Jump to content

Remove Minimum Heatsinks From Sub 30 Ton 'mechs


13 replies to this topic

Poll: Minimum Heatsinks.. (40 member(s) have cast votes)

Should the minimum heatsinks be removed for <30 ton mechs?

  1. Yes (14 votes [35.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.00%

  2. No (18 votes [45.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 45.00%

  3. For <40 ton mechs (3 votes [7.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.50%

  4. For all mechs (5 votes [12.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.50%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Victor Morson

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • 6,370 posts
  • LocationAnder's Moon

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:35 PM

One quirk in MW:O's construction system is that the smallest engines do not have enough minimum heatsinks to be operational, rather than still coming with the core heatsinks necessary to run the 'mech.

This results in 'mechs like the Locust losing precious, precious tonnage on adding heatsinks they can't even use, making an already troubled 'mech even worse!

I think that the lightest mechs should be exempt from this rule, in order to give them some fighting chance of putting together a decent 'mech, given they are capped to very small engines in the first place. It'd be a much, much needed buff to these ultra light designs!

#2 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 18 November 2013 - 02:37 PM

Personally I'd just prefer for the 10 base heatsinks to actually be BUILT INTO THE FREAKING ENGINE instead of requiring an extra 9-12 critical slots for no good reason due to externally mounted sinks. You also get reduced heat efficiency from the external sinks instead of having a full set of 10 truedubs.

Edited by FupDup, 18 November 2013 - 02:38 PM.


#3 OneEyed Jack

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 03:00 PM

Only if the engine weights are reset to full weight instead of discounted, as they are now.

Cake: If you eat it now, you won't have it later. Deal with it.

#4 Durant Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,877 posts
  • LocationClose enough to poke you with a stick.

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:22 PM

MW2 and MW3 had this very mechanic in place as well, Victor. I don't remember MW4 dealing with heat sinks at all (could be that it did, I just don't remember).

There should be no exceptions to the minimum heat sinks rule.

#5 Quizzical Coconut

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 110 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:23 PM

There shouldn't be a minimum heatsink rule.

#6 Durant Carlyle

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 3,877 posts
  • LocationClose enough to poke you with a stick.

Posted 18 November 2013 - 04:33 PM

Also note that MW:O follows the BattleMech construction rules exactly. Every engine in tabletop BattleTech comes with 10 heat sinks for no tonnage, but some of them may take up critical slots. Calculating out the weights, MW:O follows this rule to the letter. Any 'Mech you can make in MW:O you can make in BattleTech, and it would be legal (adjusting for double armor, of course).

#7 luxebo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • 2,342 posts

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:13 PM

View PostDurant Carlyle, on 18 November 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

MW2 and MW3 had this very mechanic in place as well, Victor. I don't remember MW4 dealing with heat sinks at all (could be that it did, I just don't remember).

There should be no exceptions to the minimum heat sinks rule.


MW4 just had two buttons for heat sinks, an arrow up for more heat sinks, and an arrow down for less heat sinks. That being said MW4 is an awesome game.

#8 Modo44

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • 3,559 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 01:38 AM

Just no. Quit whining already.

#9 Destoroyah

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 301 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 03:40 AM

voted yes, but only from the point I don't think the 10 requirement should be removerd just reduced. So a 30 tonner would require 9, a 25 tonner would require 8, and a 20 tonner would require 7.
The super lights need every bit of weight they can scrounge and a few extra tons can go a long way in helping make them more viable against the big boy lights. The 25 tonners and 20 tonners have to make noticeable tradeoffs in armor/weapons/or speed where as the 35 tonners can normally get the best of all at once.

#10 fandre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts

Posted 19 November 2013 - 04:06 AM

I voted no, because IMO the complete Heat/Heatsink system of MWO should be reworked. Otherwise, I agree with you, that light mechs have a handicap here.

#11 stalima

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Guardian
  • Guardian
  • 227 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 19 November 2013 - 05:18 PM

taking the minimum heat sink requirement would make no sense whatsoever, your mech needs to ensure that it can function in any kind of combat environment whether it be scorching heat such as on terra therma or in the freezing cold of a frozen city. and this is why that heat sink minimum is required.

and making special rules just for a weight class makes even less sense since a 200 engine is still a 200 engine wherever it goes. the limit also serves to strengthen the advantages of having a larger engine since another 2kph wont exactly do much for you as opposed to 2kph and 1-3 free slots

#12 Melodramatic Peach

    Rookie

  • 1 posts

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:13 PM

Why are there so few votes for "All mechs"? It would still mostly benefit lights, but there's no reason to mandate a number of heatsinks that may not be neccessary.

#13 Ngamok

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 5,033 posts
  • Twitter: Link
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationLafayette, IN

Posted 21 November 2013 - 12:30 PM

For the Locust I agree. If a mech can't break a 200 which has 8 internal HS, then the minimum requirement should be lessened.

#14 Tezcatli

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Bludgeon
  • The Bludgeon
  • 1,494 posts

Posted 23 November 2013 - 02:17 PM

Perhaps as an upgrade. Only 25 tonners and under. Jenners and spiders don't need any help. And it should have some kind of penalty. Perhaps slots or something else.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users