten, on 20 March 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Comparing battletech andt actual mechanics/physics/insertTopicHere does not make too much sense most of the time, although I agree the current implementation is suboptimal.

But I think coolant flush is implemented in the way pgi wants it to be so I doubt they will change much to it.

Giving the coolant flush the drawback of decreasing the general heat dissipation might actually make it useless at all. Decreasing your performance for the whole match in order to have a little edge at one point? Which you already do by using the coolant instead of a module which might also be beneficial.

I might misjudge it, but in my opinion coolant flush is far from beeing the gamebreaking tool some people claim it to be.

Here comes the "but its sci-fi stompy space robots" excuse.

Revert to the 1970s / 1980s when BT universe came into its own, and you'll see most of the technology is grounded in some reality. Is it hard-sci-fi? No, obviously it isn't when a cruise missile/tactical nuclear warheads/mass drivers render these mechs obsolete. Still that doesn't excuse blatant disregard for science because spacewizards where it otherwise does not exist.

With regards to the meat and potatoes of your post; isn't providing a drawback in addition to an advantage what they call balancing?

Edited by Lee Ving, 20 March 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[Tice Daurus]

Lee Ving, on 20 March 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

So where does that "very cold" come from? The non-existent cold-coolant reservoir tubes connected to your logistics supply?

Or from the same closed circuit system that it is already recirculating through?

If it is from an external source, why aren't you penalized with weight and crit slot usage for it?

You're absolutely right that it isn't rocket science, it is basic radiator-driven coolant mechanics.

Lee is spot on with this thought. In order to flush the old coolant out and use it to cool the radiator fins on the heat sinks, you have to have an appropriate amount of coolant in a waiting tank to replace the lost coolant expelled or else you lose coolant ratings to stay at expected levels. Thus if you have Coolshot, there has to be a waiting tank with extra coolant. The tank has weight. The extra coolant has weight. If you are already at a full tonnage on your mech, then you are over weight with the extra coolant tank CoolShots. It doesn't make sense. And if you are at extra weight, it throws off the gyros on your mech and it becomes harder to compensate for the added extra weight.

If you are doing this as a coolshot, it needs a crit space in the mech with the appropriate weight of the coolant tank, which is about anywhere from say .5 tons to a full 1 ton weight for say a double coolant shot. Add this in, problem solved, realism restored, and it provides a cost people now need to think about if they want to add this in or not whether it be worth the cost of having 1 free ton and 1 crit space taken up for the tank.

Edited by Tice Daurus, 20 March 2013 - 09:38 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I miss the "Hell! No!" option.

Wait, you mean only for the mech using it? "Baseline" to me implied that you meant all mechs regardless of whether you have a coolant flush thingy or not.

For all I care, that mech can explode 3 minutes after using coolant flush.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 March 2013 - 09:39 AM.

[Commander Kobold]

Lee Ving, on 20 March 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Coolant is understood to operate in a relatively closed-circuit system. If you're venting or flushing it, you're eliminating some of it, reducing the amount available to "cool" and thereby the base-line efficiency of a mech to be able to remove heat as normal.

Beyond that, justification that coolant flush has been in previous MW titles is being used as justification for its inclusion. In previous titles that included it, using the flush reduced your heat efficiency thereafter

wouldn't adding the module imply that you're adding coolant to be flushed? thus explaining why it lasts until you use it?

[Th0rsten]

Lee Ving, on 20 March 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

Here comes the "but its sci-fi stompy space robots" excuse.

Revert to the 1970s / 1980s when BT universe came into its own, and you'll see most of the technology is grounded in some reality. Is it hard-sci-fi? No, obviously it isn't when a cruise missile/tactical nuclear warheads/mass drivers render these mechs obsolete. Still that doesn't excuse blatant disregard for science because spacewizards where it otherwise does not exist.

With regards to the meat and potatoes of your post; isn't providing a drawback in addition to an advantage what they call balancing?

Well i'm certain the current implementation of the coolant flush is certainly not the only blatant disregard of science. I actually enjoy reading posts as yours it is nice seeing people use their brains. However I always get the impression that people using those comparisons with science / real world tech are more or less cherry picking what concerns them and are ignoring "worse" stuff which is why i'm not that fond of using it here as it may lead to almost endless discussions.

I totally agree with you that a drawback is necessary for balancing reasons as (I hope) nobody wants consumables to be mandatory.

As I said, I might misjudge it, but in the early discussion many people argued it was p2w as cbill version took two module slots instead of one and therefore at a disadvantage. No that both versions cost a module slot everybody seems to forget that they still do.

If the cost of a module slot proves to not be a sufficient drawback I would prefer a drawback in terms of weight and crit space rather than decreasing the base heat dissipation.

[NRP]

Please god no. Cool Shot as it currently is is worthless. Doing this would make it even less attractive. If anything, Cool Shot needs to be buffed.

[Vasces Diablo]

There should be some offset mechanic or trade off (other than cost).

To be clear, it should be done for game/balance purposes; not because it doesn't "make sense" from a reality/engineering standpoint as some people have felt the needed to point out.

Granted, that won't happen because than it won't get used as often and it purpose as a cash flow generation and Cbill sink won't work.

[Mawai]

Lee Ving, on 20 March 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Coolant is understood to operate in a relatively closed-circuit system. If you're venting or flushing it, you're eliminating some of it, reducing the amount available to "cool" and thereby the base-line efficiency of a mech to be able to remove heat as normal.

Beyond that, justification that coolant flush has been in previous MW titles is being used as justification for its inclusion. In previous titles that included it, using the flush reduced your heat efficiency thereafter.

I'd have to disagree. The heat sinks in BT are closed systems ... when you coolant flush you aren't using up anything intrinsic to the heat sink ... you are pouring coolant over the heat sink that briefly causes a large increase in its cooling ability ... dissipating a lot of heat in a short period of time by cooking off the coolant. This process would not impact the baseline heat capabilities of the mech at all ... it just provides a large, short term, increase in heat sink cooling rate ... so I voted NO since the alternative did not make much sense to me