12 replies to this topic

[Setun]

So this is a rough idea, but what if there was an adjacency bonus of sorts for single heat sinks to make the choice between using single vs double heat sinks on IS mechs something other than a 'always get double heat sinks' instapick?

To give an example:
Let's use the Hunchback 4P as the example mech. If you have double heat sinks activated, you get the current method of heat disappation (general x1.4-1.5 heat reduction per sink outside of engine.) But if you have single heat sinks on, the single heat sinks give a cooling 'adjacency' bonus to the particular weapon system(s) they're close to. So putting 4 single heat sinks in the hunch of the 4P will give a let's say stacking 5-7% heat reduction per heat sink with the medium lasers from the hunch compared to the lasers in the arms / head. I'm avoiding a flat 10% because that would make it far too easy to abuse this system + quirks on a specific mech. Also there would have to be a cap (say 20-25%?) to avoid having players using certain heat demanding weapons like PPCs with near 100% heat reduction with this system + quirks. To be clear: the single heat sinks would help cool the rest of the mech like usual, but having them in the same component with weapon systems would make said weapons that much more heat effecient.

Like I said before, this is just a rough idea to make the choice between using single vs double heat sinks actually worthwhile. Let me know what you think!

- Setun

Edited by Setun, 28 March 2015 - 12:26 AM.

[Matthew Ace]

I had a similar idea that does this for both DHS and SHS, but based on heat sink quantity.

Support it.

[Chadamir Fitzkrieg]

Make it so the more heat sinks in a section the better the weapons there cool off? That's...a great idea. I approve.

[Manfred SHMOL Olovitch]

Good Idea.
Maybe we can add a protection/reduction of overheating damage in part where external heatsink are equipped, depending on their number (sorry for bad english here).

Edited by Manolovitch, 28 March 2015 - 12:16 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

No. Doubles have always been a straight upgrade, and they should forever remain such.

[Idealsuspect]

Its interesting but in fact it's a false good idea.

Ok it will give cooling 'adjacency' bonus to the particular weapon system(s) they're close to.
But if you are logical it should give cooling 'adjacency' MALUS to the particular weapon system(s) they are NOT close to, right ?

Heatsink work like ammo, you can put this everywhere in your mech it will be use without malus .. AND/OR bonus.

It's interesting cause it sound real and logical, but real or logical way should be apply to ammo: ammo should be stored only in same place where the weapon is .. or maybe closer component but not more far...

[SethAbercromby]

Idealsuspect, on 28 March 2015 - 11:50 PM, said:

Its interesting but in fact it's a false good idea.

Ok it will give cooling 'adjacency' bonus to the particular weapon system(s) they're close to.
But if you are logical it should give cooling 'adjacency' MALUS to the particular weapon system(s) they are NOT close to, right ?

Heatsink work like ammo, you can put this everywhere in your mech it will be use without malus .. AND/OR bonus.

It's interesting cause it sound real and logical, but real or logical way should be apply to ammo: ammo should be stored only in same place where the weapon is .. or maybe closer component but not more far...

True and people would go on barricades if PGI were to introduce reload penalties based on how far the ammo is stored from the weapon.

Maybe have the Heat Sinks in one component give each other a slight bonus though. Let's say 2%. At best, you can store 17 single heat sinks into the CT (400 engine interneal and external + critspace). Each of those would get a 34% improvement, wich results in a dissipation rate of 1.34 heat per SHS. This would be a combined dissipation of 16.08 in that one component. In a side Torso you can achieve a 24% increase and a dissipation rate of 1.24 heat per SHS. This would be a combined dissipation of 14.88.

At 5%, 12 SHS in one location get 60% better cooling efficiency, which results in a dissipation of 1.6 per heat sink for a combined cooling efficiency of 19.2. A max rated engine could achieve an 85% improvement for 1.8 dissipation per heat sink and a combined cooling efficiency of 30.6.

The latter would imo only not be overkill if DHS would move closer to true DHS. Though we might also need to exclude the engine and have a flat improvement of internal heat sinks.

[Idealsuspect]

And why SHS should provide any bonus if stored in same location than a weapon when a DHS shouldn't be able to provide it if stored in same location to.

Idealsuspect, on 28 March 2015 - 11:50 PM, said:

Ok it will give cooling 'adjacency' bonus to the particular weapon system(s) they're close to.
But if you are logical it should give cooling 'adjacency' MALUS to the particular weapon system(s) they are NOT close to, right ?

For be totaly logical all Heatsinks in CT should have cooling malus for all weapons not stored in CT >>> false good idea.

[SirNotlag]

I like this idea. I'm not sure if it would be able to change any builds but I like it!

[Setun]

Idealsuspect, on 29 March 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

And why SHS should provide any bonus if stored in same location than a weapon when a DHS shouldn't be able to provide it if stored in same location to.



For be totaly logical all Heatsinks in CT should have cooling malus for all weapons not stored in CT >>> false good idea.

The whole point would be to give single heat sinks a unique flavor choice vs doubles. Double heat sinks would give a general heat dissappation rate bonus, while singles would help keep specific weapon hardpoints cooler.

[Matthew Ace]

Manolovitch, on 28 March 2015 - 12:12 PM, said:

Good Idea.
Maybe we can add a protection/reduction of overheating damage in part where external heatsink are equipped, depending on their number (sorry for bad english here).

This would be a fantastic addition as well.

[Idealsuspect]

Setun, on 31 March 2015 - 12:09 AM, said:

The whole point would be to give single heat sinks a unique flavor choice vs doubles. Double heat sinks would give a general heat dissappation rate bonus, while singles would help keep specific weapon hardpoints cooler.

Yea but first argue of this idea was logical or realistic behavior about a heatsink and a weapon.

I'm not again,
I'd just say that if SHS should have bonus when they are on same location they should have malus when they aren't... and everybody know that engine carry the most heatsink and the less weapon as component also ...

Well for end this, double heatsink are like simple heatsink but with a tech gap... like ER LL and LL now people have to chose what they want .. old tech or new tech.

SHS are useless cause of engines and cause a mech can't be deploy with less than 10hs.
For change this, just change thoses last two rules intead create a 3rd one

[Spleenslitta]

Decent idea. I got two alternative ideas. These two ideas i have could easily be combined.
But if we do combine these two ideas MWO would trully become a thinking mans game where you got to keep your cool. Pun intended.
The learning curve would most certainly increase by a lot.

1: Make SHS capable of being linked into a weapon (SHS in the engine cannot be linked). An ML could have a 1 SHS linked to it.
This SHS cools only the linked ML but has no effect on other weapons since 1 SHS can only link to 1 weapon.
SHS that is linked to a weapon has superior cooling efficiency for the weapon it is linked too.
How much is superior? No idea. That is for someone with better brains than mine to figure out.

DHS cannot be linked since they are so clunky. You could take it a step further and say....energy weapons can fit 1 SHS per critical slot the weapon takes up.
Ballistic/missile weapons can take 1 SHS per 2 or 3 internal slots they fill up.

The heatsinks in the engine funtion as normal though. (yes i had to say that twice because it's so important.)
This idea means builds with 1-2 hot weapons would benefit greatly from having SHS i think. It really depends on what mathematical hypotesis the eggheads come up with.
But builds with a huge bundle of ML's would be better of with DHS because it would be too heavy to link SHS to all the ML's.



2: Make heat local...kinda like your idea but slightly different. Example. You fire 6 ML's from the 4P hunchbacks right torso. Heat spreads in the mech but it's worst in the right torso of course.
You can put more SHS than DHS in the remaining internal slots not occupied by the ML's. Therefore more effective local cooling with SHS.
You could take it further and say SHS deals better with local cooling than DHS, but DHS does better against heat in neighbouring mech sections.

This means storing ammunition in a section that is bound to get hoooot is not a good idea. Also if a mech has an XL engine and a side torso gets too hot it damages the engine.
Please note that i personally use XL engines a whole lot so this hurts my builds a lot too....and i have a strong preferance for hot weapons such as ER PPC, ER LL and PPC.

Idea 2 has a side effect though. The learning curve on making good mech builds would be higher since local heat has to controlled.
Furthermore we would need 2 heatmeters in the cockpit. One that shows heat levels before engineshutdown like right now.
Our damage paperdoll could also show how high heat is in the different parts of the mech.
Or a totaly seperate heatmeter for local heat would be needed.
Another fun thing would be seeing how high the heat is in our enemies through targeting sensors and heatvision.



I made a thread about how to make SHS worth using once, but players just outright ignored it or said:
: "Can't you see that DHS is an outright upgrade?" or "if this was done i could no longer use my 4 PPC build" without really thinking about it.
Then the thread just went downwards as players started throwing mean sounding critique at me.

Edited by Spleenslitta, 31 March 2015 - 09:03 AM.