34 replies to this topic

[Wilson]

Something that has come up as a very frustrating aspect of building a mech has been the minimum requirement of 10 heat sinks no matter what engine or chassis or type of heat sink used. This has made it so mechs who run very small engines and very low heat builds have to make room for 1 or more unnecessary (in terms of performace) heat sinks. This is especially an issue on the light mechs: commando, spider, and raven; medium mechs: blackjacks (sans BJ-1x), and to a lesser extent hunchbacks (very slow ones); and the unreleased phoenix mech, locust.

I realized that the 10 heat sink minimum must be a staple of tabletop, as I have not come across a stock loadout with less than 10 for any mech. However this limit, as far as I know, is not explained in lore, which makes its inclusion in MWO very frustrating (It turns out I am wrong about this, even if a standard 170 engine only has 6 engine heat sinks the mech still needs 4 more external heat sinks to run. Usually the weight of these additional sinks is included in the weight, but in mwo the weight is not included and there are no "weightless" heatsinks in mwo).

I believe that removal of this minimum would allow for more competitive builds for certain underpowered mechs in comparison to others in their weight class. For example, the ravens 2X and 4X are undeniably much less effective than the 3L, largely due to their low engine limit. The 4X especially would benefit from this change due to its ballistic slots and (usually) low heat builds. Without a minimum heat sink limit one could opt for a ballistics based build such as the silly yet reasonably powerful gauss raven. With virtually no heat the tonnage and slots saved by the no longer required 2 or more heat sinks could make the variant more deadly and comparable with the 3L (there's other issues with the 2X and 4X but this would certainly help).

The potential issues I see with this change are with the commando and spider (and locust) chassis. Both mechs can and have been used to great success under the current system and the commando already has impressive firepower ratings for its low weight. The removal of the heat sink minimum could give these mechs critical tonnage and slot improvements which could push them over the edge to being too good, but I think that is still unlikely. Both mechs can use relatively hot laser-heavy loadouts and would probably want 10+ heat sinks anyway, and those that don't would most likely only use the extra space for more ammo and/or electronic equipment. The only potential problem variant I see under the proposed removal of the minimum is the commando 2D which has decently low heat and has trouble currently finding space and tonnage for armor, ammo and ecm. 3 streaks and 1 medium laser does generate a little bit of heat though, and its not unheard of for the mech to overheat with 10 double heat sinks, so perhaps 10 DHS would still be optimal.

As for heavies and assaults dropping to very low engine limits and benefiting even more with the increased tonnage with the lack of heat sinks, I do not see that to be a problem. With the vastly increased firepower coming from that (silly) decision comes rediculously low speed and therefore survivability. Also excluding 3+ gauss rifle builds, those mechs would probably require a decent number of heat sinks anyway.

So sorry about the wall of text but I have put a lot of thought into this and I really think this change would benefit certain chassis which are having a bit of trouble in the current game. Again, if I am missing some lore that explains the minimum or missing some criminally overpowered build which would arise from the change, let me know.

Edited by Wilson, 07 July 2013 - 08:48 AM.

[PEEFsmash]

Agree. Unnecessary limitation.

[Deathlike]

The short answer is no.

Now if I could remember the exact reason, I'd let you know. It's for people not to screw themselves, especially on Caustic in closed beta from what I'm told... where the caldera was where you would be "heat locked" for a lack of a better term when you didn't have enough HS to cooldown (I think now, it's just a heat cap penalty of sorts).

The basic 10 HS requirement is "basically enough" to get 1 med laser to cooldown reliably when using SHS... and 2 med lasers to cooldown with a 250 engine and DHS. These things actually matter in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that allows many mechs to shoot more is the seemingly generous heat cap (which is also indirectly allowing the PPC meta to be so prominent).

Edited by Deathlike, 06 July 2013 - 05:50 PM.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

All engines in TT came with the base 10 HS, just a FYI

[Wilson]

Deathlike, on 06 July 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

The short answer is no.

Now if I could remember the exact reason, I'd let you know. It's for people not to screw themselves, especially on Caustic in closed beta from what I'm told... where the caldera was where you would be "heat locked" for a lack of a better term.

The basic 10 HS requirement is "basically enough" to get 1 med laser to cooldown reliably when using SHS... and 2 med lasers to cooldown with a 250 engine and DHS. These things actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

I suppose that is reasonable, but the game doesn't have many other systems to stop you from "screwing yourself". You can already drop without ammo for your weapons, or drop with no armor, or fire 6 er ppcs with 10 standard heat sinks and become a failed star, so that doesn't appear to be the reason to me. This doesn't affect newbies dropping in trial mechs either, for all the stock loadouts have at least 10 standard heat sinks. Most of those are hot enough to kill yourself anyway.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 06 July 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

All engines in TT came with the base 10 HS, just a FYI

Although they "came with 10 HS" you still had to mount the external ones on the chassis if your engine was under 250-rating, and if you wanted less than 10 then the rule book said "no." In MW:O the engines don't "come with" 10 but you do have to mount 10 in total for it to be valid, so it's a very similar situation.

I agree that Players should be able to drop with 6 DHS in a 150-rated engine and be allowed to drop with just those 6 (or maybe 8 DHS from a 200 engine), but Mechs should not be allowed to drop with less than 10 SHS.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 06 July 2013 - 05:52 PM.

[Deathlike]

Wilson, on 06 July 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

I suppose that is reasonable, but the game doesn't have many other systems to stop you from "screwing yourself". You can already drop without ammo for your weapons, or drop with no armor, or fire 6 er ppcs with 10 standard heat sinks and become a failed star, so that doesn't appear to be the reason to me. This doesn't affect newbies dropping in trial mechs either, for all the stock loadouts have at least 10 standard heat sinks. Most of those are hot enough to kill yourself anyway.

I edited my post recently with a bit more input, but the argument is the same.

Anyways, the min heatsink requirements are what they are, and ultimately for the sake of balance (and silliness) it has to be there.

Even if you put together a strictly heatless Spider-5K (4 MGs), there are other issues at work, like environment that do affect your heat that at minimum 10 HS (or effectively 5 internal DHS) has to actually counteract on ANY given map.

[Wilson]

Deathlike, on 06 July 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

Even if you put together a strictly heatless Spider-5K (4 MGs), there are other issues at work, like environment that do affect your heat that at minimum 10 HS (or effectively 5 internal DHS) has to actually counteract on ANY given map.

Hmm so a minimum 10 SHS or 5-6 DHS would be theoretically reasonable then (as you and Prosperity suggested)? That would indeed address this problem but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because I wouldn't like another reason why SHS are just inferior. I mean sure its supposed to be a direct upgrade but I feel like there should still be some advantage to having SHS over DHS (I haven't found a situation where the extra slots have been worthwhile over DHS).

Edited by Wilson, 06 July 2013 - 06:06 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Wilson, on 06 July 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Hmm so a minimum 10 SHS or 5-6 DHS would be theoretically reasonable then (as you and Prosperity suggested)? That would indeed address this problem but it leaves a bad taste in my mouth because I wouldn't like another reason why SHS are just inferior. I mean sure its supposed to be a direct upgrade but I feel like there should still be some advantage to having SHS over DHS (I haven't found a situation where the extra slots have been worthwhile over DHS).

Yeah, I guess we should kinda wait and see about that. The devs said they are floating ideas about how to make SHS worthwhile in some way, so asking to change the heatsink requirement now might be moot...

[Wilson]

Thontor, on 06 July 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

i would rather they include the heat sinks with the engine purchase, as floating heat sinks that behave like the floating criticals of Endo steel and Ferro fibrous.

The 10 heat sink minimum is part of the lore. the fusion engine requires that many to run properly.

Keep in mind, these external heat sinks out of the first 10 are technically weight free. But in MWO the weight was subtracted from the engine so they could use just regular 1 ton heat sinks.

I assume you want to remove the minimum number of heat sinks to free up weight.... So essentially what you are asking for is to lower the weight of smaller engines under 250 rating.

I did not realize this. I suppose this is the source of my confusion, "if the engine requires 10 heat sinks, why does it only come with 8"? The floating critical idea succeeds in illustrating the 10 heat sink requirement.

[Zyllos]

Just an FYI, 4 engines in the game are not of correct weight:

170 STD
370 STD

These two engines actually weigh 0.5t too light.

100 XL
375 XL

These two engines weigh 1.0t too heavy.

The 100 XL can not be fixed with PGI's system of making the initial 10 heatsinks act like normal heatsinks with weight. They should instead have a system that when an engine is equipped that needs outside heatsinks, they are automatically installed and called "Engine Single Heatsink" or "Engine Double Heatsink" that weighs 0.0t and can only be moved, not removed.

That will fix any problems with the 100 XL engine weight being 1.0t too heavy but weighing 0.5t already so no way to reducing the weight.

PGI will also need to give the Gyro and Cockpit their own weights back so that they can implement the additional new Gyros and Cockpits if they want to implement them in the future.

[Unbound Inferno]

A little history maybe?

The BT rules have it so when constructing a mech you have 10 heat sinks at no weight cost.

In MWO they incorporated that into the mechanics of the engines. It is why the smaller engines appear so light. In reality their weight should be so many tons more and the heat sinks should be placed at no weight cost.

The rules do not state where you must place them, but there is a set one for the amount available to be placed inside the engine. PGI simplified it by having the engines come standard with so many internal heat sinks, adjusted the weight for what doesn't fit and have you required to place a couple externally.


Nothing wrong with that and no reason to change it. Well, exactly. Perfectionists may argue the point, but it follows the rules just fine to me.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 06 July 2013 - 06:54 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

If I remember my lore right, the justification given for the ten heat sink minimum was that the heat sinks were integral to the engine. Any engine rated under 250 was physically too small to contain all the heat sinks internally and so the heat sinks had to be mounted at no actual cost in weight. They were required for the engine to operate normally no matter what its rating was. I can only assume the engines were not sufficiently cooled within in an acceptable margin of safety with less than ten heat sinks. As for the double heat sinks (DHS), I can offer no sufficient explanation as to why ten would be required other than build practicality. The weight was already built in so why re-engineer an entire engine and build an entire new production line when you can A: make a standardized hook up system or B: split your production line to mount one or the other? First gives ease to change, second integrates more while improving durability and efficiency. Both keep the design of the engine the same so that only the cooling system changes.

From an in-game historical standpoint we are actually in a transition period, DHS will become pretty standard as it becomes more available. By the time we get to 3055 single heat sinks (SHS) will be the exception for stock builds, not the rule. Only economy builds or extremely cool running 'Mechs will have SHS.

If PGI had done things the way Zyllos suggested, no one would bat an eye about this because it would simply be the way things are. But they did it this way so we are discussing the system.

[Corvus Antaka]

i agree since less heatsinks costs you efficiency. this requirement should be removed.

[aniviron]

Deathlike, on 06 July 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

The short answer is no.

Now if I could remember the exact reason, I'd let you know. It's for people not to screw themselves, especially on Caustic in closed beta from what I'm told... where the caldera was where you would be "heat locked" for a lack of a better term when you didn't have enough HS to cooldown (I think now, it's just a heat cap penalty of sorts).

The basic 10 HS requirement is "basically enough" to get 1 med laser to cooldown reliably when using SHS... and 2 med lasers to cooldown with a 250 engine and DHS. These things actually matter in the grand scheme of things. The only thing that allows many mechs to shoot more is the seemingly generous heat cap (which is also indirectly allowing the PPC meta to be so prominent).

The reason was because this was how tabletop worked. I can assure you, PGI don't care about new players overheating, or else the trial mechs this week would not include CPLT-C4, which cannot even dissipate the heat generated by its two small lasers, or the BJ-1X, with an alarming heat efficiency of .54.

[Deathlike]

aniviron, on 06 July 2013 - 08:26 PM, said:

The reason was because this was how tabletop worked. I can assure you, PGI don't care about new players overheating, or else the trial mechs this week would not include CPLT-C4, which cannot even dissipate the heat generated by its two small lasers, or the BJ-1X, with an alarming heat efficiency of .54.

Well, I didn't want to recite the obvious TT reason... as I'm familiar with it in the older games (MW4 being the terrible oddball exception to the rule).

I've never had a problem with it, but I dislike part of PGI's custom implementation of the rule with respect to mechs that are designed with smaller engines in mind (like the Flea and Locust).

Edited by Deathlike, 06 July 2013 - 08:50 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

Deathlike, on 06 July 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Well, I didn't want to recite the obvious TT reason... as I'm familiar with it in the older games (MW4 being the terrible oddball exception to the rule).

I've never had a problem with it, but I dislike part of PGI's custom implementation of the rule with respect to mechs that are designed with smaller engines in mind (like the Flea and Locust).

I dont think I understand. They are implementing it as it would be in TT. I mean if I run a 50 rating engine in a 50 tonner (1mp walk, 2mp running), I still get 10 heat sinks, however the other 8 takes critical spaces. How else would they implement it? The only other alternative is to let people run with 4 heat sinks total, and watch the mech over heat as it walks without firing anything lol...

[Deathlike]

Saxie, on 06 July 2013 - 11:10 PM, said:

I dont think I understand. They are implementing it as it would be in TT. I mean if I run a 50 rating engine in a 50 tonner (1mp walk, 2mp running), I still get 10 heat sinks, however the other 8 takes critical spaces. How else would they implement it? The only other alternative is to let people run with 4 heat sinks total, and watch the mech over heat as it walks without firing anything lol...

That's not exactly what I'm saying. It's difficult to add DHS onto a mech that struggles to have crits available (most lights are dependent on that bit of extra tonnage). I don't have any problem with the tonnage consumed by the HS (to allow it to reach the required it)... it's the crits taken up that don't help matters.

I would be happier that there would be some form of engine-heatsink padding that would allow HS (both types) to not consume crit spaces (you would still have the option to take out SHS and put them on the legs if you wish to benefit from water). To prevent abuse of this system on bigger mechs (this primarily affects Assaults that have all the tonnage in the world, but starve for crits), you would use the external HS values for ones added to the engine so you wouldn't benefit from true DHS.

Anyways... I'm too tired to think much further about this.

[Sporklift]

In closed beta, before the heat sink requirement, I remember watching an enemy hunchback walk into the Caldera in Caustic. It walked over one of those fumaroles (the hot smokey things) and promptly overheated without even firing a weapon. I later learned that if you didn't have more than seven single heat sinks you rapidly started gaining heat when you entered the caldera. The mech would shut down and then melt even while in shut down.

[Training Instructor]

When I played tabletop, I ignored the rule, because it was arbitrary and didn't make any sense. It requires a max of two heat sinks in tabletop to offset the heat penalty from running. Therefore, that is your baseline for what a mech actually needs.

A locust using minimal heat weapons such as a medium laser and four machine guns shouldn't need 10 heat sinks, or double heat sinks, because it gains no benefit from them.