27 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

ingramli, on 30 June 2017 - 01:40 AM, said:

The engine design of mwo is base on game balance (albeit poorly done) rather than real world science. IMO engine decoupling is bad. It punish people who want to be agile with an assault (which is practically impossible now), and brawling with assault is very difficult due to the terrible twisting speed. Now i definitely do not want to brawl with an atlas, even with full upgrade on agility. A medium ~ long range fire support would be a more appropriate role for the current state of assault mechs in mwo. Put a barely maneuverable engine (55~60kph would be more than enough) then load as much guns (or ammo/DHS) as you can. Avoid letting the foes getting too close to back stab you......it is the best way to play an assault now.

ok you might have a valid point but it's not on the subject of heatsinks in engines.

Did you read anything in the thread?

[ingramli]

Greyhart, on 30 June 2017 - 02:34 AM, said:

ok you might have a valid point but it's not on the subject of heatsinks in engines.

Did you read anything in the thread?

That is another matter of the engine........which has more to do with critical slots balance....but nowhere as harmful with the engine decoupling anyway....

[Greyhart]

ingramli, on 30 June 2017 - 02:49 AM, said:

That is another matter of the engine........which has more to do with critical slots balance....but nowhere as harmful with the engine decoupling anyway....

I'd respectfully suggest making the point in a thread about the decoupling then.

Heat sinks, crit slots and whether avocados are pears in disguise are for this thread.

Oh I am like the thread police, not that I intended to be, just the decoupling thing has been done to death (wait a month or 2) and would actually probably take over the topic.

[ingramli]

Greyhart, on 30 June 2017 - 03:00 AM, said:

I'd respectfully suggest making the point in a thread about the decoupling then.

Heat sinks, crit slots and whether avocados are pears in disguise are for this thread.

Oh I am like the thread police, not that I intended to be, just the decoupling thing has been done to death (wait a month or 2) and would actually probably take over the topic.

ok, so i will talk about the hs issue of this thread. In term of game balance, i would say the internal HS is fine as is, in reality, mechs that use small engine with less than 10 heatsinks are lights, which are lack of free tonnage rather than crit slots. The external HS requirement eat up some of the crit slots make more sense than it is not to make lights have less slots available, they should have less free slots because they are smaller, otherwise, the FF armor is practically free upgrade with no real drawback. If you believe that all engines should come with same amount of internal HS, i would argue that heavier mechs should come with more crit slots to compenate the fact that they are bigger, and should have more room to house more heat sinks, either internal or external.

[Greyhart]

ingramli, on 30 June 2017 - 03:28 AM, said:

ok, so i will talk about the hs issue of this thread. In term of game balance, i would say the internal HS is fine as is, in reality, mechs that use small engine with less than 10 heatsinks are lights, which are lack of free tonnage rather than crit slots. The external HS requirement eat up some of the crit slots make more sense than it is not to make lights have less slots available, they should have less free slots because they are smaller, otherwise, the FF armor is practically free upgrade with no real drawback. If you believe that all engines should come with same amount of internal HS, i would argue that heavier mechs should come with more crit slots to compenate the fact that they are bigger, and should have more room to house more heat sinks, either internal or external.

No views on the avocado / pear thing

[evilauthor]

Nesutizale, on 30 June 2017 - 01:10 AM, said:

Funny thing is that the old TT rules where that each reactor comes with 10 heatsinks in it. I don't know when they changed that smaller rated reactors can hold less heatsinks but I agree that its kinda stupid. Even while beeing a Lore/TT guy I won't have any problem going back to the old rules in that regard.

It was done very early, like well before the Clan Invasion in TT was even a thing. Perhaps even at the very start of the game itself.

The disconnect between "Every engine comes with 10 free heat sinks" and "an engine hides a number of heat sinks based on its rating" is a rules patch obviously designed to make light mechs (which often had under 250 engine ratings) viable in TT combat.

Without the 10 free sink rule, light mechs would either overheat too much to even use their weapons, or have to spend tonnage they can't afford to spare on extra heat sinks.

Meanwhile, if heavy and assault mechs got free sinks based on their engine rating, they'd be OP as hell compared to mediums and lights because they could carry more weapons while spending less tonnage on heat sinks despite their already greater weight advantage over mediums and lights.

In a "realistic" universe unconcerned with game balance, the only heat sinks mechs would get free would be the ones you can hide in the engine since they'd be an integral part of the engine. But both Battletech and MWO are games so...

[KodiakGW]

"Stay true to the TT rules or Battletech fans will leave in droves."

Yeah, they will be leaving in droves once the HBS product goes live. All they need to do is look at their data and match up all the pro-TRO players to amount of games they played while the HBS little open test was going. So stop catering to them, make changes that make sense, and achieves balance.

[Insanity09]

Actually, the original TT rules had exactly that (yes, I'm that old); every engine, regardless of rating, had 10 heat sinks included.
That part I remember clearly.
It did make light mechs much more viable and dangerous, to a degree (you still only have so much tonnage to work with, and at that stage hardpoints were not part of the rules).

However, FASA was also widely known for flat out errors (typos and word omissions), errata, and seemingly arbitrary rule changes, so my version may have been mistaken. (I'd love to quote chapter and verse, but alas, my Battletech set with its little paperboard mechs and stands, and all the extras did not make the space saving cut on one of my moves)

I also dimly recall that when clans were added to the game, the HS inside the engines actually stayed single, while you could add external doubles (or... triples? I seem to recall there was such a thing). The doubles took 2 spaces, regardless of clan v IS, and triples took 3. However, in addition to the usual error factor, we might have misread those rules.
Also, as a tangent, when first introduced, the clans were MASSIVELY overpowered (mostly it was the auto-hit-the-CT targeting computers), but it was TT, and we found ways to adjust.

(I also did Battleforce, Aerotech, Centurion, Interceptor, and possibly a few others I'm forgetting.)

On a physics note, smaller objects are actually better at dissipating heat; they have more surface area per unit volume, so radiate better. (thus one theorized reason why arctic animals tend to be larger than their temperate counterparts, better heat retention in larger animals).
That said, in any made-up tech, there could be numerous design factors that would add to that basic fact (for example, smaller engines must run hotter to perform up to snuff)