88 replies to this topic

[Alex Morgaine]

Wait till we get fuel cell engines (in 2020 lol)then. 1 HS in the engine period.all the space you'd want, and no pesky heat sinks.ever.

Edited by Frosty Brand, 08 April 2015 - 11:40 AM.

[Dirus Nigh]

MWO made a compromise between the TT, and MWO build rules. Engines under 250 in MWO weigh less than in TT. This is because the heat sinks are taking up that weight difference. I will agree with the suggestion only if engine weights are increased to compensate for the unused heat sinks.

Edit.
Also lower rated engines do not have the gyro weight added to them. Engines above 250 do. The heat sink weight is also compensating for this. This weight should also be added back to the engines.

Edit 2
Another thought, if IS mechs are allowed to go below 10 heat sinks why should clan mechs be forced to have their heat sink hard locked on the chassis?

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 08 April 2015 - 11:57 AM.

[Dettmam]

MilesTeg1982, on 08 April 2015 - 07:49 AM, said:

[Sarcasmn] sure it isn't about the urbanmech - thats why it wasn't mentioned in this topic at all, and thats why there isn't another thread in Featuere Suggestion with the exact same reference ... [Sarcasmn off]

face it - you wanted to have a trashcan and you got one, live with it.

Dude, the urbie is cool! It is possible to do a lot of good builds on it and I finally have an effective light firestarter killer! You are taking it in the wrong way if you mean I'm frustrated with the urbie!
My point is it should be possible to have other builds, with ok heat, if we don't have this meaningless limitation.

[Dettmam]

Dirus Nigh, on 08 April 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

MWO made a compromise between the TT, and MWO build rules. Engines under 250 in MWO weigh less than in TT. This is because the heat sinks are taking up that weight difference. I will agree with the suggestion only if engine weights are increased to compensate for the unused heat sinks.

Edit.
Also lower rated engines do not have the gyro weight added to them. Engines above 250 do. The heat sink weight is also compensating for this. This weight should also be added back to the engines.

Edit 2
Another thought, if IS mechs are allowed to go below 10 heat sinks why should clan mechs be forced to have their heat sink hard locked on the chassis?

About Edit 2, I agree! Why?

[Widowmaker1981]

Alienized, on 08 April 2015 - 07:39 AM, said:

speed is overrated. it was around 40ish. armor was at 272 but i needed all the tons that i wanted to use for ammo for the heatsinks required to run it =(

BAHAHAHAHA.

Speed is over rated? Viable Blackjack running at 40kph? The stuff you are smoking, i would like some please.

Why, but why, would you ever use that when you could have a Dire Wolf with the twin gauss + lasers + more ammo that is faster and more agile and has more than twice the armour?

[Sjorpha]

The result of the rule is that smaller mechs have less crit slots to play with, and that there is a tradeoff to buying yourself tonnage with smaller engines. Both these things make perfect sense to me, so I don't see any reason to change it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Widowmaker1981, on 13 April 2015 - 01:33 AM, said:

BAHAHAHAHA.

Speed is over rated? Viable Blackjack running at 40kph? The stuff you are smoking, i would like some please.

Why, but why, would you ever use that when you could have a Dire Wolf with the twin gauss + lasers + more ammo that is faster and more agile and has more than twice the armour?

Not a Clanner?

[FupDup]

Sjorpha, on 13 April 2015 - 03:12 AM, said:

The result of the rule is that smaller mechs have less crit slots to play with...

A 45-ton Blackjack using an XL235 has less crit slots to play with than a 30-ton Spider using an XL255. Your point is now invalid.

It has little to do with the tonnage of the mech, and more about being lucky enough to have a 250+ engine cap.

Sjorpha, on 13 April 2015 - 03:12 AM, said:

...and that there is a tradeoff to buying yourself tonnage with smaller engines.

What tradeoff is there to using a sub-250 engine? Much of the time they're a flat-out downgrade in every way or almost every way.

With the critical slots you save on a larger engine, you can add a tech upgrade like Ferro Fibrous and use that weight to nudge up the engine higher or something. There are very, very few builds that are more effective with a sub-250 engine than a 250+ engine.

We've seen from mechs like the Timberwolf, Stormcrow, and every single light mech with 250+ engines that the lower engines aren't really a tradeoff at all. Ever heard of the Big Engine Stomp Meta? It's a very real phenomenon.


What do large engines give us? Let's count:

1. You get more bonus heatsink slots every 25 ratings, which saves critslots.

2. If you're under 250, larger engines give you more 2.0 Trudubs in your engine, which improves your heat efficiency.

3. The combination of #1 and/or #2 frees up more critical slots to use tech upgrades like Endo Steel and Ferro Fibrous, which lets you min-max optimize your mech that much more. For example, most Blackjacks could actually fit FF with their Endo IF their engine cap wasn't stuck at 235.

4. They give you higher agility, because MWO agility is based primarily on your engine size.

5. You move faster in a straight line.

6. This # isn't necessarily an advantage, but the fact that we have XL engines makes it much easier to increase our engine rating with significantly lower opportunity costs. This especially applies to the Clans...

7. Energy-boat builds run out of critslots long before tonnage, so the weight needed to increase their engine rating is already freed up just by using laser spam as it is. Big engines allow mechs like the Timberwolf to be so good at laser vomit, because they synergize so well with energy weapons.


What do smaller engines give us?

1. You get more tonnage to use on guns and/or equipment.

2. HOWEVER, there are exceptions to #1 if your mech runs out of critical space using lower engines. Sometimes the mech with the bigger engine can actually fit more equipment than the mech with the smaller engine because of being able to use more tech upgrades (see above).

The Blackjack example of a 235 vs 250 engine was mentioned, where you could just add FF to the 250 build and still carry the exact identical weapon loadout as the 235 build.

[Widowmaker1981]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 April 2015 - 04:39 AM, said:

Not a Clanner?

Or a Jagermech then. Still faster, more ammo, more agile, more armour

I only used the example of the Dire Wolf because the only reason to ever, ever drive a mech as slow as a Dire is if it is actually a Dire (yes, Atlases and King Crabs should always have engines bigger than 300, though im sure you'll disagree with your STD300 Atlas build)

[Joseph Mallan]

Correct. I do disagree. But that is the thing about personal preferences. We both can use what we like.

[LordBraxton]

I like how a bunch of supporters main argument is,

'Come on guys, would it really make any of these mechs OP?'

That's not a solid argument to change the rules.

PGI warned everyone what they were paying for with the urbie, now we have it, live with it.

[Jetfire]

All engine 250 and below should contain 10 HS internally. I think the Torso Twist and Speed Sacrifice is enough penalty for going to a smaller engine.

[Widowmaker1981]

Joseph Mallan, on 13 April 2015 - 04:53 AM, said:

Correct. I do disagree. But that is the thing about personal preferences. We both can use what we like.

Indeed.

Funny thing really, because in TT a 100 ton mech SHOULD always have a 300 rated engine, since it has to be a multiple of chassis weight and a 100 tonner with a 400XL has less available tonnage than a 95 tonner with a 380XL (XL400 is 6 tons heavier than the 380). Just in MWO IS are allowed to break that rule, so its usually better to get some more speed and agility imo

[Joseph Mallan]

Widowmaker1981, on 13 April 2015 - 05:08 AM, said:

Indeed.

Funny thing really, because in TT a 100 ton mech SHOULD always have a 300 rated engine, since it has to be a multiple of chassis weight and a 100 tonner with a 400XL has less available tonnage than a 95 tonner with a 380XL (XL400 is 6 tons heavier than the 380). Just in MWO IS are allowed to break that rule, so its usually better to get some more speed and agility imo

Your Logic is good. and I do agree with it... But I want that extra weight in the weapons. it's my style.

[Eyepop]

FupDup, on 07 April 2015 - 04:02 PM, said:

I'm okay with needing 10 sinks.

What I'm NOT okay with is the TT rule that sub-250 engines can't fit all 10 sinks on the inside. It doesn't really add anything, and just serves to nerf mechs that are already disadvantaged in some way (usually, mechs with sub-250 engine limits are on the lower end of the light or medium class...).

Just ghost the external sinks to the inside, adjust engine weights accordingly, and we'll be fine. It'll free up a lot of critslots and give a bit of a cooling boost to the afflicted mechs.

Yeah, I've never understood how bigger, heavier engines can fit in the same amount of space as smaller, lighter engines while STILL giving you room to magically cram 14 DHS in there. Shouldn't it be the other way around?

[Clint Steel]

They should let you go into battle with less than the amount needed for your engine, but then have your mech build up heat until it powered down due to overheat. So if you are only 1 heatsink shy you might be able go a couple minutes before you had to power-down, where if you were 4 shy you'd only be able to stay powered up for 30 seconds

[Sorbic]

Yeah, I tried to go back to play with the AC20 loadout on the Urbie and due to needing so many heatsinks I would have to pay to bounce between removing and adding Endo each time I wanted to run a stock(ish) loadout. Even just making 1 more HS internal would free up so much room. Or maybe PGI could just release a STD 75 that only weighs .5 (or .3 wink wink) tons more.

[Mechteric]

Clint Steel, on 13 April 2015 - 09:36 AM, said:

They should let you go into battle with less than the amount needed for your engine, but then have your mech build up heat until it powered down due to overheat. So if you are only 1 heatsink shy you might be able go a couple minutes before you had to power-down, where if you were 4 shy you'd only be able to stay powered up for 30 seconds

That's unnecessary. They could just make the heat dissipation and heat capacity lower for each heat sink under 10 you have. It's a simple penalty that wouldn't hurt gameplay.

[Dettmam]

CapperDeluxe, on 13 April 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

That's unnecessary. They could just make the heat dissipation and heat capacity lower for each heat sink under 10 you have. It's a simple penalty that wouldn't hurt gameplay.

Agreed!

[Kaeb Odellas]

The silliest thing to me about the 10 heatsink minimum is that mechs are perfectly capable of running fewer than 10 heatsinks. A 10 heatsink mech doesn't suddenly keel over dead because one of its heatsinks gets critted or it loses a component that has heatsinks in it. It still runs perfectly fine (albeit slightly hotter).

So why can't a mech deploy with fewer than 10 heatsinks then? If we want to be consistent, then either mechs should allowed to run fewer than 10 heatsinks, or losing a heatsink in battle should cripple your mech. I think one of those options is clearly more acceptable than the other.