23 replies to this topic

[Nightbird]

A question to people in the know, just as engines over 250 rating gets a free internal HS slot per 25 rating, is it possible to allow smaller engines to meet their 10 HS requirement by adding internal heat sinks? For example, a standard 200 engine will have 8 built in HS + 2 HS slots you can use to meet the 10 HS requirement.

[Leone]

But smaller engines don't have internal heat sink slots because they don't have enough room. Besides it's already built into the engine weights. I could see arguing to remove the 10 heat sink requirement, so my urbies could run that much hotter and overgunned, but maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking.

~Leone.

[Capt Deadpool]

Leone, on 14 May 2021 - 11:22 AM, said:

But smaller engines don't have internal heat sink slots because they don't have enough room. Besides it's already built into the engine weights. I could see arguing to remove the 10 heat sink requirement, so my urbies could run that much hotter and overgunned, but maybe I'm not understanding what you're asking.

~Leone.

He's asking about how the HS's are coded in the game, i.e. how easily they can be changed.

Also to address your concern about room in smaller engines, I have it on good authority that House Steiner and Smokey Jaguar and Jade Peacock have pooled their resources recently to develop new miniaturized heat sync technology in order to help make light mechs more viable.

Edited by Capt Deadpool, 14 May 2021 - 11:48 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

Nightbird, on 14 May 2021 - 11:19 AM, said:

A question to people in the know, just as engines over 250 rating gets a free internal HS slot per 25 rating, is it possible to allow smaller engines to meet their 10 HS requirement by adding internal heat sinks? For example, a standard 200 engine will have 8 built in HS + 2 HS slots you can use to meet the 10 HS requirement.

I'd be willing to bet the easier approach is to just bump up engine weights below 250 to reflect that they always have 10 EHS, jiggle the heat capacity/dissipation assigned to those engines, and call it a day. No UI change, no "slots", just value tweaks. Here's hoping none of it was hard-coded .

BT rules are dumb and if we follow them religiously Lights will always, always suck because that's canon.

[Nightbird]

It's not possible to simply remove the 10 HS minimum rule because all engines technically have 10 HS worth of cooling. Take the standard 60 rating engine, it is listed as -2.5 tons in MWO and has 2 internal HS requiring 8 external. This engine is actually 5.5 tons and does come with 10 HS worth of cooling built in, PGI just implemented it in a really awkward and not user-friendly way. It adds nothing to the game. This is true of all engines under 250 rating.

[Vlad Ward]

Nightbird, on 14 May 2021 - 12:42 PM, said:

It's not possible to simply remove the 10 HS minimum rule because all engines technically have 10 HS worth of cooling. Take the standard 60 rating engine, it is listed as -2.5 tons in MWO and has 2 internal HS requiring 8 external. This engine is actually 5.5 tons and does come with 10 HS worth of cooling built in, PGI just implemented it in a really awkward and not user-friendly way. It adds nothing to the game. This is true of all engines under 250 rating.

The awkward external heat sinks taking up crit space are a Classic Battletech thing. In CBT it's "0 ton External Heat Sinks up to 10 total, after which Heat Sinks cost 1 ton again". Here it's negative engine tonnage and 1 ton external heat sinks. The weirdness is to prevent Heat Sinks from sometimes weighing 1 ton and other times weighing 0 tons which their Mechlab wasn't built to handle.

Edit: Iirc, don't EHS and External Heat Sinks (that's the same acronym, isn't it...) have different capacity/dissipation stats in MWO too? I remember this being a thing for DHS.

Not against it, just considering the downstream.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 14 May 2021 - 12:50 PM.

[LordNothing]

i feel like this is something that can be handled best with quirks. like a -1, -2, ect heat sink minimum applied as needed. keep in mind this does not give you extra heat capacity/dissipation, but will give you the option to run with less than 10 sinks, this might cause you to overheat pretty fast with shs, but upgrading to dubs and only running 8 would be an option. a lot of lights have slot starvation problems because you need full upgrades for a viable build on most lights, and this should address that.

Edited by LordNothing, 14 May 2021 - 12:51 PM.

[LordNothing]

Vlad Ward, on 14 May 2021 - 12:47 PM, said:

Edit: Iirc, don't EHS and External Heat Sinks (that's the same acronym, isn't it...) have different capacity/dissipation stats in MWO too? I remember this being a thing for DHS.

Not against it, just considering the downstream.

back when trudubs were a thing. i think pgi made external and engine sink performance the same at some point a few years ago.

its weird, you have to do science to understand the current iteration of game mechanics, because this game is full of things i think i know and turn out to be completely wrong.

[Nightbird]

The problem is a 6 slots STD60 engine requiring 24 slots of DHS to be operational, which is silly. This slot requirement makes smaller engines impossible to even consider. An engine should be drop in and operational, there shouldn't be anything external required. If the 250+ engines can all have 10HS installed, there is no real reason for <250 engines to have this funky rule where you have to use an obscene amount of extra slots.

[FupDup]

To answer the question, this can indeed be handled by changing two XML values per engine (sub-250 ones at least). There's the value for heatsinks, and then tonnage. So, for example, any 200-rated engine is currently set to 8 heatsinks. Just increase it to 10, which is what 250-270 engines are set to. Then, just add some extra tonnage to account for the heatsinks inside.

As an interesting side note, engines 275+ have their heatsink values set to greater than 10 but still only give 10 by default. Somehow the game knows that any number over 10 should get bonus slots instead of making them integrated into the engine for free.

[Nightbird]

FupDup, on 14 May 2021 - 01:22 PM, said:

To answer the question, this can indeed be handled by changing two XML values per engine (sub-250 ones at least). There's the value for heatsinks, and then tonnage. So, for example, any 200-rated engine is currently set to 8 heatsinks. Just increase it to 10, which is what 250-270 engines are set to. Then, just add some extra tonnage to account for the heatsinks inside.

As an interesting side note, engines 275+ have their heatsink values set to greater than 10 but still only give 10 by default. Somehow the game knows that any number over 10 should get bonus slots instead of making them integrated into the engine for free.

Thanks! This would be better than creating HS slots for smaller engines. Just change all currently <10 to 10 and add the missing tons back to the engine. Good to know it's possible.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Isn't this basically just a repeat discussion of when someone (I forget who it was) said about removing the 10 min heat sink rule and just presumed it was easy XML edits?

[Der Geisterbaer]

Monke-, on 15 May 2021 - 02:04 AM, said:

Isn't this basically just a repeat discussion of when someone (I forget who it was) said about removing the 10 min heat sink rule and just presumed it was easy XML edits?

Sort of ... The difference being that the original (non-) discussion (started by The6thMessenger based on a Youtube video by someone else) had a main goal and a secondary goal:

• Main goal: Increasing the available tonnage for weapons, ammo, gear at the expense of overall heat efficiency for mechs that run sub 250 engines (predominantly Lights and some Mediums) with a clear shift towards generally more heat efficient but ammo dependant weapons a.k.a. ballistic weapons ... with an underlying focus on AC10 and AC20 carrying mechs (particularly Urbies) that would no longer be that ammo starved and even have movement speeds above 35km/h while still not suffering too many heat constraints
  
• Secondary goal: Gaining some additional crit slots.

Now this proposal is pretty much just about that secondary goal ... which was the only thing that some of those who opposed the idea of the original "discussion" were even remotely willing to consider after they (finally) got past the point of unecessarily explaining how TT and MWO calculate engine weights.

Sure, having 8 (standard heat sinks) or 24 (IS double heat sinks) more crit slots available on a STD-60 Urbie sounds great but actually that's ultimately just looking at a largely irrelevant edge case. The number of (light) mechs that could indeed benefit from such crit slots savings (by making somewhat "new" builds possible) isn't that high and as such I'm not convinced that this would change the situation with Lights in general.

[FupDup]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 May 2021 - 05:42 AM, said:

Sure, having 8 (standard heat sinks) or 24 (IS double heat sinks) more crit slots available on a STD-60 Urbie sounds great but actually that's ultimately just looking at a largely irrelevant edge case. The number of (light) mechs that could indeed benefit from such crit slots savings (by making somewhat "new" builds possible) isn't that high and as such I'm not convinced that this would change the situation with Lights in general.

It would allow various builds to upgrade their armor type to a bulkier but lighter type, gaining 0.5-1.0 tons in the process. Not a whole lot but it would be nice for QoL (even if not super impactful in a meta sense).

[Dogstar]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 May 2021 - 05:42 AM, said:

Sure, having 8 (standard heat sinks) or 24 (IS double heat sinks) more crit slots available on a STD-60 Urbie sounds great but actually that's ultimately just looking at a largely irrelevant edge case. The number of (light) mechs that could indeed benefit from such crit slots savings (by making somewhat "new" builds possible) isn't that high and as such I'm not convinced that this would change the situation with Lights in general.

Hmmm I'm not so sure its quite as few as you think - I have almost the entire set of IS lights (32 in total) and there's definitely a fair number of my mechs that suffer from crit slot shortages - certainly not the majority by any means but definitely a few:

This Commando has all slots filled - A50;20N0|\?||\OpF0|i^|\OqF0|^<2|i^|\Or10s@0|6@|6@tG0uG0v10|\Ow202020

Flea - all three of them could benefit from using ferro, currently they use 12 slots for heat sinks

This Raven build would benefit by fitting ferro - AS0820X0|>dpL0|Y@qL0|f?rH0|i^|i^|T@|T@sH0|E@|E@tP0|CP|GPuP0|CP|GPvB0|AOw404040

Urbanmech - all 7 of them would benefit from using ferro as well, currently they have 12 slots dedicated to heatsinks as they fit the maximum xl170 engine (all bar one)

So that's about a third of my stable would benefit - admittedly it's only about half a ton each and less for the twenty tonners but half a ton is an extra small laser/mg/ams which, on such tight tonnage, could make a difference.

I think it might also benefit a few medium mech builds with 200 rated engines - e.g. this HGAUSS Grid Iron which could squeeze in some more ammo or backup lasers if only it could fit ferro armour: A52830j0|Vb|=PpZ0|Q@|=PqZ0|i^|i^|>PrP0sP0t`0|=Pu`0|=Pv@0|=@w606060

In fact it might allow for a bunch of 'slow' medium builds, currently almost every medium mech I own has a xl250+ engine because it's better to fit xl engines to save weight and have high speed. Not every medium needs to be fast but fitting a smaller engine means finding 3-6 crit slots from somewhere which simply doesn't work as things stand right now.

I do think it would be better for engines to all have 10 heat sinks minimum and adjust the weight back to what it should be - the current 'you must add heat sinks' rule is annoying for experienced players and I'll bet it's confusing for new players.

On the downside I have a suspicion that making this sort of change would screw up Light Clan Omnimechs that have heatsinks fitted as part of various pods - I'm not sure which ones it would affect as it's not my area of expertise, anyone care to comment?

Edited by Dogstar, 15 May 2021 - 07:58 AM.

[Der Geisterbaer]

Dogstar said:

Hmmm I'm not so sure its quite as few as you think

So it's time to get to the "Whataboutism" part I guess.

Dogstar said:

I have almost the entire set of IS lights (32 in total)

So you have 32 out of 65 distinct IS Light variants [not counting the (C) Champion doubles] and call that "almost the entire set".
Now tell me the number of different and viable builds for those 32 or rather 65 variants ... and no, I don't want to hear that "variant X is useless anyways" because that's part of the general Light problem as well.

Dogstar said:

and there's definitely a fair number of my mechs that suffer from crit slot shortages - certainly not the majority by any means but definitely a few:

Straight into strawman territory, because I never spoke of "majorities". So, I guess I have to remind you of what I wrote and what you quoted me on:

The number of (light) mechs that could indeed benefit from such crit slots savings (by making somewhat "new" builds possible) isn't that high.

Hint: "a few" is within the given context exactly the same as "isn't that high" or actually less.

Dogstar said:

This Commando has all slots filled - A50;20N0|?||OpF0|i^|OqF0|^<2|i^|Or10s@0|6@|6@tG0uG0v10|Ow202020

Are you sure that's a correct profile string you wanted to show? Because it would appear that string misses a correct engine (and replacing the smiley icon back to

:D

doesn't help either) but the mech is an ECM COM-2D with stealth armor ... which would prohibit any weight gains from Ferro

Dogstar said:

Flea - all three of them could benefit from using ferro, currently they use 12 slots for heat sinks

How much would they actually gain from full Ferro without also having to shave off armor? And if you start shaving off: Where from?

Dogstar said:

This Raven build would benefit by fitting ferro - AS0820X0|>dpL0|Y@qL0|f?rH0|i^|i^|T@|T@sH0|E@|E@tP0|CP|GPuP0|CP|GPvB0|AOw404040

Indeed this Raven would gain a total of 5 usable crit slots and a maxium of 1 additional ton in ammo after shaving off 6 points of armor (probably on the head) and then could use that for either 1t of ammo on the MRMs or the AMS or 0.5t ammo on either.

Dogstar said:

Urbanmech - all 7 of them would benefit from using ferro as well, currently they have 12 slots dedicated to heatsinks as they fit the maximum xl170 engine (all bar one)

For those it'll boil down to the questions a bit further down.

Dogstar said:

So that's about a third of my stable would benefit

Let's just say, that you and I have different views on what actually constitutes a benefit within the broader discussion of mech balance even in cases where you could get those 0.5+ tons via full Ferro - povided that you're now only using Standard and not Light Ferro or Stealth armor.

Dogstar said:

- admittedly it's only about half a ton each and less for the twenty tonners but half a ton is an extra small laser/mg/ams which, on such tight tonnage, could make a difference.

Now do tell me:

• 11 mech builds among how many different viable builds on each of those variants
  
• How many of those would actually gain 0.5t of weight via Ferro? Because less would require actually shaving off armor in order to gain whatever marginal ammo / weapon gain you can come up with.
  
• How many of them actually have ammo dependant weapons / gear in the first place?
  
• How many of them have a currently unused energy slot that could be filled with an additional SL or could reasonably well upgrade an existing SL to SPL / ML / erML without compromising heat efficiency too much or throwing the weapons firing times out of sync?
  
• How many of those have an unused ballistic slot while already having a machine gun plus ammo on board? Otherwise you'll also need to shave off anything between 0.1 to 0.5t of armor to get the ammo in there. Interestingly enough even the Urbies - who can afford armor shaving the best - do only seem to gain about 0.6t armor by going from Standard to Ferro in many cases.
  
• How many of those already have an AMS that would beneft from an additional 0.5t of AMS ammo?

Dogstar said:

I think it might also benefit a few medium mech builds with 200 rated engines - e.g. this HGAUSS Grid Iron which could squeeze in some more ammo or backup lasers if only it could fit ferro armour: A52830j0|Vb|=PpZ0|Q@|=PqZ0|i^|i^|>PrP0sP0t`0|=Pu`0|=Pv@0|=@w606060

And again time to remind you about what you quoted me on:
and as such I'm not convinced that this would change the situation with Lights in general.

It would appear that I spoke about Lights ... and I had my reasons for doing so.

Edited by Der Geisterbaer, 15 May 2021 - 09:37 AM.

[My Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ]

Der Geisterbaer, on 15 May 2021 - 05:42 AM, said:

snip

I wasn't trying to compare the two propsals, I was pointing out that it might be likely that its not a XML change.

[Dogstar]

@dergeisterbear - I'm not going to reply to your diatribe because you're being very rude

[Der Geisterbaer]

Dogstar, on 15 May 2021 - 12:35 PM, said:

@dergeisterbear - I'm not going to reply to your diatribe because you're being very rude

~laugh~ If you say so

[Nightbird]

While lights would benefit from this change, some heavier mechs can do small engine builds as well, and mostly it's about the newbies not being confused by the rule of 10.