85 replies to this topic

[Hexial]

*Two hours of calculation, notes, battlemech builds later...*

I think no free heat sinks is too extreme. Perhaps only giving +2/+4/+6 free heat rather than +0 would be more acceptable. We also have other factors to consider that do not apply to table top, like:

- How the new critical system where you cannot spam ER Medium Lasers on every critical point will affect builds.
- How firing rate is used to improve balance of crummy TT weapons, like the AC/2 and AC/5, or nerf others.
- How costly it could be to run a laser boat as opposed to a cannon boat, or mixed tech mech. Repairs? Replacements? Ammo?
- How easy it is to acquire/lose DHS in game: rarity and cost.
- The possible future approach to Clan DHS; they would be similar in all ways but criticals I suppose. But Clan weapons are far from similar.
- How viable long range warfare in in MWO. We still don't know if the game is slanted toward rush-and-blasting, rather than ranged stand-offs. Heat heavy LRM-20s and ERPPC may end up being worse than closer, CQC orientated weapons.

Energy weapons could completely outclass autocannons if:

- The firing rate, and consequent Damage Per Second (plus DPS per Heat, per ton, per crit) was out of whack exactly like TT. ER Large Lasers, Large Pulse Lasers, ER PPCs and so on could all have scaled cooldown times rather than the 1-per-turn flat balance that has partially borked TT.
- Cost was not comparative in terms of DPS: we need a DPS chart so we can conjure up a DPS/Heat, DPS/Ton, DPS/Critical, DPS/C-bill, DPS/AmmoTon lot too. Y'know, then we could compare the balance... of course then we might have mech and pilot attributes on top of that. And range. Arrrgh, the complexity!

[William Boone]

Honestly I don't see the problem in double heat sinks, without them you'll be just that much more disadvantaged when the Clans come and then you'll be back whining about how you can't effectively fight them. Yes many will choose to probably upgrade to double heat sinks, but keep in mind that comes with an increased cost of repair or replacement. As earlier pointed out someone hits one of the double heat sinks you lose 2 heat dissipation not one and that can be very significant, especially if you lose an arm or torso where you put most of your double heat sinks. With the limits on hard points choices for double heat sinks might be more limited as well, due to where your weapons have to be.

[Uri Brauer]

William Boone, on 23 July 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Honestly I don't see the problem in double heat sinks...

The problem is that everyone will be tooling around in HBK-6Ps because that's the best chassis for laserboating, and laserboating will be the only optimal choice. That's the problem.

[Argon3]

herektir, on 20 July 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

The best way to balance this out really is to make the cost of retrofitting the engine with doubles instead of singles somewhat prohibitive(which doesnt even include the cost of the hs themselves, there are labour costs afterall). Could also very well make every double heatsink 3x or more the cost of a normal single and losing one in a battle would be painful.

I think I found one I like
Make Engines (once DHS are in game) with and with out DHS
The DHS one will cost more but you can buy it if you want

How to balance out the rest
Good luck guys
But The cost/Crit space can work that out
I stopped playing the TT before the clans invaded
Yes I am that old

[WardenWolf]

ManDaisy, on 22 July 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Here's a thought, only allow double heat sinks in the engine for XL engines. Standard engines would carry single heat sinks in the engine. That way if they want the double heat sinks included with the engine they risk going boom boom with the side torsos.

This is a really interesting idea, and might make implementation in game easier (just normal and XL engines, instead of normal, normal with DHS, XL, and XL with DHS)... but I think it would 'break' some canon variants, as others here are complaining my original idea would.

[Captain Nice HD]

Something to consider: In the tabletop, heat sinks of all kinds neutralize a BattleMech's heat instantaneously. In the game, however, heat sinks are likely to reduce the heat of a player's BattleMech over a non-zero period of time. Faster heat dissipation from Double Heat Sinks would permit hotter weapons load-outs, but the player is still limited by a fixed ceiling for heat capacity before their 'Mech is forced to shut down, no matter how numerous or effective their heat sinks are.

[wanderer]

Also, MWO puts much more strain on a 'Mech heatwise than tabletop- and gives people extra heat sinks with big engines for free.

If they were stuck with the usual 10-per-engine, your average 300XL Jenner would have 2 heat/second cooldown. It's BETTER, but it's not going to save it from rapid fire alpha strikes with it's lasers- especially since small and medium lasers have more heat per shot than in tabletop. 1.2 vs. 2.0 HSPS is a significant improvement, but it's not ZOMG BROKEN. It'd take an old-tech 3025-era Jenner and give it better (but not ice cold) heat management, going from seriously undersinked for it's guns to modestly so.

Designs like the Hunchback-P benefit as well if you go to TT construction rules. Stock, a -P sinks 2.3 heat (23 sinks) per second. Notably, 6 of it's lasers have to go in one torso, meaning at most you'll fit 10 sinks (2 of which are part of the 10 engine freebies) in the 'Mech- 4 in the LT, 2 in each arm, 2 in the RT - and that's assuming you don't mount an XL. That'd give it at most 3.6 HSPS- again, a considerable improvement but not even double it's current capacity. The classic 300XL version gets it a bit better- it can get up to 4.0 HSPS since it can stick 4 more sinks in the engine (but loses space for 2 HS to the XL, a net gain of two DHS fittable for 20 DHS total)- but again, even with all the shiny tech it still doesn't get double the capacity out of it's design simply by switching over if we go to tabletop-style construction rules.

Edit: And crit-eating tech like Endosteel? That'll put a huge kink in DHS capacity- even using the arm/leg/CT crits, you'd still chew up room for three sinks right there. If endosteel is hardwired to a chassis (as it should be, it's the SKELETON OF THE MECH), it'll act as a balancing factor right there. And FF of course will do a number on things as well.

DHS will make a 'Mech better. It should, DHS are made to do so. It won't break the system if we get rid of the significant heat sink boost high rated engines get at this time and go back to the more balanced, original version TT had.

Edited by wanderer, 26 July 2012 - 08:34 AM.

[Protection]

This isn't a bad option, but nor is it a great option. It makes some classic designs (including Awesome and Stalker variants, 90% of clan mechs, almost anything that shows up after 3052) completely nonviable, as they relied on engine double heatsinks in their design.

It also doesn't really give they player any choice either. Every mech using heatsinks simply becomes a case of maximize crit space usage. Have two extra crits in the arm? Swap a single heatsink for a double. Every mech will maximize the number of double heatsinks that they have room for in the arms and torsos, and settle for single heatsinks for the rest of the mech. Might as well have the computer auto-install heatsinks if we do it this way.

[VanillaG]

WardenWolf, on 23 July 2012 - 03:58 PM, said:

This is a really interesting idea, and might make implementation in game easier (just normal and XL engines, instead of normal, normal with DHS, XL, and XL with DHS)... but I think it would 'break' some canon variants, as others here are complaining my original idea would.

I think a slight variation of this might work. What if you added engines that came with DHS that required additonal critical spaces in LT/RT/CT but weighed same the engine with single heatsinks? Here is an example with some made up number for additional criticals:

• Standard Engine with Standard Heatsinks - same as what is currently in TT
  
• Standard Engine with Double Heatsinks - Same weight as standard but +2 additional criticals in CT and +1 criticals in LT and RT. You can still run around with both side torsos destroyed
  
• XL Engine with Standard Heatsinks - same as what is currently in TT
  
• XL Engine with Double Heatsinks - same weight as XL engine but +2 additional criticals to LT and RT because CT is already filled by XL engine.

Both XL Engines and Double Heatsinks are trading space for weight so when you equip both, you lose a lot of critical space. While it is possible to get the advantage of both if you REALLY wanted them, it makes most people choose between either DHS or XL Engine. Then they can choose between FF or Endosteel for the other upgrade.

Edited by VanillaG, 26 July 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

You should not be able to mix DHS and SHS. From what I have seen it the demo's etc mechs run hotter than TT because of a higher RoF. With lasers doing DoT they're not so OP when boated. In general most builds don't have much room for masses of DHS, not when they take up 3 crits.

[Deceptor]

I know this has no relevance to gameplay, or even attempts to seek resolution on the issue, it's only really a thought I had when I first started playing the game on super nintendo all those years back, and still sticks with me, and might afford some ideas. Logically it could be assumed that the 'sinks included with the engine were primarily used to dissipate ENGINE heat. Along these lines, maybe you could just limit their use to engines above a certain size per mech, That way you are mitigating some of the weight advantage by forcing the use of a larger engine. Alternatively, just pluck a few of the included heatsinks off the table when you "upgrade."

[Deceptor]

Maybe I had that backwards. Only allow their use on engines UP TO a certain size, under the assumption that they won't fit in the engine compartment after that.

[Lycan]

Actually, i think Prosperity has it correct, though I could be wrong, it's been decades since I've built a 'Mech. If I recall, when you create a mech and chose the engine/rating, you also need to make the determination of whether or not that mech is going to use double heat sinks. At that point, that's what's in the engine and that's the type of heat sink that mech can equip.

It's only when you start to get into T3 tech/rules that the mixing of double/single heat sinks come into play. 'Course, like I said, I could be wrong . . . and more than likely might be . . .

ManDaisy, on 21 July 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Take away the double heat sinks crit sponge ability. Make it so one hit kills the entire 3 critical slots.

Going to use TT terms here so I can try and better understand what you're saying. . .

Do you mean to say that, in the case of a IS DHS (and/or Clan DHS since it takes 2 crit slots), if it gets hit, not only is it rendered defunct but the other 2 (or 1) crit slot is also considered "hit" and, in TT terms would be deemed a "reroll" for further "crit" hits?

Or do you just mean the one hit to the a crit slot renders the DHS defunct? ('Cause that's already what happens which is why I think I'm misunderstanding you).

If it's my former thought (i think that's the right one) then, I could get behind this if instead of being charged to repair 3 (or 2) critical locations, I was only charged once. Otherwise, I might have to come down on the side of "nope, if you're going to make me repair all three crit locations then you need to actually hit all three crit locations . . "

Of course, we don't really know how repairs are going to actually function so . . . .

Risen, on 23 July 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

DHS are in my opinion the most unbalaning factor in MW, at least in the boardgame.

Right, it's the DHS that are the problem . . . Not the Clan's superior weapons/tech that also utilize DHS and superior DHS technology at that . . .

Edited by Lycan, 28 July 2012 - 05:52 PM.

[Captain Nice HD]

Hrm... would anyone object if the heat scales of 'Mechs equipped with Double Heat Sinks were affected twice as much as a 'Mech equipped with Single Heat Sinks if struck with flamers, inferno missiles, plasma guns, etc?

[ManDaisy]

I would, for one that doesn't mkae much sense at ll.

[Lycan]

Captain Nice HD, on 28 July 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Hrm... would anyone object if the heat scales of 'Mechs equipped with Double Heat Sinks were affected twice as much as a 'Mech equipped with Single Heat Sinks if struck with flamers, inferno missiles, plasma guns, etc?

Yes, due to the fact that superior/more effective heat dissipation should not make a mech equipped with said items more susceptible to heat spikes . . .

[Captain Nice HD]

Eh, it was a thought. I just don't think that increased crit size alone is an adequate measure to balance freezers. 10 DHS is more than sufficient for the needs of many loadouts, and you only need an engine rating of 250 to accommodate all of them without allocating any crits at all. A quick glance at my speed/weight optimization tables tells me that any 'Mech that isn't under-engined for it's size could manage that easily (or very nearly so). And, really, if you end up allocating DHS crits, you're only going to make your 'Mech tougher by crit-packing the chassis. I find the supposed 'disadvantage' compared to SHS hard to take seriously.

As for reasoning for exactly why DHS might take double heat 'damage', well... according to the fluff, they get their improved performance from using an alternative material for the heat radiators that exchanges heat from the 'Mech's coolant systems into it's immediate environment more efficiently. Logically, if the local environment is heated to temperatures in excess to the 'Mech's coolant system, heat would transfer into the 'Mech's coolant system instead, and a more efficient radiator would only make that happen more rapidly. It's a perfectly logical consequence to the technology, and would give it a hard counter that simply does not exist in the tabletop.

But, I understand why people might not like that.

[ManDaisy]

If you put t that way... it makes sense. However... heat sinks are inside the mech so they wont exactly act as vacuums for heat outside due to the thermal resistance of the armor and air. The radiator will absord heat inside the mech ( generated and bled thru by flamers) and raise the temp of the coolant inside the heat sinks, cooling the insides. So no, its not exactly like the model your thinking. Your neglecting the coolant resovior. Until the coolant reaches temperatures equal to the outside, it still will suck in heat raising its own temperature, thus cooling the mech no matter what.

Edited by ManDaisy, 28 July 2012 - 08:41 PM.

[Deceptor]

Captain Nice HD, on 28 July 2012 - 07:27 PM, said:

Eh, it was a thought. I just don't think that increased crit size alone is an adequate measure to balance freezers. 10 DHS is more than sufficient for the needs of many loadouts, and you only need an engine rating of 250 to accommodate all of them without allocating any crits at all. A quick glance at my speed/weight optimization tables tells me that any 'Mech that isn't under-engined for it's size could manage that easily (or very nearly so). And, really, if you end up allocating DHS crits, you're only going to make your 'Mech tougher by crit-packing the chassis. I find the supposed 'disadvantage' compared to SHS hard to take seriously.

As for reasoning for exactly why DHS might take double heat 'damage', well... according to the fluff, they get their improved performance from using an alternative material for the heat radiators that exchanges heat from the 'Mech's coolant systems into it's immediate environment more efficiently. Logically, if the local environment is heated to temperatures in excess to the 'Mech's coolant system, heat would transfer into the 'Mech's coolant system instead, and a more efficient radiator would only make that happen more rapidly. It's a perfectly logical consequence to the technology, and would give it a hard counter that simply does not exist in the tabletop.

But, I understand why people might not like that.

I think this does make sense, it just seems like if they were affected twice as much by heat weapons and then could dissipate that heat twice as fast, all you did was make heat weapons equally effective against DHS mechs as against SHS, and considering their limited usefulness in the first place, this doesn't seem like enough to tip the scales.

[chaz706]

ManDaisy, on 21 July 2012 - 12:10 PM, said:

Take away the double heat sinks crit sponge ability. Make it so one hit kills the entire 3 critical slots. That way there is an incentive to use single heat sinks rather then double heat sinks to pad your mech. The alternative padding... is gauss rifle ammo.

Making DHS vulnerable to Crits would be an in-game balancing factor... one that I think would be huge.

At the risk of being too simplistic perhaps a more subtle balancing effect could be had:

1) Heat sinks are expensive. This includes repair costs. Let's allow purchase/repair costs to reflect this.
2) Heat sinks are bulky. This makes them bigger targets. let's also make them fragile (1 crit hit = one dead DHS).
3) Let's tone down the effectiveness of Heat Sinks on engines a bit (make them 150% effective vs standard heatsinks).
4) To compensate for their bulkiness... allow DHS NOT on the engine be a bit more effective -- if you're going to sacrifice crit space to install additional DHS... you should be rewarded for this because this is expensive (see point 1 above) AND risky (see point 2 above): this is reflective in additional DHS being more effective (maybe 250% effective vs standard heatsinks) than those mounted on engine.
5) 900 degrees Kelvin is still 900 degrees kelvin. The mech still has X amount of it can work with heat before shutdown... but cooling rates are buffed by DHS so you'll still be able to fire energy weapons more often.

Also some ideas on the UI:

Being able to switch between DHS and SHS: Always costs something on confirm (much much more for SHS --> DHS) AND forces you to uninstall ALL ADDITIONAL HEATSINKS (I.E. those not engine mounted).

Also going the route of selling Engines with SHS vs DHS: this could work but it would suck if I had to save up for an engine AS WELL AS save the additional C-bills just to go with DHS.

Furthermore... I also see another thing spawning as a result of this: light mechs would become more effective against larger mechs seeings that lasers and DHS aren't so heavy. It would go a long way to give lights/mediums more punch.

Edited by chaz706, 28 July 2012 - 09:37 PM.