7 replies to this topic

[Bobzilla]

What do you guys think would happen if internal HS were removed along with the tonage refunded to the engine?

Not the full amount tho, as some dissipation and capacity should remain. Those numbers would be set and wouldn't have to go by HS dissipation and capacity, make them marginally small compaire to 10 HS and have the DHS upgrade not effect it.

I think this would make DHS a real choice and not a given.

I think it would really effect ballistics vs energy ballance. Ballistics are cooler, but larger, although with basically free space for internal HS, the size difference is not really a factor currently.

May have to lower heat accross the board seeing as you have just lost 10ish slots from your mech that were dedicated to HS.

[Joseph Mallan]

I think its a bad idea. I know I am a traditionalist, but 30 years of an IP will do that to you.

[Ultimax]

Bobzilla, on 10 April 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

What do you guys think would happen if internal HS were removed along with the tonage refunded to the engine?

Not the full amount tho, as some dissipation and capacity should remain. Those numbers would be set and wouldn't have to go by HS dissipation and capacity, make them marginally small compaire to 10 HS and have the DHS upgrade not effect it.

I think this would make DHS a real choice and not a given.

I think it would really effect ballistics vs energy ballance. Ballistics are cooler, but larger, although with basically free space for internal HS, the size difference is not really a factor currently.

May have to lower heat accross the board seeing as you have just lost 10ish slots from your mech that were dedicated to HS.

I think energy weapons are already heavily restricted by the heat system.

10 x DHS in 1 Engine Dissipate as much as 14 external DHS, and therefore is a critical slot bonus of 42.


Without that internal dissipation you would be unlikely to do much with energy weapons, in essence a titanic nerf.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 April 2014 - 06:19 AM.

[Mechteric]

Yeah I don't see why this would be at all a good idea, especially since ghost heat already does enough damage to discourage anyone mounting all energy. The heat system needs some changing, but I think the answer lies elsewhere, like in lowering the heat capacity and increasing heat dissipation.

[Bobzilla]

Ultimatum X, on 10 April 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

I think energy weapons are already heavily restricted by the heat system.

10 x DHS in 1 Engine Dissipate as much as 14 external DHS, and therefore is a critical slot bonus of 42.


Without that internal dissipation you would be unlikely to do much with energy weapons, in essence a titanic nerf.

Yeah that's why they would have to lower the heat accross the board somewhat, but losing 42 slots should be more of a problem to ballistics given they take up more slots, bring that factor back into the balance. Or suffer from heat as energy weapons do now.

[Bilbo]

It would eliminate energy weapons almost entirely.

[Ultimax]

Bobzilla, on 10 April 2014 - 06:42 AM, said:

Yeah that's why they would have to lower the heat accross the board somewhat, but losing 42 slots should be more of a problem to ballistics given they take up more slots, bring that factor back into the balance. Or suffer from heat as energy weapons do now.

Why do you feel ACs should suffer more from heat, when they already cost more slots and more tonnage?

(7 slots for an AC 5 with 3 Tons ammo, 13 slots for an AC 20 with 3 Tons ammo)?

You pay for weapons on a build in some combination of slots, tonnage and heat generation. That's how build economics works.

So when you load that 1 AC 5, which isn't all that impressive on it's own, you pay a cost in tonnage and slots to do that.

When you compare it to it's equivalent weight in Lasers, it's actually not an unfavorable comparison for the Lasers.





This is from the Ballistics Ammo thread, but it's applicable here:



The nearest comparison to AC 5s is actually the Large Laser, not the Medium Laser.

This is by weight, which is really the better way to compare weapon systems imo - as weight is one of the primary limiting factors for what you can load on a build.



So 1 AC 5 + 2 Tons Ammo for 10 tons, vs. 2x LLAS for 10 tons with only the heatsinks that come in your engine.

Listing the pros of each config.

2x LLAS
1) Higher Maximum DPS
2) 18 point alpha vs. 5 point alpha (more than 3x the Alpha potential)
3) Hitscan
4) Time to overheat = 60s


1x AC 5 + 2 Tons Ammo
1) Superior Range (nearly 50%)
2) Superior Maximum Range (Nearly double)
3) FLD
4) Time to Overheat = never



1 AC 5 vs. 2x ER LLAS

1) The range gap closes (similar optimal range, both do the same damage to around 1050m, with the AC pulling ahead beyond that)
2) ERLLAS has Higher Maximum DPS
3) ER LLAS has 18 point alpha vs. 5 point alpha
4) Hitscan
5) Time to Overheat: 35s, so the AC 5 has supremely better sustainable fire





3x the Alpha potential (18) means that even if you only get the 2x LLAS onto your target location for 0.3s - you still did 5.4 damage (which is as much as the AC 5).

Edited by Ultimatum X, 10 April 2014 - 07:36 AM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Well, each heat sink, be it Double or Single should only raise capacity by 1.0 if at all. Otherwise, Heat capacity should be static.

That way the trade off should be with crit slots and weight related to heat dissipation between Doubles and Singles.