14 replies to this topic

[darthJaeger]

I have an idea that may remove the need for ghost heat all together while still discouraging meta boat builds.

The idea is to introduce another metric along side total tonnage and available critical slots when placing weapon systems into hardpoints.

This metric uses a Heat Disipation credit/debit system based on existing MWO mechanics.

The initial framework ...


Heat points: The standard unit of measure used in this explanation. No explanation required.

Heat Generated: The heat point debt a weapon system creates when fired. This is the heat mecahanic in the game.

Heat per second (HpS):The heat points a weapon must discharge per second. Calculated by dividing existing heat generated by the existing firing duration plus the existing cool down period. I.E. Heat/(Duration + Cooldown). This is an existing game mecahanic applied to energy weapon systems. Nothing new required here.

Heat Disipation (HD): The heat points that can be shed (per second) by existing internal and external heat sinks. Calculations work with the estimations that a single heat sink is operating at 0.9HD and double heat sinks are operating at 1.4HD. Please note that this additional metric does NOT use heat scaling factors introduced by environmental conditions found on the various maps. This is an existing game mecahanic applied to all heat sinks. Nothing new required here.

Internal Heat Disipation (IHD): The total HD gained from all the heats sinks located within a mechs engine. For Example ...The stock Battlemaster BLR-1D has a standard 340 engine offering 13 single heat sinks. This mech, as it stands would have an IHD of 11.7HD. If double heats sinks were to be installed the IHD would rise to 18.2HD

The IHD is then allocated to mech sections containing weapon system hardpoints. Percentages of IHD are allocated to each section of the mech as per the original design intention. Mech sections providing energy hardpoints will require the lion share of IHD, followed by ballistics hardpoints sections and lastly missile hardpoint sections. Obviously sections with zero hardpoints or just AMS will not require any IHD becasue negligible heat is generated. This would be a new game mechanic. The breakdown of IHD would be based on the stock build of every mech.

So continuing with the stock Battlemaster BLR-1D example ... The right arm, right torso and left torso sport energy hardpoints, 1/2/2 respectfully. While the left arm offers 3 ballistic points. If the IHD was spread over the mech in a 30%/30%/30%/10% breakdown you would have Something like this.

Right Arm has 30% of 11.7 = 3.51 HD
RightTorso has 30% of 11.7 = 3.51 HD
Left Torso has 30% of 11.7 = 3.51 HD
Left Arm has 10% of 11.7 = 1.17 HD

External Heat Disapation (EHD): Additional HD gained from external heats sinks located within a single mechs section. External heat sinks placed on mech sections only benefit the total HD for that particular section. The external heat sinks is an existing game mechanic. No change to the existing heat disippation mechanic would be required here.

HD Budget: The total HD credited to a mech section when combining IHD & EHD. A weapon system Hps is then debited from the available HD budget of that section. So along with total mech tonnage and avaiable critical slots, the available HD of a section must also be taken into account before a weapon system can be equiped into a hardpoint. This is the heart of the suggestion. If a mech must have available critical slots, availble tonnage and the available heat bufget to install a weapon into a hard point.

Using the stock Battlemaster BLR-1D example again... I want to ER PPC boat this mech with 2 ER PPCs in each torso. I look up the Hps for ER PPCs and find that they are 3.75 Hps each. I dont have 7.50 HD in each torso and I dont have the money for double heat sinks right now. So I will have to move some standard heat sinks to each torsos to increase the HD budget.

Like this ...

Right torso HD = 3.51 IHD + 5 additional STD heat sinks @ 4.50 EHD = 8.01 HD total
Left torso HD = 3.51 IHD + 1 additional STD heat sinks @ 0.9 EHD = 4.41 HD total

I dont have enough tonnage for the last ER PPC so the best I can do is 3.

At the moment I'm looking into each mech and variant to find meta flaws in this idea. But I reakon it just might be a viable metric to make meta boating that little more difficult to implement.

Edited by darthJaeger, 23 November 2013 - 10:55 PM.

[Firewuff]

A). Its way too complex and isnpredicated on a heat neutral mech which 99% are not.

[darthJaeger]

Firewuff, on 23 November 2013 - 07:38 PM, said:

A). Its way too complex and isnpredicated on a heat neutral mech which 99% are not.

Please explain your point of view.

[Sandpit]

Seems like an overly complex system and idea to me. heatsinks aren't positional for heat dissipation (or neutralization or whatever description you want to use for it since I know someone is bound to come along with a long-winded explanation as to why scientifically and technically "dissipation" isn't the proper term)

So are you suggesting that if I place HS in a weapon hardpoint location I get better performance from that particular HS?

Example:

I put a PPC in my LT, I then place 2 DHS in that same location, those DHS would work more efficiently than a DHS place in my RA? Or that a DHS placed in my RA would ahve no affect on the PPC I placed in my RT?

[Funkin Disher]

Sandpit, on 23 November 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

I put a PPC in my LT, I then place 2 DHS in that same location, those DHS would work more efficiently than a DHS place in my RA? Or that a DHS placed in my RA would ahve no affect on the PPC I placed in my LT?

The arm HS would have no effect on the PPC.
Only the engine heatsinks (including additional ones for larger engines) and heatsinks in the section in question (LT) would affect it. Those in the RA would not help with your LT PPC. And those HS in the LT would work as they do now, not better.

I agree though, seems overly complicated and more than a little punishing (especially to already hot mechs that don't boat).

May I suggest: Heat sinks in the section in question, as well as in adjacent sections, work at their full rate (2 for DHS while we're at it) and those further away operate at half that. Thus heatsinks work better when near the weapons they are suposed to be cooling, but heatsinks in say legs or heads still do something.
Edit: Engine heat sinks would always count as being adjacent.

Edit: Of course this would require a fair bit of work to implement. Each weapon would have to be checked to see how many HS are working at full strength and how many are working at half strength. And it wouldn't work very well with how heatsinks, the heat scale and ghost heat is now, so they'd have to rework or remove that.

Edited by Kane0, 24 November 2013 - 12:15 AM.

[Sandpit]

Ok, now I understand.

I no can like. I can appreciate the thought and effort you put into it but I don't like the idea. That's not how the system was ever set up to work.

Heat sinks dissipate heat throughout the mech. If your idea were implemented anyone putting any kind of heatsinks in legs would be completely useless and worthless. A heatsink in the head would be just as worthless.

Heat sinks aren't like a static heat absorber. They pump fluid to various parts to the mech performing a heat exchange.

The actual coolant circulating in the heat sink varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and military to military. Heavy oils (hydrocarbon and silicone) are favored for their high boiling points and thus may be contained by low pressure tubing. Water-based coolants, typically modified with glycols, have nearly unbeatable heat capacities and are readily available for resupply. Freons work very effectively with the heat pumps in heat sinks. Some gases, like helium, also find use in heat sinks. Contrary to what might be thought, liquid nitrogen is a very poor coolant - it has very little heat capacity and boils far too easily.
[color=#000000]Heat Sinks[/color]

[Firewuff]

You forget the liquid metals, mostly sodium, used in nuclear reactors... I could see that here

[darthJaeger]

Sandpit, on 23 November 2013 - 11:00 PM, said:

So are you suggesting that if I place HS in a weapon hardpoint location I get better performance from that particular HS?

Example:

I put a PPC in my LT, I then place 2 DHS in that same location, those DHS would work more efficiently than a DHS place in my RA? Or that a DHS placed in my RA would ahve no affect on the PPC I placed in my RT?

No, that is not what I am suggesting at all. First of all we have to separate how a heats rises and falls on the battle field from the extra metric I am proposing, that will be used in the mechlab.

Lets run with your PPC in the left torso example.

1) A PPC has a HpS of 2.5 (http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/#weapon_beam). So using the proposed Heat Budget method, the left torso of any mech must have 2.5 units of heat space to equip that weapon into the left torso energy slot. Providing of course their is also available tonnage and available critical space.
2) So if we look at mechs that are currently capable of placing a PPC in the left torso. The first one would be a Raven 2x.
3) A Raven 2X is designed to run 2 medium lasers in the right arm, a SRM6 in the right torso and a large laser in the left torso. With a standard 175 engine providing 7 standard heat sinks.
4) So the stock Hps of the weapons systems are 2Hps in the right arm, 1Hps in the right torso and 1.65Hps in the left torso. If we convert these into percentages of heat generated in an alpha strike, we would have 45% from the right arm, 20% from the right torso and 35% from the left torso.
5) If we were to introduce a heat space metric using the same percentages, the stock mech would provide 35% of the cooling efficiency to the left torso. Which is 7 internal heat sinks * 0.9 efficiency * 35%. So the heat space available would be 2.2Hps. That is not enough to equip that PPC we wanted requiring 2.5 Hps.
6) Our options are
i) Increase the engine to a 200. Which then provides 8 internal heat sinks @ 0.9 efficiency * 35 %, thus a heat space of 2.52 Hps. Just enough to equip a PPC at the expense of available tonnage.
ii) Install double heat sinks providing 7 internal heat sinks @ * 1.4 efficiency * 35 %, thus a heat space of 3.43 Hps. Plenty of heat space at the expense of C-Bills.
iii) Add 1 external heat sink to the left torso to increase the available heat space to 3.1Hps. Plenty of heat at the expense of critical space in the left torso. Remember that three external heats sinks will be required before the stock Raven will be able to launch.

On the battlefield the heat build up and dissipation (cooling down when not firing weapons) of heat is not altered.

Edited by darthJaeger, 24 November 2013 - 04:16 AM.

[Sandpit]

darthJaeger, on 24 November 2013 - 04:03 AM, said:

No, that is not what I am suggesting at all. First of all we have to separate how a heats rises and falls on the battle field from the extra metric I am proposing, that will be used in the mechlab.

Lets run with your PPC in the left torso example.

1) A PPC has a HpS of 2.5 (http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/#weapon_beam). So using the proposed Heat Budget method, the left torso of any mech must have 2.5 units of heat space to equip that weapon into the left torso energy slot. Providing of course their is also available tonnage and available critical space.
2) So if we look at mechs that are currently capable of placing a PPC in the left torso. The first one would be a Raven 2x.
3) A Raven 2X is designed to run 2 medium lasers in the right arm, a SRM6 in the right torso and a large laser in the left torso. With a standard 175 engine providing 7 standard heat sinks.
4) So the stock Hps of the weapons systems are 2Hps in the right arm, 1Hps in the right torso and 1.65Hps in the left torso. If we convert these into percentages of heat generated in an alpha strike, we would have 45% from the right arm, 20% from the right torso and 35% from the left torso.
5) If we were to introduce a heat space metric using the same percentages, the stock mech would provide 35% of the cooling efficiency to the left torso. Which is 7 internal heat sinks * 0.9 efficiency * 35%. So the heat space available would be 2.2Hps. That is not enough to equip that PPC we wanted requiring 2.5 Hps.
6) Our options are
i) Increase the engine to a 200. Which then provides 8 internal heat sinks @ 0.9 efficiency * 35 %, thus a heat space of 2.52 Hps. Just enough to equip a PPC at the expense of available tonnage.
ii) Install double heat sinks providing 7 internal heat sinks @ * 1.4 efficiency * 35 %, thus a heat space of 3.43 Hps. Plenty of heat space at the expense of C-Bills.
iii) Add 1 external heat sink to the left torso to increase the available heat space to 3.1Hps. Plenty of heat at the expense of critical space in the left torso. Remember that three external heats sinks will be required before the stock Raven will be able to launch.

On the battlefield the heat build up and dissipation (cooling down when not firing weapons) of heat is not altered.

Ok, and no I'm not trying to be dense I'm really just trying to understand your idea, are you saying that if I drop in that PPC in the raven then I MUST drop in HS in that same torso? Kind of like a trade-off of "It wasn't designed to hold this weapon so in order to offset the heat we must also place an additional HS in that location?"

Kinda like having a hardpoint system for Heatsinks?

[Funkin Disher]

But if that is the case then Gauss' would be entirely unaffected due to its extremely low Heat/sec and the vast majority of boats would still be viable with DHS.

For example:
STK-3F 4 PPC Boat
JM6-DD AC/40 Boombox
CPLT-A1 SRM 36 Splatcat
HBK-4P 9ML Laserback

In most cases adding in a larger engine (especially XL which can be common for boat builds) and DHS negates the need to supply HS to a single point that needs them (and very few mechs can't fit a HS in the spot needed anyway), and lots of boats have their hardpoints spread out. It wouldn't be hard to bypass this system, once you understand it.

The AC/2 would suffer a little too, due to their high Heat/sec compared to other ballistics. Missile boats would be largely unaffected.

Edit

Sandpit, on 24 November 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

Kinda like having a hardpoint system for Heatsinks?

Apparently. Heat budget operates like 'heat space' expressed as Heat/sec, correct?

Edited by Kane0, 24 November 2013 - 01:17 PM.

[darthJaeger]

Sandpit, on 24 November 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

... you saying that if I drop in that PPC in the raven then I MUST drop in HS in that same torso? Kind of like a trade-off of "It wasn't designed to hold this weapon so in order to offset the heat we must also place an additional HS in that location?"

Essentially yes, if you are trying to install a weapon system into a chasis it was not designed to accomadate, there MUST be a trade off involved. In the case of the Raven you could also purchase double heats sinks or install a bigger engine with more internal heat sinks.

Edited by darthJaeger, 24 November 2013 - 05:47 PM.

[Sandpit]

darthJaeger, on 24 November 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

Essentially yes. You could also purchase double heats sinks or install a bigger engine providing more internal heat sinks.

Gotcha, not my cup of tea. I just think it doesn't follow how heat sinks work. They don't have to be in the same spot as the weapon to be efficient. They pump fluid as a heat exchange so they don't have to be placed like that. I just think it's an overly complicated balance mechanic.

[darthJaeger]

Kane0, on 24 November 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

But if that is the case then Gauss' would be entirely unaffected due to its extremely low Heat/sec and the vast majority of boats would still be viable with DHS.

For example:
STK-3F 4 PPC Boat
JM6-DD AC/40 Boombox
CPLT-A1 SRM 36 Splatcat
HBK-4P 9ML Laserback

Ok, lets apply the heat space proposal to each build one at a time.

Starting with the Stalker ...

1) A Stalker 3F is designed to run 2 medium lasers plus an LRM 10 in both the left and right arms. An SRM6 and a large laser in both left and right torsos. With a standard 255 engine providing 10 standard heat sinks.
2) The stock loadout Hps are 3.07 + 2.65 + 2.65 + 3.07 = 11.44 (right arm / right torso / left torso / left arm). If we convert these into percentages of heat generated in an alpha strike, we would have 27% / 23% / 23% / 27%.
3) So the cooling effeciency (heat space) provided by the internal heat sinks in each arm would be 27% of 11.44 or 3.08Hps.
4) The cooling effeciency (heat space) provided by the internal heat sinks in each torso would be 23% of 11.44 or 2.63Hps.
5) Each section could easily accomodate a PPC requiring 2.5 Hps. So yes a 4 PPC stalker would be within design interpretations.

[darthJaeger]

Sandpit, on 24 November 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:

Gotcha, not my cup of tea. I just think it doesn't follow how heat sinks work. They don't have to be in the same spot as the weapon to be efficient. They pump fluid as a heat exchange so they don't have to be placed like that. I just think it's an overly complicated balance mechanic.

I see, so If there were one of more external heat sinks positioned a mechs arms, and those arms was sheared off in battle. Eg Zombie Cent does a MWO cent bleed heat exchange coolant over the battlefield ? Does that same mech then shutdown because it no longer has the ten heat sinks required to enter the battle field ?

You can't compare MWO to table top. They are different systems.

Edited by darthJaeger, 24 November 2013 - 06:20 PM.

[Sandpit]

darthJaeger, on 24 November 2013 - 06:11 PM, said:

I see, so If there were one of more external heat sinks positioned a mechs arms, and those arms was sheared off in battle. Eg Zombie Cent does a MWO cent bleed heat exchange coolant over the battlefield ? Does that same mech then shutdown because it no longer has the ten heat sinks required to enter the battle field ?

That's what internal HS in the engine are for.
When you lose and arm that contains HS you lose the dissipation ability of those HS. The same reason that if you have HS in a section submerged in water, you get more efficiency out of them.

I just don't like the idea personally. It's just not something I would like to see implemented. I can appreciate the work and effort you put into it and wish more people would do what you jsut did, which is come up with some articulate posts on suggestions and such to help improve the game, whether I personally like the ideas or not.