49 replies to this topic

[Kmieciu]

I want the rules to be simple.
Minimum 10 HS is an universal rule because the XL100 Engine you can put in a Locust is the same one you can use in a Hunchback or a Stalker. In every case it requires 6 additional Heat Sinks. If you want to change rules, do it for all the mechs.

[1Sascha]

Quote

If you want to change rules, do it for all the mechs.

I *guess* you could achieve this through heat and heat dissipation. Running a little Locust with 8 heatsinks should be managable - considering the tiny amount of weapons you could put on there. Try that with even a Spider and 3 medium pulses or med lasers and you'll run into heat-trouble.

Besides: Leaving weapons out of it for the moment and if we approach this from a RL-perspective.. Why would a 20-ton Mech require the same 10 HS that a 100-ton Mech needs to be able to run? The HS are a constant here (I guess), since they all weigh the same, use the same amount of crits and dissipate the same amount of heat. So even without firing any weapons, wouldn't an Atlas generate a lot more heat than a Locust even when both are just standing still? More mass, more and bigger equipment, much, much bigger engine, etc.

Kinda like comparing a 2 year old kid to a 200+ lbs bodybuilder. Even when sitting still, the bodybuilder will always burn a lot more energy than the kid. Or take cars/vehicles: The way it is now (and if we would apply MWONL-logic to it), my 1,400 kg VW Golf would need to run the same size of radiator/cooling system that a 7.5 - 10-ton truck uses.

How about this for a solution?

Make minimum HS-requirements more flexible. Meaning: Any engine under a certain size can be run with a smaller minimum than ten in smaller chassis'. This would of course reduce heat-efficiency. Say, a 200 and smaller can be run with 8 HS in a light.



S.

Edited by 1Sascha, 17 October 2013 - 03:03 AM.

[Kmieciu]

1Sascha, on 17 October 2013 - 02:47 AM, said:

Why would a 20-ton Mech require the same 10 HS that a 100-ton Mech needs to be able to run?

It's not the mech, it's the reactor that needs it. A XL100 Engine generates equal heat regardless what chassis it is in. And it needs those Heatsinks to function properly.

You can put a STD200 engine in a Commando and it will go 129.6 kph, the same engine in an Atlas will give it a top speed of 32.4 kph. In both cases, it will generate the same amount of waste heat.

Edited by Kmieciu, 17 October 2013 - 03:19 AM.

[1Sascha]

Quote

It's not the mech, it's the reactor that needs it.

Fair enough.. but it still doesn't make sense.

Again: Assuming that HS are a constant in this equation due to their constant size, weight and cooling-capabilities...

... a STD 400 engine weighs 59.5 tons and still needs the same 10 heatsinks (overall) as a STD 100 which weighs 1 ton. And even if we disregard everything smaller than the 250 (first engine with 10 internal HS), we're still looking at a weight difference of 41 tons.

Either the 400 is seriously under-cooled or the 100 is seriously over-cooled.



S.

[Hythos]

It's been said before - the "meta" is for lights to move fast. It helps (** Edit - apparently the 'naughty-word-filter filtered out "a i d s" / as in "helps" ... gg) the low-IQ FPS players with being able to identify the 'role' of a light 'Mech in a way they're familiar by "class": Lights are meant for scouting, assaults are meant for 'tanking' and soaking damage. We've already been told that the Atlas is the top-tier, end-game 'Mech, and all the 'Mech stats are laid out in a way that again, said low-IQ FPS player (their target-market) can understand.

As for "canon" - the first 10 Heat Sinks of ANY kind should come at no weight, even if they must be allocated for engines below 250-rating. It's a staple of Battletech construction; it's why there are light 'Mechs with a SIXTY rated engine (for you low-IQ FPS players, this is what sixty looks like in numerical.. oops, I mean numb3r form: 60 ) which would require EIGHT ... oops, sorry again... 8 additional heatsinks. It makes just as much sense as "ghost heat" and "Gauss r a sn1pr waepon nao" - and it works - so why not use it?? 'cause an assault 'Mech with a 200-rated engine would need to allocate TWO ... damnit, 2 more Heat Sinks? vs virtually 50% light 'Mechs that must due to sub-250 engines?

Edited by Hythos, 17 October 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[Carcoona]

How about if there was a minimum heat efficiency for the mech, rather than minimum heat sinks. Therefore if you were using 4 MG and 1 ML you can cope with having less heatsinks due to you generating less heat. Freeing up tonnage for more armour? But if you want a LL for example you will need more heatsinks to compensate.

So just a minimum heat threshold to drop the mech, rather than heat sink limit?

[Gigastrike]

Maybe it could be changed so that you only need 5 engine heat sinks if they're doubles?

(Haven't actually thought out the balancing yet)

Edited by Gigastrike, 17 October 2013 - 09:55 AM.

[Hythos]

Carcoona, on 17 October 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

How about if there was a minimum heat efficiency for the mech, rather than minimum heat sinks. Therefore if you were using 4 MG and 1 ML you can cope with having less heatsinks due to you generating less heat. Freeing up tonnage for more armour? But if you want a LL for example you will need more heatsinks to compensate.

So just a minimum heat threshold to drop the mech, rather than heat sink limit?

I.C.E. (Internal Combustion Engines) in Battlemechs is a possibility in Battletech. I'll have to re-read the heat-generation restrictions for 'Mechs, but I *believe* ballistics and missle-weapons generate ZERO heat and require ZERO heat-sinks with I.C.E., just as vehicles. Obviously this would never fly, as PGI has soo beaten us to death with "Ghost Heat Nao!" rules, including AC/2's, AC/20's, and missile-lawnchairs (where you sit back and enjoy the show ).

The main point of note: I.C.E. engines in Battlemechs require 2x the standard tonnage; in MWO terms, this would double the weight, EXCLUDING tonnage allocated for the Cockpit (3tons), and Gyro (rating/100=tonnage). IE, 300 I.C.E. would weigh (19*2)+6 = 44t; though, could fire ballistics + Missile weapons at no heat...

Take that! Ghost heat!


** Reference: Maximum Tech #1700, pg71 for Battlemech I.C.E. descriptions

[Caboosegg]

out of all 3 locust only one of the is viable, i don't think they should get JJ as they would just be spiders then but, they just do not have enough spare weight to make viable builds

[Troggy]

Honestly, the issue I see is not one of "viability," but rather an issue of "variability". Currently, the ruleset effectively renders the potential advantages of using a smaller than 190XL engine, moot. As a corollary to this, all Locust builds are more or less the same.

A very small tweak would result in much greater variety of builds. For example:

Engines < 200 need only 8 HS. Engine < 150 only 6 HS.

That would allow a fast locust, short on guns, or a glass-cannon locust. Currently, every XL engine has a virtually identical "effective weight" due to the heat-sink reqs. So running a smaller engine doesn't get you more guns, it just gets you more dead.

That a smaller engine doesn't provide a weight advantage is counter intuitive, and should be changed. It works pretty well for 190 upward (realistic engines on every other mech), which suggests that the system was only tested down to existent mechs at the time of invention (which is logical). Now that there is an exceptional case (20 tonne mech), the system shows a minor flaw, which should be very easily corrected.

It would also have the advantage of making commandos more viable, and allowing for some potentially fun (if silly) glass cannon ravens.

--
Troggy

Caboosegg, on 17 October 2013 - 11:21 AM, said:

out of all 3 locust only one of the is viable, i don't think they should get JJ as they would just be spiders then but, they just do not have enough spare weight to make viable builds