15 replies to this topic

[Ramwold]

I've been pondering Heat Sinks for a while. I wish it weren't necessary to choose 100% Double, or 100% single. At present, a 'mech *needs* double heat sinks. It's not really a question. Heat Capacity and Dissipation are dramatically higher for virtually every 'mech using double heat sinks.

I think it might be possible to allow use of mixed single/double heatsinks while maintaining heat sink balance in the game.

Shouldn't the engine dissipate and contain, the same ammount of heat regardless of the heat sinks you have mounted in the chassis?

Shouldn't you be able to install mixed heat sinks? They each take up their own critical slots, seemingly independent of each other, and other equipment.

I'm imagining that each engine would simply dissipate X heat, and contain Y heat.
Then you mount additional heat sinks in your chassis. If you have more space than weight limit, you take doubles. If you have more weight & less space, you take singles.
It would also allow us to have single heat sinks in the legs, and doubles higher up on the 'mech.
Since the upper limit for double heat sinks on a 'mech would now be approximately 14, double heat sinks could be allowed to dissipate *double* the heat.

Make the doubles contain the *same* amount of heat as singles, and you now have a trade off.
I could either go with Standard Armor/Structure/Engine, and leave room for DoubleHS, OR, I could take FerroFibrous/EndoSteel/XLEngine and have weight for more SingleHS than I could fit if they were doubles. Meaning less disipation, but *more* capacity.

At present you can convert a 'mech to double heat sinks, geting a 40% bonus to heat stats, without having to actually mount any heat sinks in your chassis...
The engine has become the most important heat sink.
If using singles were feasible again, you would see water becoming a more dynamic battlefield.
The advantage of those extra 4 "doubles" in the legs, counterbalanced by exposure.

Seems odd that the engine can hold the same number of SingleHS, as DoubleHS. They are supposed to take 3X the space.

Maybe smaller chassis should have more heat dissipation. IRL, the greater the surface area to volume ratio, the greater the heat dissipation would be. It's not neccesary to get granular, and figure out the surface area of each chassis O_o, but maybe something linked to Weight, or Weight Class.

So Recommendation:

1.) Instead of converting a chassis to double/single heat sinks, allow a mix of single and double. (doubles up, singles down )

2.) Treat engine dissipation/capacity as a static number. No upgrade to engine dissipation. (maybe high heat dissipation engines w/ diff tradeoffs? hmmm)

3.) Make the heat capacity of single and double heat sinks the same. This way you have a reason to prefer 12 singles, to 8 doubles

4.) Have engine heat sink slots accept only single heat sinks. A STD 400 Engine occupies 6 crit slots in the CT. It can contain 18 Crit slots worth of Double Heat sinks O_o

5.) Make double heat sinks dissipate *double* the heat. Now that you can't cram 25 Double heat sinks on a Battlemaster it's not the same problem.

6.) Probably the heat dissipation of Singles can go up as well, now that the lions share of the dissipation isn't reliant on an *engine?* upgrade.

7.) Consider Weight Class bonus/penalties to *engine* heat dissipation. This would make heat sink configuration more important the larger your 'mech is. (after all, you have more weight to play with)


These recommendations are based on the idea of acchieving the following end results:

a.) Making it possible to choose high heat cap *over* high heat dissipation, allowing for a greater variety of builds and playstyle tweaking.

b.) Making it possible to use STD heat sinks in the legs again, so that you can use water tactically, and mount something other than JJ or ammo in the legs.

c.) Making heat sinks, and heat dissipation a little more plausible. Chassis mounted components shouldn't rely on an *engine?* upgrade in order to be installed. IMO, single heat sinks shouldn't be incompatible with double heat sinks.

My recommendations aren't necessarily the best way to acchieve these goals, they're just the ones I personally came up with.
Totally love this game, and I can live with how the heat sinks are now.
I just wish that it was possible to choose high heat cap, over high heat dissipation or vice/versa. I love the customizability, and I love it when it's a *real* decision whether to mount that extra heat sink. It would be even better if the question was extra Single? or extra Double?
Ferro Fibrous might even become useful on heavy 'mechs as a way to squeeze 1 or 2 extra single heat sinks.

Edited by Ramwold, 14 November 2013 - 10:29 PM.

[Jarl Dane]

I don't know what the TT rules are governing heatsinks, so hopefully none of this is super hearesy. But I agree with a lot of what you're saying. Adding these dynamics to heatsinks could help make single heat sinks viable again.

Would be cool to think of a 'Mech using 4 single heat sinks in his legs, being specially built for water maps, and utilizing them to be benefit against non-specialized 'Mechs with your normal double heat sinks in CTs.

Recently I've also heard rumors about them adding in a half-ton of ammo with the intent of helping players properly use up all their space - I think allowing players to use single heats along with double heat sinks could also help this problem.

PGI can still require you to upgrade your engine to double-heat sinks, therefore they wont lose that mandatory C-Bill upgrade on new 'Mechs, but once that is done you can use the rest of your space to mix one or the other in.

[Vassago Rain]

The reason you can't take singles with dubs is precisely that you'd have them in the legs, and all the usual dubs everywhere else.

[Mercules]

It's all or nothing.


The Game balance reasoning is you have to decide if you want to eat up all those crit slots and have better cooling or save the slots and have less cooling. In TT you don't have the ridiculous amounts of heat from firing three times as fast. Someone using only a couple Medium Lasers and an AC 2(like a medium mech) could use single heat sinks and deal with heat just fine.

Lore reasoning was that the two systems were incompatible one a mech. Either you had the improved cooling(since it actually runs all through the mech) or not. The location of the sinks was simply where it actually vented heat but the system in general ran through the whole mech.

[ManDaisy]

Actually, I really dont think this is a such a bad idea. It shift the balanced between clan and Innersphere tech more to the center.

clan (2 crit space 1 ton double heat sinks only)
innersphere (1 ton 1 crit single heat sinks and 3 crit 1 ton double heat sinks)


Also, 4 tons of singles in the legs means no space for ammo anymore, for 4 tons less for engines. I actually think this is one of the mechanics holding the game back.

Edited by ManDaisy, 15 November 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[Grim DeGrim]

I fundamentally agree with your recommendations. However from a practical implementation point of view, it is probably low bang for buck considering that the existing system works pretty good.

If PGi develops the game into the long term (1-2 years down the road) maybe something like this could be done to add additional depth to the game.

GRIM

[Drunk Canuck]

Vassago Rain, on 15 November 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

The reason you can't take singles with dubs is precisely that you'd have them in the legs, and all the usual dubs everywhere else.

Until the Clan version becomes available, as Clan Double Heat Sinks use two critical slots rather then three like the Inner Sphere version. I think it would be silly to make them stackable. I do hope that when the Clan Double Heat Sinks become available, they will be an upgrade option on each Mech as well as the requirement to buy them individually. I don't see a point in putting any heat sink in the legs though, since we only a few maps with water on them where putting them in the legs over the torso has additional bonuses. You are better off putting ammo in the leg slots anyway, less risk of having an ammo explosion from all your ammo being installed with a CASE in the torso points when it gets critted open.

Edited by Drunk Canuck, 15 November 2013 - 12:47 PM.

[Firewuff]

Keep it simple. Dhs upgrade gives you dhs in the engine ad it does now but you can mix and match those outside. So you can fill that final ton if there isn't enough slots

[Ramwold]

So everyone is okay with the engine being the *only* really important heat sink?
No problem with 18 critical slots being able to be crammed into a 6 crit slot STD400 engine?

The reason you might want to allow mixing, woud be that *first* you make the engine dissipation static.

That way the engine doesn't automatically become equal to 14+ single heat sinks...

Yeah, I figured there was probably some rationalization for why you couldn't mix. Probably for balance in the TT game.
The balance is very different in MWO, obviously, that is why double heat sinks dissipate 1.4x the heat, not double.
Hmm, wonder if Clan Double heat sinks will dissipate 1.4, or 1.2, or 1.15...
If they're going to depart from TT rules, might as well make them intuitive, closer to a Simulation of a SCI FI reality.

If the heat dissipation system is hidden in the chassis, then they're not really heat sinks. They're heat vents. Then I don't see why the vent would have to be 3x the size, since the efficiency comes from the hidden chassis upgrade(chassis upgrade takes no space...?). Maybe the existing system should have critcal slots taken up by the 2x heat sink conversion.

Otherwise, when I upgrade to Double Heat sinks my *engine?* now dissipates 1.4 times more heat, at no *space* penalty whatsoever.

My VTR-9S has *no* heat sinks/vents, just an engine. So I get 1.4x heat Cap, and Eff, as a reward for grinding CBills, no trade off, no penalty.

I'm not intending to offend anyone, or **** anyone off.
7 Words you can't say on Television (**** **** **** **** {LT-MOB-25} ************ ****)

I'd just like to discuss what might be a better system. There are all sorts of reasons, that the present system likely won't change.
But.
If they do feel like changing the system, wouldn't it be nice to have a well thought out idea floating around, instead of another 1.4x efficeincy or *less* "double" heat sink?


I love the game & *will* play it forever if this never changes.
Just creates cognitive dissonance.
Don't care *why* the system is screwed up, only interested in what would be *better*.

Anyone else interested in making a better moustrap?

Edited by Ramwold, 15 November 2013 - 11:18 PM.

[Modo44]

No. Separate technologies are there to balance better slot usage vs better cooling. Next thing, you will be asking for only partial Endo Steel or Ferro Fibrus, because you happen to have 10, not 14 free slots.

[Ramwold]

Vassago Rain, on 15 November 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

The reason you can't take singles with dubs is precisely that you'd have them in the legs, and all the usual dubs everywhere else.

Modo44, on 15 November 2013 - 11:41 PM, said:

No. Separate technologies are there to balance better slot usage vs better cooling. Next thing, you will be asking for only partial Endo Steel or Ferro Fibrus, because you happen to have 10, not 14 free slots.

Thank you for your deeply thought out, well reasonsed, helpful contribution to the idea of reworking the heat dissipation system as a hypothetical exercise in game-craft....

You do *read* english don't you? I mean more than the headline?
Double heatsinks gives my Victor better cooling while costing NO heatsinks, and NO extra critical slots, working as intended I suppose.

Edited by Ramwold, 16 November 2013 - 12:36 AM.

[Deathz Jester]

Mixing the tech would be pointless, just fix the actual problem; the heatsinks.

Make double heatsinks dissipate heat quicker, instead of this 1.4 [heat] cooling rate i think it is right now. Give them like a 2.0 [heat] cooling rate.

Make single heatsinks dissipate at the same rate they are now or hell at a slightly higher rate than they are now, but make it so the more single heatsinks you have [concentrated] the faster they cool, a synergy bonus as it were.


So on the one hand you have singles that can have a synergy bonus, and can be leg mounted since leg [and other locations?] heatsinks dissipate even faster when submerged in water. But you're going to have to expend more tonnage to get the synergy. And on the other you could have less tons spent on 'better' cooling, but you're taking up more crit slots.


I'm mainly just remembering what someone said somewhere on the forums, it was a really really good idea. Mind you their write up on the idea was alot more indepth. But I'm hoping you get what I mean.

Edited by Iron Harlequin, 16 November 2013 - 12:48 AM.

[Ramwold]

I hear you Iron Harlequin.

So you like the idea of changing the way single heat sinks work, and making doubles a bit more powerful?

You *didn't* like the idea of allowing single heat sinks to have better heat capacity properties, and double heat sinks to have less heat containment, but better dissipation?

The *core* of my idea, was that if the engine weren't *the* most important heat sink, then you could custom build your heat dissipation and containment profile by mixing heat sink types. (obviously after you balance their properties)

I'm not really worried about a "problem", game works fine as it is. I just think that the system could be better designed.
I think that considering an engine to be X number of heat sinks messes with the other "heat sinks". After all, that is why the "double" is 1.4. That is a good fix to the problem, but it doesn't mean it is the most elegant, or Simulation friendly fix to the problem.

I'm also not saying I've got the *magic* best idea here.
Suggesting we brainstorm, suggesting that better moustraps *can*, in fact, be built.

We could just play with rules that are patched together because of yesteryears gameplay issues in a different platform entirely.... or we could consider that design problems are best solved by considering the relevant variables, rather than dusty old tomes, and tradition.

Edited by Ramwold, 16 November 2013 - 01:08 AM.

[Kamikaze Viking]

I like the idea.
I've also seen another one that suggested that the DHS increases the Total Heat capacity before you overheat but with a lower cooling rate, VS Singles having a lower max heat cap but faster cooling rate
I think that's also a great idea to balance things.

The combination of Singles and Doubles is going to be a massive point of contention as it is has been debated for over 20 years in TT circles.

But in MWO i can see that it would be a good compromise system, considering that firing rates are ~3x faster than 10 second TT rounds
&/or be a good balance for Clan DHS when they come in.

Hence my suggestion would be to make the SHS cooling rate faster with less heat cap vs DHS now.
Then implement the Installation of SHS and DHS in the same mech for InnerSphere chassis at the same time as Clan DHS (which would also give them time to test and balance it)

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 16 November 2013 - 01:41 AM.

[Kamikaze Viking]

Ok I've had a rethink and realised I had it backwards.

Now that I think about it, there was never a way in TT to increase max heat cap. There was only the Heat scale up to 30,
and rolling dice to see if you shutdown, had piloting and aiming penalties, ammo cook off or Engine explode.
http://d20battletech.wikidot.com/heat


With DHS being 3x slots, I would think it means that its 3x the surface area of the vent/cooling fins and hence explaining the faster heat dissipation.

So yeah maybe that's the better way. DHS for Faster cooling (currently 1.4 vs 1)
Have the Heat capacity total increase by 1 over the normal 30 scale max for each heat sink

SHS or DHS should be irrelevant, just the total number of ADDED Heat sinks.
You get the base 30 scale for the free engine heat sinks (i know some smaller engines come with less free ones)
If you had added 6 DHS you would then have max 36 heat before forced shutdown.
if you had added 10 SHS you'd have 40 heat before max shutdown.
If you had added 3 DHS and 4 SHS you'd have 37 heat before forced shutdown.

Since you can fit more SHS (slots wise), this would be a way to adjust cooling rate vs capacity, that already fits into the trade off system of slots and tonnage etc.


Someone better with numbers than me can probably work out a better ratio instead of increasing the scale 1 per HS. considering the varying heat dissapation rates, you'd need to work out a balance point so that there is pro's and cons to SHS and DHS, such that neither is the "must have" item.

Such a system would mean that you can customise for either High Alpha slow cool down with lots of SHS, OR Lower Alpha and Fast cool, hence more sustained fire with less DHS.

Thoughts?

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 16 November 2013 - 04:12 AM.

[Ramwold]

You phrased it perfectly Kamikaze Viking.

The only other thing to consider is what to do about the free "heat sinks" in the engine.
PGI made all double heat sinks 1.4, because with the full conversion, the engine was too powerful a heat sink at 2X.

I think the numbers could probably work pretty close to what we have now, but with the tradeoff system you've described, if the engine was treated as having single heat sinks, for the calculation. Maybe the engine slots should only take single heat sinks, too.

If the base dissipation of single heat sinks was increased slightly(maybe base Capacity as well), and then double heat sinks were truly 2x, we would have close to the same heat profiles we have now.
The difference would be that you could do that customization for high alpha & high cap, vs, high dissipation & high DPS.

I was concentrating more on the concept, rather than a full feasibility and implementation evaluation, doubtless PGI have their own numbers guys for that.

I was thinking that if we put our heads together we might develop a nice, polished concept, after we kick it around a bit.
Just like a rock tumbler