189 replies to this topic

[Pjwned]

So I've tried to come up with a number of builds before that use an engine with <250 rating, but often enough it comes down to needing to add at least 1 more heatsink even when it's not needed for heat dissipation, and this issue prevents me from really wanting to use mechs like the locust, blackjack & spider (to a lesser extent), and commando, which is a bit frustrating at times. This issue isn't even exclusive to smaller mechs either, if you try to make a dual gauss Jager like this (can also downgrade the engine a bit to add 2 small lasers) which indisputably does not need 10 heatsinks, the build is invalid.

To clear up the self-serving motivation, most recently I tried to come up with a build like this, but unfortunately the ammo count is rather low (especially considering the LRM15 cooldown quirks on the TBT-7M) and part of that is because of the required extra heatsink that I don't even need otherwise. I want to be able to make builds that push my heat threshold to the limit (or in the case of something like the dual gauss Jager, to have more speed or ammo or a couple backup lasers) but nearly every time I come up with something that uses a <250 engine the minimum 10 heatsink requirement wrecks the build by requiring unnecessary tonnage and crit slots.

Edited by Pjwned, 21 December 2014 - 11:33 PM.

[One Medic Army]

Two things:

First, tabletop required 10 heatsinks to be a valid build.

Second, the weights of engines of less than 250 rating are actually discounted in weight to account for those mandatory heatsinks. This is an implementation thing, in TT the first 10 heatsinks were always weight free, but the engines weighed more. Devs decided it was too hard to make the 2 zero weight heatsinks that came with a 200 rating engine actually weight nothing, so they cut the engine weight by 2tons and mandated putting in 2x 1ton heatsinks.

Edited by One Medic Army, 21 December 2014 - 11:42 PM.

[El Bandito]

One Medic Army, on 21 December 2014 - 11:42 PM, said:

Second, the weights of engines of less than 250 rating are actually discounted in weight to account for those mandatory heatsinks. This is an implementation thing, in TT the first 10 heatsinks were always weight free, but the engines weighed more. Devs decided it was too hard to make the 2 zero weight heatsinks that came with a 200 rating engine actually weight nothing, so they cut the engine weight by 2tons and mandated putting in 2x 1ton heatsinks.

IMO, smaller engines, by the virtue of being small in power, should not require all 10 heatsinks to function. Just like how my internal GPU does not require the monster fan my GTX760 uses. PGI's solution of mandatory external DHS made it worse for Light mechs starving for slots, cause Lights need both Endo and FF.

Edited by El Bandito, 21 December 2014 - 11:54 PM.

[Pjwned]

One Medic Army, on 21 December 2014 - 11:42 PM, said:

Two things:

First, tabletop required 10 heatsinks to be a valid build.

Second, the weights of engines of less than 250 rating are actually discounted in weight to account for those mandatory heatsinks. This is an implementation thing, in TT the first 10 heatsinks were always weight free, but the engines weighed more. Devs decided it was too hard to make the 2 zero weight heatsinks that came with a 200 rating engine actually weight nothing, so they cut the engine weight by 2tons and mandated putting in 2x 1ton heatsinks.

I understand both of those things, however:

1. This isn't tabletop
2. The heat system, mech construction system, and a whole bunch of other things work so drastically different in MWO that there's no real need to enforce 10 minimum heatsinks just because tabletop said so.

From what I understand it was actually pretty valuable to run a cool mech in Tabletop (thus, if I'm correct, having at least 10 heatsinks was pretty much always a nice benefit) because of heat penalties and such, but If your build doesn't need 10 tons of heatsinks in MWO yet is required anyways then I'm not really a fan of that.

[One Medic Army]

Pjwned, on 21 December 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

I understand both of those things, however:

1. This isn't tabletop
2. The heat system, mech construction system, and a whole bunch of other things work so drastically different in MWO that there's no real need to enforce 10 minimum heatsinks just because tabletop said so.

From what I understand it was actually pretty valuable to run a cool mech in Tabletop (thus, if I'm correct, having at least 10 heatsinks was pretty much always a nice benefit) because of heat penalties and such, but If your build doesn't need 10 tons of heatsinks in MWO yet is required anyways then I'm not really a fan of that.

Just pointing out where it's coming from. That said, I don't think in MWO there will ever be a feasible build with a sub-250 engine, so long as the chassis can mount something larger. The game just places too much emphasis on speed, turn, and twist; not to mention that the way engine weights progress the XL 300-350 or std 250-300 is the best zone for rating/weight.

Even on a Locust with a 175-190 rating engine, you still have 8 free slots after endo/ferro/XL/mandatory DHS, which considering the remaining 7-odd tons is plenty of crit space for your weaponry, and if you want to spend more space/tonnage on weaponry with a smaller engine, you're much better off with a heavier mech regardless.

As to running a cool mech in TT, it's much easier to do. Running a heat neutral mech in MWO is practically impossible if you use missiles or energy weapons.

[edit]

Guess I'm trying to say that even if it were allowed, all it would really allow is sub-par builds, though I suppose it would make locusts and commandos slightly less worthless?

Edited by One Medic Army, 22 December 2014 - 12:15 AM.

[Pjwned]

One Medic Army, on 22 December 2014 - 12:06 AM, said:

Just pointing out where it's coming from.

Alright, that's fair enough, I suppose I should have said in the OP that I understand why it's a thing in MWO.

Quote

That said, I don't think in MWO there will ever be a feasible build with a sub-250 engine, so long as the chassis can mount something larger. The game just places too much emphasis on speed, turn, and twist; not to mention that the way engine weights progress the XL 300-350 or std 250-300 is the best zone for rating/weight.

While I can definitely appreciate wanting a big engine in pretty much any mech, not every build needs a 250+ engine even if it can fit something bigger, like the LRM TBT-7M or dual gauss JM6-S examples I posted in the OP, and not requiring 10 heatsinks would help some builds with sub-250 engines be decent as well as actually justify the use of sub-250 engines in some builds.

Quote

Even on a Locust with a 175-190 rating engine, you still have 8 free slots after endo/ferro/XL/mandatory DHS, which considering the remaining 7-odd tons is plenty of crit space for your weaponry, and if you want to spend more space/tonnage on weaponry with a smaller engine, you're much better off with a heavier mech regardless.

That's not always the case, especially with something like the LCT-1V which has quirks for ERLL and could easily make do with only 7 (or less) heatsinks but can't do that since the build would be invalid.

Quote

As to running a cool mech in TT, it's much easier to do. Running a heat neutral mech in MWO is practically impossible if you use missiles or energy weapons.

Well, it is understandable that it's easier to run cool in TT since the only heat penalty in MWO is when you reach the mech's heat cap.

Edited by Pjwned, 22 December 2014 - 02:18 AM.

[El Bandito]

One Medic Army, on 22 December 2014 - 12:06 AM, said:

Even on a Locust with a 175-190 rating engine, you still have 8 free slots after endo/ferro/XL/mandatory DHS, which considering the remaining 7-odd tons is plenty of crit space for your weaponry, and if you want to spend more space/tonnage on weaponry with a smaller engine, you're much better off with a heavier mech regardless.

I am a dedicated Assault and Heavy pilot, and I do not like being forced into running Light mechs or Mediums Lighter than 50 tons in CW. Therefore I need to free up as much tonnage for my comfortable class by picking one or two Locust/Commando. But they run into the issue Pjwned had explained in this thread.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 December 2014 - 12:48 AM.

[MikeBend]

Could it maybe be implemented that way, that if you have less then 10 heat sinks, each missing heatsink adds +10% to the constant heat (the way the hot maps do it)? so if you take 200 engine without those 2 extra sinks, you cant go below 20% heat. Maybe some lights and mediums could benefit from this, i dont know... Edit: This could lead to some strange ballistic or LRM10+ builds on light chassis(UAC5 Locust, that runs at 125kph?), but then again, cant say they wont be viable, someone could put them to a good use.

Edited by MikeBend, 22 December 2014 - 01:15 AM.

[Pjwned]

MikeBend, on 22 December 2014 - 01:11 AM, said:

Could it maybe be implemented that way, that if you have less then 10 heat sinks, each missing heatsink adds +10% to the constant heat (the way the hot maps do it)? so if you take 200 engine without those 2 extra sinks, you cant go below 20% heat. Maybe some lights and mediums could benefit from this, i dont know... Edit: This could lead to some strange ballistic or LRM10+ builds on light chassis(UAC5 Locust, that runs at 125kph?), but then again, cant say they wont be viable, someone could put them to a good use.

How is something like that necessary when it could easily just be the opposite effect of having extra heatsinks?

[MikeBend]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 01:45 AM, said:

How is something like that necessary when it could easily just be the opposite effect of having extra heatsinks?

Low heat ballistics builds. I mean, there must be some drawbacks to sub 10 heatsink builds, if they were made legal. If someone wants to stick a gauss on a locust that goes 80kph, - there you go, but its +60% heat and you cant go lower. Just a thought though, i dont see where i said it was necessary.

[Pjwned]

MikeBend, on 22 December 2014 - 01:52 AM, said:

Low heat ballistics builds. I mean, there must be some drawbacks to sub 10 heatsink builds, if they were made legal. If someone wants to stick a gauss on a locust that goes 80kph, - there you go, but its +60% heat and you cant go lower. Just a thought though, i dont see where i said it was necessary.

I guess I don't really understand your point entirely, are you suggesting that there would be an additional penalty on top of lower heat dissipation and a lower heat cap from having less than 10 heatsinks?

[MikeBend]

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 02:15 AM, said:

I guess I don't really understand your point entirely, are you suggesting that there would be an additional penalty on top of lower heat dissipation and a lower heat cap from having less than 10 heatsinks?

I havent probably been clear, the cap would remain as per 10 sinks. Edit: might be a bad idea entirely.

Edited by MikeBend, 22 December 2014 - 03:16 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

STOP TRYING TO REWRITE THE IPs 30 YEAR LONG MECHANICS CAUSE YOU DONE LIKE THEM.

Thank you! This has been a public service announcement.

[The Boz]

STOP TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE THIRTY YEAR OLD CRAP THAT HASN'T BEEN WORKING RIGHT SINCE DAY ONE!
Especially if the discussion here is about something PGI already changed when compared to TT.

[Joseph Mallan]

The Boz, on 22 December 2014 - 04:13 AM, said:

STOP TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE THIRTY YEAR OLD CRAP THAT HASN'T BEEN WORKING RIGHT SINCE DAY ONE!
Especially if the discussion here is about something PGI already changed when compared to TT.

It works fine and has worked fine. If you cannot work within the system, you should leave the game. I have left many a game cause I didn't like the mechanics (ShadowRun for instance and Ravenloft). STOP TRYING TO REWRITE THE GAME!

[Utilyan]

Easy fix is quirks. Quirks is magics.

Quirk "Light Efficiency" - All engines contain the equivalent of 10 heatsinks

[MikeBend]

Joseph Mallan, on 22 December 2014 - 04:17 AM, said:

STOP TRYING TO REWRITE THE GAME!

Oh, you saw a demand to devs to change anything in our post? Yeah, i guess suggesting something and demanding is all te same to you. Go rant in feature suggestion threads then, thank you.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I see no problem in the 10 heatsink rule MOST of the time.

The only exception I would be ok with, is ignoring the rule for mechs 25 tons and under. IMO, with the mechanics in place in MWO, those really light mech could use all the help they can get.

Other than that, no, keep the rule as is.

[Mercules]

One Medic Army, on 22 December 2014 - 12:06 AM, said:

Just pointing out where it's coming from. That said, I don't think in MWO there will ever be a feasible build with a sub-250 engine, so long as the chassis can mount something larger. The game just places too much emphasis on speed, turn, and twist; not to mention that the way engine weights progress the XL 300-350 or std 250-300 is the best zone for rating/weight.

Even on a Locust with a 175-190 rating engine, you still have 8 free slots after endo/ferro/XL/mandatory DHS, which considering the remaining 7-odd tons is plenty of crit space for your weaponry, and if you want to spend more space/tonnage on weaponry with a smaller engine, you're much better off with a heavier mech regardless.

As to running a cool mech in TT, it's much easier to do. Running a heat neutral mech in MWO is practically impossible if you use missiles or energy weapons.

[edit]

Guess I'm trying to say that even if it were allowed, all it would really allow is sub-par builds, though I suppose it would make locusts and commandos slightly less worthless?

Not really... Just like you can't run them with Single Heat Sinks. They overheat. There is no light ballistic that does enough damage to warrant not having 10+ DHS. The times when do have good shots in a Light you want to pump out as much damage as possible and then move on. Fewer DHS means moving on a bit to soon in most cases.

Pjwned, on 22 December 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

That's not always the case, especially with something like the LCT-1V which has quirks for ERLL and could easily make do with only 7 (or less) heatsinks but can't do that since the build would be invalid.

It's can't do that because with 10 DHS it rapidly overheats with any sort of sustained firing. Usually long before you would have killed an assault if you and it are not standing still for perfect aim on one location and you never stand still in a Locust. So giving you the ability to put on less HS would allow you to make a crappier build.

[Joseph Mallan]

MikeBend, on 22 December 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

Oh, you saw a demand to devs to change anything in our post? Yeah, i guess suggesting something and demanding is all te same to you. Go rant in feature suggestion threads then, thank you.

Umm That would be the mandatory 10 heat sinks That the OP is requesting. He is requesting a change to a 30 year system that works fine as it was written. But since it is a burden to some to play within the rules. Folks have been playing Lights with 10 sinks for decades without trouble. So the requested change is not needed. Nor should it be implemented.

Utilyan, on 22 December 2014 - 05:06 AM, said:

Easy fix is quirks. Quirks is magics.

Quirk "Light Efficiency" - All engines contain the equivalent of 10 heatsinks

That is the rule for Easy Mode TT play. Meaning the most basic of basic play... "CBT for Dummies" if you will! You want easy mode play that is specifically for boots?