78 replies to this topic

[Marchant Consadine]

This is one of those threads that show it doesn't matter how good, logical and well argumented your proposition is; it's still going to be contested by an angry mob.

+1 to removing the unnecessary and completely arbitrary heat sink minimum. The only reason I would understand for this limitation is if the engines themselves required a minimun of 10 HS to function (in lore), but then those heatsinks would be in the engine already; no matter how small the engine is. Even then upgrading to double heatsinks should allow the use of only 5.

Perhaps there could become the issue of a single heatsink triple gauss Ilya, but this is easily enough solved by adding heat to movement, with heavier mechs generating more heat when they move (just so we don't need the arbitrary "only light mechs can have <10 heatsinks" -rule).

On a sidenote there really should be a heat cost for moving and doubly so for jumping. A significant heat cost to jumpjets would do much to reduce poptarting.

Edited by Marchant Consadine, 20 October 2013 - 11:56 AM.

[Deathlike]

Marchant Consadine, on 20 October 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

On a sidenote there really should be a heat cost for moving and doubly so for jumping. A significant heat cost to jumpjets would do much to reduce poptarting.

Technically, that rule is already in the game, but it's only significant if you're using SHS.

[MonkeyCheese]

Modo44, on 20 October 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

I have mastered all except the Commando. I have learned that you get speed, or you get firepower. It really is that simple.

There we go ladies and gentlemen, he has mastered the bigger light mechs that can run perfectly without 3-4 tons taken up by "you need ten heatsinks to launch, even if your heat is perfectly manageable"

Problem solved, don't come talking rubbish if this topic has nothing to do with you, and I will say it again we want this rule altered for the locust and commando, I think either by altering all small engines to contain 10heatsinks or simply have the rule that the flea, locust and possibly the commando can drop with less than 10 heat sinks.

[Savage Wolf]

I think the most obvious argument for removing the 10 HS limitation is that it favors the LCT-3M variant of the locust (And any other energy light for that matter) as energy lights actually need the 10 HS. So no biggie there. But all the other variants suffers from it because the HS are just wasting tonnage.

So if you will allow an energy locust to be built most effectively, then why not ballistic and missile variants?

And to the argument that it stops people from doing horrible builds that overheat too fast, what stops me from building a 6 x LL Stalker with only 10 HS?

[MonkeyCheese]

Savage Wolf, on 20 October 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

I think the most obvious argument for removing the 10 HS limitation is that it favors the LCT-3M variant of the locust (And any other energy light for that matter) as energy lights actually need the 10 HS. So no biggie there. But all the other variants suffers from it because the HS are just wasting tonnage.

So if you will allow an energy locust to be built most effectively, then why not ballistic and missile variants?

For me I want it for my 3s missile varient for more ammo and/or ams+ammo with an engine with a survivable speed, and the posibility of a AC2 at a decent speed for the 1v varient. A single AC2 on a fast arm that cant move left or right isnt OP, to me that would be more builds than just the ml mg erll ll combination builds.

[Mahws]

Marchant Consadine, on 20 October 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

Perhaps there could become the issue of a single heatsink triple gauss Ilya, but this is easily enough solved by adding heat to movement, with heavier mechs generating more heat when they move (just so we don't need the arbitrary "only light mechs can have <10 heatsinks" -rule).

At a blistering 40kp/h with 4 tonnes of ammo and no backup weapons I'm about as non-concerned with that possibility as you can get. And that's with an XL engine. It'll also turn 50% slower than a 255 Ilya.

[Gallard]

If we can have internal engine Heat Sink slots for engines 275+, then Heat Sinks up to 10 shouldn't cost tonnage.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

MadTulip, on 18 October 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

where you kept the chassis, engine weight and weapon weights compared to TT we here with the locust imo see for the first time that this one particular rule doesnt scale well at the lower weight border with 20t and 25t mechs. the commando was affected by the rule a bit and the 20t is not viable because of this issue i believe.

...

please consider removing the 10 heatsinks minimum requirement rule.

SImply face it- this is not going to happen. This is particularly on account of the way PGI has decided to interperet engines- namely, that the tonnage of the cockpit and gyroscope have been folded into the engine weight, and then the tonnage of heat sinks that need to be manually placed has been subtracted from the engine weight. For them to alter this, they would need to set the Mechbay to ignore the weight on the necessary heat sinks to reach the ten that are absolutely required for every 'mech, and it is very unlikely at this point that that is going to happen, nevermind relaxing the mandate that every 'mech have ten heat sinks at a minimum.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 21 October 2013 - 11:01 AM.

[Asmosis]

Gallard, on 20 October 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

If we can have internal engine Heat Sink slots for engines 275+, then Heat Sinks up to 10 shouldn't cost tonnage.

engines were reduced in weight to make up for the external heat sinks needed if using less than 250 rating.

If they change the 10 heat sink rule, they would need to revisit engine tonnage.

At least thats what was said when they changed the engine heat sink rules, i dont have time to fine BT engine tonnage atm to compare to the game values.

Edited by Asmosis, 21 October 2013 - 03:51 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

They do indeed factor in the need to have 10 heat sinks.

MW:O engine calculation:
Final engine weight = revised engine weight + number of heat sinks needed to get to 10 minimum + Cockpit weight (3 tons) + Gyro weight (engine rating / 100, rounded up)

The final weights do add up to tabletop values.

And I will "weigh in" with my opinion: There's no need to change the minimum heat sink rule. There will be weight limits (possibly including special missions/contracts with ultra-low limits) where smaller lights would be more desirable.

[42and19]

I love PGI's strange need to introduce things before they should be introduced.

"Weight limits will make the locust viable"

ok....so for the next 8 ******* months we are stuck with a **** mech with no real reason to pilot it. YAY!

Problem is that even then the locust will be passed up. The mech of choice for competetive players in the assault class is the highlander not the d-dc. Meaning that extra 10 or 15 tons gained by taking a locust over a raven/spider/jenner isn't going to be going as far.

I dunno, maybe they will do something soon. Something that no one has thought of.

[Ironwithin]

42and19, on 22 October 2013 - 05:45 AM, said:

ok....so for the next 8 ******* months we are stuck with a **** mech with no real reason to pilot it. YAY!

Well it's not like it's the first time something like this comes along.
Command Console, anyone ?
What about Pinpoint and FastFire efficiencies ?
Have you ever seen anybody in a PUG using NARC ?
My all time favorite: Awesomes...

Quote

I dunno, maybe they will do something soon. Something that no one has thought of.

Hope dies last.
_{But it does die.}

Just enjoy what you like about the game right now and don't sweat the things you don't like. There's a lot of room for improvement down the road.

[42and19]

Like I said. PGI has a track record of introducing things that have no point.

How long did it take them to get machine guns to a point were they are viable?

[MonkeyCheese]

42and19, on 22 October 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Like I said. PGI has a track record of introducing things that have no point.

To counter that one thing they have done right is not introducing the flea when masc is not ready.

[42and19]

Yet

[HighTest]

I wouldn't be totally opposed to removing the minimum 10-heatsink rule (I know, table-top blasphemy), but not unilaterally. If the rule was made to say something like "minimum 10 HS cooling capacity", you could say that you would need 10 SHS or 5DHS minimum. That might work out OK,

Frankly, this might in turn be great for everyone else. As a largely Heavy class pilot myself, I'd love to see more lights running around with more weapons and only 5 DHS for cooling... or should I say more lights shut down from overheating with more weapons. Hit detection may be a little wonky with lights blasting around at 150 kp/h, but when they're standing still, I'd be happy to rid my opposition of that bothersome mech they're piloting.

[ICUBurn]

I put this info up back in I think like atd 20 sumthing that because of this 10hs thing they cant even put the flea in the game without removing this rule, and I even included a full breakdown of everything. Ill try and dig it up later cause im at work atm.

[The Trice]

Simply this rule makes any engline less than 250 useless as **** , remove it and let people put their own heat sink if they want too.

[Egomane]

It has already been said in this thread.

In the original construction rules 10 heatsinks always come weight free with the engine. If they don't fit into the engine they take up extra critical slots.

Removing the 10 heatsink limit would cause a rise in engine weight, as PGI is already accomodating the weight for the extra sinks in lowering the weight of the reactor.

The formula for reactor weight in MWO is:
original weight (variable) plus cockpit (3 tons) plus gyro (Engine-rating/100, round up to next full ton) minus additional heatsinks needed

Removing the necessary heatsinks but keeping the lower weight, is like looking for a legal cheat of the system.

Edited by Egomane, 23 October 2013 - 08:09 AM.

[MadTulip]

Tokra, on 18 October 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

No, it does now. The engines under 250 weight less because of the less heat sinks.
The remove of the rule only help these mechs that have ballistic weapons. or do you really want a mech with large laser or PPC with only 6 heat sinks? In best case you can get one free ton from one heatsinks for mechs that dont have more than one laser.

oh, i didnt know that. ok then.