39 replies to this topic

[Bolide]

Been a while since I've posted wishes on the forum, figured I would mention some stuff before new engines go live.

I would like to see engine types influence a mech's base heat capacity, based on tonnage.

Currently all that matters is how many additional heat sinks you can cram on. If you think about it that doesn't make much sense. The mass of an object should determine it's capacity to retain heat (assuming equal materials). A 1 kg chunk of metal contains less energy than 2 kg of same.

I'm not saying that an XL engine should have half the capacity of a Standard, but it should have enough less to make the standard engine a consideration for some builds.

With the new Light Fusion engine available soon this will provide a niche for all three types in the inner sphere arsenal. XL for long range or most speed, Light for mix of speed and brawling, and Std for pressing in and taking hits.

Clan will still have two engines, but their XL engine is lighter and less vulnerable than IS XL, with the drawback of less heat capacity than the Inner sphere Light Engine.

If PGI really wanted to go nuts they could take into account surface area to increase or decrease heat dissipation rates. Again, as a modifier, not as a base. The same could be applied to heat sinks.

Additionally, heat sinks and gyro's in the engine could increase capacity (to help lighten the curve) but heat sinks in the mech itself would not. They only increase dissipation, not capacity.

You could also apply a modifier to the dissipation of heat sinks based on crit space.

So it would look like this.


Engine Heat Capacity: Std > Light > XL (Clan and IS)

Engine Heat Dissipation: IS XL > Clan XL and IS Light > Standard

Heat Sink Dissipation: IS Double > Clan Double > Standard

These changes would also make it possible to have compact heat sinks and compact engines if that tech were to be developed and released as well.

Edited by Bolide, 11 July 2017 - 08:44 AM.

[Dogstar]

There's a very easy way to sort this out - give STD engines more heatsink slots

[davoodoo]

Except that engine isnt heat sink itself and 10 heat sinks are there to ensure engine is actually cool and doesnt explode.

Edited by davoodoo, 11 July 2017 - 10:31 AM.

[FupDup]

davoodoo, on 11 July 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

Except that engine isnt heat sink itself and 10 heat sinks are there to ensure engine is actually cool and doesnt explode.

Well, yes and no.

One type of future engine is the XXL, which takes the premise of the normal XL to the extreme. You get even lighter, but even bulkier and you generate 10 points of waste heat just by standing still (thus your 10 DHS become 10 SHS). The "realism" logic is that the XXL engines heavily skimped on shielding and other safety features in order to pull off the super light weights.

We could apply this principle in reverse and say that the heavier engine types (e.g. STD) get more heat efficiency than XL because they heavily reinforce the engine shielding and other stuff.

[Khobai]

clan weapons generate way more heat so it makes no sense for clans to have worse heat capacity.

I am all for balancing engines, but nerfing clan offensive capability is not the best way to do it.

I still maintain the best way to balance engines is to allow ISXL to survive losing a side torso.

Quote

Or make standard engines come with bonus structure for center and side torsos.

this

or implement a proper engine crit system in which std engines would have an advantage due to being immune to crits

Edited by Khobai, 11 July 2017 - 11:14 AM.

[ScrapIron Prime]

Or make standard engines come with bonus structure for center and side torsos.

Otherwise, the only time you'll see an IS mech with a standard engine is when it's using an 11 crit weapon system.

[Cementi]

No......bad enough heat sinks do. Heat capacity should be a static number. The fact that it can be manipulated is why we have alpha warrior online.

Static heat cap with greater values for heat disapation or don't change it.

[davoodoo]

Cementi, on 11 July 2017 - 11:14 AM, said:

Heat capacity should be a static number.

Why??

it wasnt in tt.

[kapusta11]

Heat has different effect on different loadouts. I don't think that energy weapons need to be nerfed right now. A buff to IS engines and clan STDs would be nice though. Wouldn't be a power creep if you buff already worse equipment.

Edited by kapusta11, 11 July 2017 - 12:55 PM.

[Cementi]

davoodoo, on 11 July 2017 - 11:24 AM, said:

Why??

it wasnt in tt.

TT worked differently and NOTHING allowed you to increase the capacity. If you were at X heat you suffered Y penalty. The penalty thresholds are essentially what Heat Capacity in MWO is. MWO just ignored most of the penalties and made heat sinks not only affect dissapation (though not enough) but also the heat capacity effectively putting off the penalties. THAT is the problem with the heat scale.

So again NO to engines affecting heat scale.

[kapusta11]

Cementi, on 11 July 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

TT worked differently and NOTHING allowed you to increase the capacity. If you were at X heat you suffered Y penalty. The penalty thresholds are essentially what Heat Capacity in MWO is. MWO just ignored most of the penalties and made heat sinks not only affect dissapation (though not enough) but also the heat capacity effectively putting off the penalties. THAT is the problem with the heat scale.

So again NO to engines affecting heat scale.

Your heat sinks acted like heat capacity. Fire 2 PPCs with 10 SHS and 10 heat goes to the heat scale. Fire 2 PPCs with 10 DHS or 20 SHS and no penalty will be applied that round.

Edited by kapusta11, 11 July 2017 - 01:13 PM.

[davoodoo]

Cementi, on 11 July 2017 - 01:07 PM, said:

TT worked differently and NOTHING allowed you to increase the capacity. If you were at X heat you suffered Y penalty. The penalty thresholds are essentially what Heat Capacity in MWO is. MWO just ignored most of the penalties and made heat sinks not only affect dissapation (though not enough) but also the heat capacity effectively putting off the penalties. THAT is the problem with the heat scale.

So again NO to engines affecting heat scale.

Actually mwo emulates tt in its heat capacity mechanic.

Normally in tt heat sinks vent heat in the moment of firing.

So 30dhs mech could fire 90 heat before being forced to shut down without anything to prevent it.
this thing
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hellstar
could for example fire 4 erppc at 60 heat while staying at 0/30(60/90)

[Khobai]

Quote

The fact that it can be manipulated is why we have alpha warrior online.

no the fact weapons converge is why we have alpha warrior online

battletech has alphastrikes but its much more balanced because the weapons dont all hit the same location

mechs alphastriking isnt the problem. all the weapons in an alphastrike hitting the same location for massive damage is the problem.

lowering heat cap doesnt solve anything anyway. it just forces everyone to use gauss. while anyone who doesnt use gauss overheats. fun.

Quote

TT worked differently and NOTHING allowed you to increase the capacity. If you were at X heat you suffered Y penalty.

wrong.

if a mech had 10 DHS it could only generate 20 heat and not suffer any penalties.

but if a mech had 20 DHS it could generate 40 heat and not suffer any penalties.

more heatsinks increased how much heat your mech could generate before suffering penalties. because heatsinks subtracted heat before you applied heat penalties.

Edited by Khobai, 11 July 2017 - 01:21 PM.

[kapusta11]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

no the fact weapons converge is why we have alpha warrior online

battletech has alphastrikes but its more balanced because the weapons dont all hit the same location

mechs alphastriking isnt the problem. all the weapons in an alphastrike hitting the same location is the problem.

And MWO has doubled armor and structure. Alpha warrior > RNG warrior.

[Khobai]

Quote

And MWO has doubled armor and structure. Alpha warrior > RNG warrior.

lol double armor and structure is a pittance compared to the damage amplification caused by perfect aiming and convergence.

allowing players to perfectly aim and converge weapons amplifies damage as much as 500% in some cases compared to tabletop.

In tabletop your side torso only gets hit 20% of the time for example. But in MWO someone aiming for your side torso can hit it potentially 100% of the time. That means your side torso is taking upto 5 times more damage (2.5 times more damage if you divide through by double armor and structure). Thats why ISXL is so bad in MWO compared to tabletop. Because people can aim for side torsos and drill them out the armor/structure cant handle all the damage.

We probably needed triple armor/structure instead of double to properly cancel out the benefits of aiming/convergence.

Edited by Khobai, 11 July 2017 - 01:32 PM.

[davoodoo]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

lol double armor structure is a pittance compared to the damage amplification caused by perfect aiming and convergence.

I agree, 60 dmg in tt would be decent damage for 50 tonner, but in mwo 40 dmg 100 tonner is considered too much.

[kapusta11]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 01:23 PM, said:

lol double armor structure is a pittance compared to the damage amplification caused by perfect aiming and convergence.

allowing players to perfectly aim and converge weapons amplifies damage as much as 500% in some cases compared to tabletop.

What are you talking about? In TT AC20 removes all but 2 armor from 35 ton mech's CT, you need 2 "perfectly coverged" AC20s to do the same in MWO.

But please, keep pulling 500% out of your аss, I'm having a good laugh.

[Khobai]

Quote

What are you talking about? In TT AC20 removes all but 2 armor from 35 ton mech's CT, you need 2 "perfectly coverged" AC20s to do the same in MWO.

You cant aim for someones CT in tabletop though. Thats what youre forgetting.

[kapusta11]

Khobai, on 11 July 2017 - 01:34 PM, said:

You cant aim for someones CT in tabletop though. Thats what youre forgetting.

And in MWO you don't have 100% hit rate. Not even close actually.

Edited by kapusta11, 11 July 2017 - 01:39 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

An in MWO you don't have 100% hit rate. Not even close actually.

A lot of the time you do though. Especially using the example of AC20s. If im within like 200m with an AC20 im pretty much never going to miss where im aiming for..

Like I said we needed closer to triple armor/structure to even begin to cancel out perfect aiming/convergence.

Edited by Khobai, 11 July 2017 - 01:43 PM.