Jump to content

Remove Engine Heat Sink Requirement


10 replies to this topic

Poll: Remove the 10 heatsink requirement for all engine types. (16 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you support this suggestion?

  1. Yes (6 votes [37.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 37.50%

  2. No (10 votes [62.50%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 62.50%

  3. Abstain (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Ryvucz

    Zunrith

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:33 AM

I suggest removing the 10 heatsink requirement.

You want to curb high alpha builds? Remove that 10 heatsink minimum requirement.

Besides, what's the point of going for a smaller engine when you need up to 6 tons extra for heatsinks?

-Edited

Added Poll.

Edited by Ryvucz, 24 August 2013 - 07:23 PM.


#2 M0rpHeu5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 956 posts
  • LocationGreece

Posted 24 August 2013 - 09:58 PM

I support this idea

#3 Torquemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • 201 posts
  • LocationAberystwyth

Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:16 AM

I don't think you understand how engines work. Engines generate heat, the heat sinks required is only sufficient to cool the engine. The largest engines simply have spare capacity which is why they provide 'free' heat sink locations. If you removed the requirement for engines to need heat sinks you would have no effect, or at worst actually make the issue of high alpha builds even more of a problem.

#4 Corvus Antaka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 8,310 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationInner Sphere

Posted 25 August 2013 - 01:20 AM

yeah please tune the engine heatsinks. I would like to run a commando at 97 kph (believe it or not :) ) and have more loadout choice than needing 6 heatsinks which puts me exactly where a 5 ton heavier engine would. It might be tabletop, but it's a terrible system for the game and more mech diversity. the loss of cooling on the HS should be enough of a problem.

#5 Ryvucz

    Zunrith

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:11 AM

View PostTorquemada, on 25 August 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

I don't think you understand how engines work. Engines generate heat, the heat sinks required is only sufficient to cool the engine. The largest engines simply have spare capacity which is why they provide 'free' heat sink locations. If you removed the requirement for engines to need heat sinks you would have no effect, or at worst actually make the issue of high alpha builds even more of a problem.


I don't think you understand that this is a video game.

#6 M0rpHeu5

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 956 posts
  • LocationGreece

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:00 AM

View PostTorquemada, on 25 August 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

I don't think you understand how engines work. Engines generate heat, the heat sinks required is only sufficient to cool the engine. The largest engines simply have spare capacity which is why they provide 'free' heat sink locations. If you removed the requirement for engines to need heat sinks you would have no effect, or at worst actually make the issue of high alpha builds even more of a problem.

TT should be a usefull tool that help us balnce this game not the rule.
According to tabletop an 3erppc mech with 39heat sinks could alpha all day long and never warry to overheat.
Doen't this works for TT? yes, does it for a game? no

#7 wolf74

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,272 posts
  • LocationMidland, TX

Posted 25 August 2013 - 09:55 AM

The problem is the engine weight had been changed to reflect you having to add the extra Heatsinks up to 10. IF they remove that items I would have to say return the Engine weights back to CBT Levels.
AKA For the Following Engine Rating: (standard / XL)
245-225 add 1 / 0.5 ton
220-200 add 2 / 1.0 tons
195-175 add 3 / 1.5 tons
170-150 add 4 / 2.0 tons
145-125 add 5 / 2.5 tons
120-100 add 6 / 3.0 tons

#8 Firewuff

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,204 posts
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 25 August 2013 - 05:24 PM

go for it.... remove the 10 tons of heat sinks for your engine and watch your mech blow up from overheating standing still and not firing... i support this stupid suggestion!

#9 Ryvucz

    Zunrith

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 25 August 2013 - 05:47 PM

View PostFirewuff, on 25 August 2013 - 05:24 PM, said:

go for it.... remove the 10 tons of heat sinks for your engine and watch your mech blow up from overheating standing still and not firing... i support this stupid suggestion!


That's the idea, although no need to make an attack on it.

#10 Buso Senshi Zelazny

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 179 posts
  • LocationUpstate New York, USA

Posted 25 August 2013 - 05:55 PM

If they did that, they would have to re-tune the engine weights anyway, otherwise stock builds would come in over or underweight, right? I admit it would be nice sometimes to build a heat efficient light or medium and only have to run with 8 or 9 heatsinks instead of forcing us to 10+

#11 Ryvucz

    Zunrith

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • LocationColorado Springs, Colorado

Posted 25 August 2013 - 08:31 PM

View PostBuso Senshi Zelazny, on 25 August 2013 - 05:55 PM, said:

If they did that, they would have to re-tune the engine weights anyway, otherwise stock builds would come in over or underweight, right? I admit it would be nice sometimes to build a heat efficient light or medium and only have to run with 8 or 9 heatsinks instead of forcing us to 10+


My main issue with what it is now, is that there are standard 100 engines available. It makes no sense to have one equipped as the heatsink requirement weighs you down and you might as well go for a higher grade engine.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users