27 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

OK who can justify the engine heat sink mechanic?

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...#module_engines

So a 100std engine takes up the same space as a 250std engine but requires 6 external heatsinks (assuming double) that's 18 additional slots.

So this slower, less powerful engine takes up the same space as the more powerful one but has less heat dissipation. and is 250% bigger to have the same heat dissipation, with less speed?

Now if the minimum was not 10 (you can't field a mech with less than ten) then it might be ok, but this seems ridiculous.


And lets not forget this silly system results in the 60std being -2.5 tons.

Can anyone justify this system in logical terms. Are there less powerful engines out there that produce the same heat as larger engines but dissipate that heat less efficiently?

Just give all engines 10 internal heat sinks and normalise the weights with a rating increase resulting in an additional 0.5 tons.

please someone explain the logic of this nuts system

[Rycard]

IMHO its not about logic, its about staying as true to the original game as much as possible. PGI can't change mech building to a point where classic battletech fans would leave in droves.

The game as it is, barely resembles the tabletop game as it is with all the accomodations it has made to account for FPS style play.

If they changed mech building to a point it no longer resembles the TT game, I would personally leave because its no longer battletech.

[Pjwned]

In this case it's a design relic from TT of more expensive = better, because c-bill cost (and/or BV) actually mattered and you could command more than just 1 mech, so obviously that meant cheaper stuff (e.g small engines, light mechs, standard heatsinks, etc.) had to be worse; external heatsinks (along with the minimum 10 heatsink requirement) was 1 of the ways of doing that.

The rules for engine heatsinks should be changed significantly since this isn't a game where more expensive = better at all.

Rycard, on 29 June 2017 - 02:59 AM, said:

IMHO its not about logic, its about staying as true to the original game as much as possible. PGI can't change mech building to a point where classic battletech fans would leave in droves.

The game as it is, barely resembles the tabletop game as it is with all the accomodations it has made to account for FPS style play.

If they changed mech building to a point it no longer resembles the TT game, I would personally leave because its no longer battletech.

Building a mech would still be largely the same if the rules for engine heatsinks were changed.

The way that those mechs end up being built is a lot different (from what you see in TT) for at least a dozen different reasons, but the process of building a mech would change very little.

If it's such a problem you can also just go play HBS Battletech instead, which PGI would probably not say since I would imagine they don't like losing customers but I don't have a problem saying it.

Edited by Pjwned, 29 June 2017 - 03:26 AM.

[mike29tw]

Rycard, on 29 June 2017 - 02:59 AM, said:

IMHO its not about logic, its about staying as true to the original game as much as possible. PGI can't change mech building to a point where classic battletech fans would leave in droves.

The game as it is, barely resembles the tabletop game as it is with all the accomodations it has made to account for FPS style play.

If they changed mech building to a point it no longer resembles the TT game, I would personally leave because its no longer battletech.

lol?


Of all the things MWO has deviated from TT, engine heatsink is where you draw your line?

You will look at urbanmech and say "If this thing is allowed to NOT equip any external heatsink, I'll quit" ?

[Myke Pantera]

BT rules. I am fine with that. What i would like to see though is that the first 10 DHS have full 2.0 heat dissipation no matter if they are engine internal or external. A BlackJack with max engine rating of 235 has only 9 internal DHS and one external with reduced efficiency.

Just make the first 10 DHS 2.0 no matter how many are external and no matter which of the externals are already destroyed. Simple solution to a bothersome problem...

[Pjwned]

Myke Pantera, on 29 June 2017 - 03:25 AM, said:

BT rules. I am fine with that. What i would like to see though is that the first 10 DHS have full 2.0 heat dissipation no matter if they are engine internal or external. A BlackJack with max engine rating of 235 has only 9 internal DHS and one external with reduced efficiency.

Just make the first 10 DHS 2.0 no matter how many are external and no matter which of the externals are already destroyed. Simple solution to a bothersome problem...

Better yet, have that apply to SHS too so that they actually have a use instead of being garbage.

Preferably the rules for minimum heatsinks and fitting heatsinks in sub-250 rating engines would be looked at too, because "TT rules" is not really a good enough argument alone considering what I said in my previous post.

If it was just the bare minimum of improving external DHS though then that would be an improvement and better than nothing.

Edited by Pjwned, 29 June 2017 - 03:43 AM.

[Greyhart]

really I understand that they may make sense under TT rules but not in Mechwarrior the computer game.

Just make them all 10 internal and increase the tonnage of the engine because the mech would have to have that tonnage in heat sinks in anycase.

[General Solo]

Could be a balance thing
Image a locust with 3 extra tons to play with.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ddb854ea29ee1ff
Yeah no FF armor, it was a rush job, extra 0.3 something to pump into the arms.


And it stops people using a outrageously small engines to fit an outrageous amount of weaponry.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5e4c4b96f406840

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 29 June 2017 - 08:43 AM.

[Snowbluff]

I want to have IS engines get a free heat sinks slot (up to 6 at 350) to help balance out IS engines versus clan ones and to help out small engined mechs like the Urbie and Locust.

[Trollfeed]

Ever heard of fasa physics?

[Gleitfrosch]

you ignore the size of a mech.

putting a large engine into a large mech may take the same or even less space than putting a small engine into an even smaller mech.

compare an atlas to a locust.

Edited by Gleitfrosch, 29 June 2017 - 09:53 AM.

[Alex Morgaine]

Iirc The engine heat sink rule was also an easy way to stimulate smaller Mech's engines = more space taken without having to make up size rules for every tonnage.

[Khobai]

all sub-250 engines should get 10 internal heatsinks

just add the weight difference for the extra internal heatsinks

so like a 225 engine would weigh +1 ton

a 200 engine would weigh +2 tons

etc...

Quote

Iirc The engine heat sink rule was also an easy way to stimulate smaller Mech's engines = more space taken without having to make up size rules for every tonnage.

the problem is it reduces the number of crit slots some light mechs have to the point where they cant take both endo and ferro. because external double heatsinks take up 3 crit slots each.

it would be better for those light mechs if they could shove those heatsinks into their engines instead of having to take them externally.

Edited by Khobai, 29 June 2017 - 11:45 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Khobai, on 29 June 2017 - 11:42 AM, said:

all sub-250 engines should get 10 internal heatsinks

just add the weight difference for the extra internal heatsinks

so like a 225 engine would weigh +1 ton

a 200 engine would weigh +2 tons

etc...



the problem is it reduces the number of crit slots some light mechs have to the point where they cant take both endo and ferro. because external double heatsinks take up 3 crit slots each.

it would be better for those light mechs if they could shove those heatsinks into their engines instead of having to take them externally.

This would break some stock builds, which some people apparently care about.

[Khobai]

Quote

This would break some stock builds, which some people apparently care about.

It wouldnt break them at all

the tonnage is exactly the same. all it would do is free up crit slots.

[Xetelian]

I support 10 heat sinks in the engine below 250.

The way it is now sucks.

[evilauthor]

Gleitfrosch, on 29 June 2017 - 09:41 AM, said:

you ignore the size of a mech.

putting a large engine into a large mech may take the same or even less space than putting a small engine into an even smaller mech.

compare an atlas to a locust.

LOL yeah. Basically, crit space =/= ACTUAL space.

My personal head canon is that "crit space" is actually attachment points and plug in ports (for power, coolant, control lines, etc etc) on the mech's internal structure. It's not representing actual three dimensional volume.

Frankly, I think the most head banging "how does that even work?" engineering issue with Battletech mechs is ammo allocation. Ammo bins in one arm or even a leg can feed weapons located in the other arm. How does the ammo even feed the weapon from across the whole mech while it must be going through several joints? Teleportation? I mean, you can't even interrupt the ammo feed with battle damage without either hitting the actual ammo bin, the weapon being fed, or destroying an intervening section of the mech.

[Baron Zen]

I am agree with the OP, also some consideration: how many years have battletech? It is also a TT turn based srategic game, I think games should evolve like all things in RL, otherwise we are applying a not open minded religious orthodoxy to a game and you know how many issues could bring such mentality. Games like people should adapt to the times, think on various brands like Warhammer, as you could know until now not a single Warhammer game took really good profit of the immense lore/games on it but still people keep to play them because it is warhammer, I think this could apply to mechwarrior (battletech) games.

[Nesutizale]

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.

[ingramli]

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.

Edited by ingramli, 30 June 2017 - 01:58 AM.