351 replies to this topic

[FrostPaw]

I think it would be a good idea to make coolant cost money to replace. That would effecitively make flushing coolant for energy heat offset a version of ballistic ammo replacement.

A mech that uses primarily ballistic weapons would likely not need to use coolant and thus only has to replace ammo where as a mech using primarily energy weapons would probably use coolant a lot and need to pay to replace it after a match.

[Owl Cutter]

I don't like the idea of trying to keep things competitively balanced by minimising or eliminating this difference. I say, since being limited by ammo when on the ground is a necessary disadvantage that needs to be counterweighed anyway, even before considering ammo explosions, then while boosting them to keep them competitive they should just aim for making up for the added upkeep costs of ammo at the same time.

Balancing two different options in a game is a lot easier if those options are competing with each other less directly and less closely. Consider the classic FPS example of the shotgun vs. a rifle, and contrast with two assault rifles; in the former, as long as each weapon's role has a place in the game, each weapon will be competitively viable, while in the latter it is quite easy to have one accidentally end up better than the other since they both do the same job in pretty much the same way. For a more BT-centric example, consider how silly I would sound if I started saying I'm worried about SRMs and LRMs being imbalanced due to one rendering the other obsolete. I am hoping that PGI makes all the different types of weapons be different enough that after you've played with them, the same kind of concern over AC/10 vs. PPC would seem similarly silly, because making options more different so they are less directly comparable not only makes it easier to keep them both viable, it adds a feeling of variety and sense of meaningful choice to the game.

As for specific ideas on how to do that, I think the best starting point would be making heat penalties way, way more significant than having to hit an override button once in a while, and be given for generating a lot of heat in the first place, as opposed to given for merely building it up much faster than you can get rid of it. It's just unrealistic to expect thermal conductivity to grow linearly with "heat sink" tonnage, so flashbulbs should suffer from a higher operating temperature. If this higher temperature comes with a price on the field instead of in the maintenance cycle, cooler-running autocannon have an edge while the ammo lasts, without resorting to messing with their actual damage output, and as a side effect it gives smaller 'mechs an advantage over heavier ones since they generally won't be generating as much waste heat.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 06 May 2012 - 04:53 AM.

[Steel Talon]

Owl Cutter, on 06 May 2012 - 04:50 AM, said:

...

lets sum it up:

Tactically - every weapon is diferent in term of its role
Economically - every weapon should be same, in term of generating (income / upkeep) costs to prevent 90% of server using energy boat

[Yeach]

William Petersen, on 05 May 2012 - 05:02 PM, said:

Actually, unless you're putting your ammo in multiple locations (why would you do that? O.o), you'd only need 1 critical for CASE... <.<

In the above CASE (heh) the scenario was illustrated was for 2 AC10s. assuming 1 in each torso or arm.
You are likely not going to put all 4 tons of AC10 ammo in one torso (and do people just put ammo in arms)

For one AC10, you are likely only going to use 1 CASE.
And who knows what the people who make Battletech configs are thinking;
HGN-732 Highlander - gauss in RA, gauss ammo in RT with CASE (SRM6 and LRM20 in LT with CASE); why do they need in CASE in RT if gauss ammo doesnt explode?

LackofCertainty, on 05 May 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

AC20 vs 4 ML

For more comparisons on the AC20 vs 4 ML
see this thread
http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

[Sassori]

Why do they need case? Cuz some people are stupid and just automatically waste a crit and weight into Case even when it's unnecessary.

Especially when it comes to things like AutoCannon 10's.

The chances of getting an ammo breach before you've fired off any ammo is practically slim to none, you're not going to get a heat breach while running AC-10's as they're so heat efficient you shouldn't have heat issues at all.

As someone is shooting you, you should theoretically be shooting back, which depletes your ammunition. Which means there isn't as much ammunition there to go boom. Clearly this brings situational awareness into play, if you're taking damage, shoot that ammo off like crazy cuz even CASE isn't going to stop that torso from being cored if the ammo goes, but if you /shoot/ it, you might well drive off or kill the attacker.

In other words, Case alone isn't going to save you, even using it might not be efficient depending on how much ammo you've got. Yeah, a ton of ammo does 100 points of damage if it gets cooked or gets lit, but, that assumes you've not shot it at all during that time.

Anyways, regardless, we don't know maintenance costs, AC's for their heat and hard point simplicity are /very/ useful. It's called balance.

[Ramien]

Yeach, on 06 May 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

For one AC10, you are likely only going to use 1 CASE.
And who knows what the people who make Battletech configs are thinking;
HGN-732 Highlander - gauss in RA, gauss ammo in RT with CASE (SRM6 and LRM20 in LT with CASE); why do they need in CASE in RT if gauss ammo doesnt explode?

Either to keep the damage from an exploding gauss from cascading past the RT, or because they wanted to make sure CASE would protect that torso in the event of swapping out another weapon for the gauss, and it was easier to build it into the system rather than making an additional modification?

[guardian wolf]

FrostPaw, on 06 May 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

I think it would be a good idea to make coolant cost money to replace. That would effecitively make flushing coolant for energy heat offset a version of ballistic ammo replacement.

A mech that uses primarily ballistic weapons would likely not need to use coolant and thus only has to replace ammo where as a mech using primarily energy weapons would probably use coolant a lot and need to pay to replace it after a match.

*facepalm* Here we go again...
Let me explain this for you, if you flush your coolant, you should run hotter if not ex-friggin-plode, a lot hotter. The only way to counter act this, is if you have coolant pods, which are experimental, and volatile. Therefore, coolant flush is not a viable tactic.

[AlanEsh]

Ramien, on 06 May 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

Either to keep the damage from an exploding gauss from cascading past the RT,

Does CASE work like that? I thought the ammo had to be inside the section served by the CASE unit. And can you even CASE a guass rifle? In my mind, CASE is a blow-out panel or system that allows ammo explosions to go one-way rather than blast the mech apart from the inside in all directions. I'm not sure how CASE would work if the explosion was coming from the Arm area... I mean CASE doesn't stop battle damage from transferring Arm-Torso, so why would it stop exploding Ammo or Gauss Rifle damage from transferring just like damage from enemy weapons, or damage from falling for that matter?

Quote

or because they wanted to make sure CASE would protect that torso in the event of swapping out another weapon for the gauss, and it was easier to build it into the system rather than making an additional modification?

Yeah this is my feeling too -- CASE isn't something you could "add on" or refit easily, Having it in place from the factory allows more/easier options for refitting weapons.

[Rejarial Galatan]

guardian wolf, on 07 May 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

*facepalm* Here we go again...
Let me explain this for you, if you flush your coolant, you should run hotter if not ex-friggin-plode, a lot hotter. The only way to counter act this, is if you have coolant pods, which are experimental, and volatile. Therefore, coolant flush is not a viable tactic.

who says the coolant being flushed is coming out of the reactor? It could be from a tank in an otherwise unused torso section... and, I cannot help myself on this: it is COOLant, not HOTTERant.... its like saying put DEodorant on makes ya have a WORSE odor..

[Samuel Maxwell]

Go read the counter-arguments for real this time. They explain why any "coolant" system isn't actually cool and instead make things hot.

[Rejarial Galatan]

then uh, tell that to the folks working around nuclear reactors and how the deuterium they use to COOL them is making them hotter and the gauges they are using are a lie! oh, also, on a simpler notion, why do radiators allow your cars engine to run COOLER than w/out, or more complex: ever watch a shuttle launch? ever look closely at the engine bells when they gimbled them? did you notice those tubes around the out side of the bells? those are COOLANT lines, otherwise the thrust would MELT those engine bells and then watch what happenes.

[William Petersen]

This apparently needs to be reiterated...

William Petersen, on 04 May 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

The idea of flushing away 50% of your coolant is absurd. Coolant isn't some magical fluid that sucks up all the heat and getting rid of it makes you colder. It's a fluid that has a low specific heat to facilitate expedient heat transfer. If you've got components at some extreme termperature, your coolant runs through/around it, picks up some of the heat, and dumps it somewhere else (probably near some sort of external heat exhaust). Even when your mech is sweltering, the coolant is still going to be cooler than what it's trying to cool. Dumping it out isn't going to accomplish *anything* outside making your mech strain even harder to get cool.

The principle behind coolant trucks and coolant pods, is to have a sort of "reserve" (which is never stated as being anything close to standard equipment, otherwise research into 'coolant pods' would neither be necessary, experiment, nor volatile) coolant insulated from the rest of the Mech's heat, and kept at frigid temperatures so that when it is introduced into your cooling system it can immediately absorb more heat from the weapons/engine as it runs through the system.

This MW3/4 idea of a "coolant flush" has a basis in neither canon nor physics.

[Rejarial Galatan]

to quote myself:

Rejarial Galatan, on 08 May 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

who says the coolant being flushed is coming out of the reactor? It could be from a tank in an otherwise unused torso section...

and again on why COOLANT does infact cool and not have the exact opposite effect:

Rejarial Galatan, on 08 May 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

then uh, tell that to the folks working around nuclear reactors and how the deuterium they use to COOL them is making them hotter and the gauges they are using are a lie! oh, also, on a simpler notion, why do radiators allow your cars engine to run COOLER than w/out, or more complex: ever watch a shuttle launch? ever look closely at the engine bells when they gimbled them? did you notice those tubes around the out side of the bells? those are COOLANT lines, otherwise the thrust would MELT those engine bells and then watch what happenes.

[William Petersen]

William Petersen, on 04 May 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

The idea of flushing away 50% of your coolant is absurd. Coolant isn't some magical fluid that sucks up all the heat and getting rid of it makes you colder. It's a fluid that has a low specific heat to facilitate expedient heat transfer. If you've got components at some extreme termperature, your coolant runs through/around it, picks up some of the heat, and dumps it somewhere else (probably near some sort of external heat exhaust). Even when your mech is sweltering, the coolant is still going to be cooler than what it's trying to cool. Dumping it out isn't going to accomplish *anything* outside making your mech strain even harder to get cool.

The principle behind coolant trucks and coolant pods, is to have a sort of "reserve" (which is never stated as being anything close to standard equipment, otherwise research into 'coolant pods' would neither be necessary, experiment, nor volatile) coolant insulated from the rest of the Mech's heat, and kept at frigid temperatures so that when it is introduced into your cooling system it can immediately absorb more heat from the weapons/engine as it runs through the system.

This MW3/4 idea of a "coolant flush" has a basis in neither canon nor physics.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand about that.



EDIT: As for your cute little 'counter examples', they're not. You point out that they *use* cooling systems. great, fantastic. You don't say anything about *how* they work, because evidenced from your obstinance on this point you have no freakin' clue how heat transfer functions. Please tell me the last time you saw someone dump out their radiator to cool off their car. Or where the shuttle vents its coolant to keep the engines from melting. They don't. Because that's not how physics works. Interesting note on the shuttle, the engines are also cooled by external launch-pad systems as well, because they're *that* hot. People *add* coolant to their radiator when it gets low, yeah, but as underlined above, there is NO canon credence for this. In fact, as also pointed out, the research into coolant pods flies in the face ofthat very concept, as there would be no need for coolant pods if it was standard mech equipment.


This is the last time I'm bothering to try to explain 101 physics to you.

Edited by William Petersen, 08 May 2012 - 10:06 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

very simple. the explosive conversion from fluid to steam, reduces heat. same principle of sweat on us, save for the volatile reaction. and you can make that text as big as a direwolf, you will NEVER prove to me coolant does the exact opposite of cooling, otherwise we would have chernobyls and 3 mile islands and the majority of most navies would have lost their ships thanks to coolant making things worse. I am seeing this picture differently than you petersen.

[William Petersen]

Rejarial Galatan, on 08 May 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

very simple. the explosive conversion from fluid to steam, reduces heat. same principle of sweat on us, save for the volatile reaction. and you can make that text as big as a direwolf, you will NEVER prove to me coolant does the exact opposite of cooling, otherwise we would have chernobyls and 3 mile islands and the majority of most navies would have lost their ships thanks to coolant making things worse. I am seeing this picture differently than you petersen.

If you think anything I said is indicative of trying to convince you that coolant doesn't cool, then clearly your reading comprehension is below my abilities to explain. For that, I am sorry I fail you. Go ask a university professor why dumping out coolant and not replacing it is a bad, bad, *bad* idea. They're professional Explainers-To-Laymen/Learners.

[Suicidal Idiot]

I have only played tabletop and MW2/GBL. In MW2, I used the same procedure for all mechs I built.
1: Max jumpjets
2: Max Heatsiks
3: Lots of extra armor
4: top off with medium pulse lasers.
5: if too slow to be playable, reduce armor to add engine.

In play, I would use jumpjets almost constanty, the MPL's let me ride the ragged edge of the heat curve, and the jump jets assured me that I always fought at MY favorite range. Not to mention, long range weapons were worthless due to win95 monitor resolution issues.

Nobody could stay behind me, because I could spin with the jumpjets. I would also always aim for the nearside leg, since once it was gone, most opponents were mostly to completely helpless. There's nothing more fun than kicking a helpless enemy from behind when he's laying on his side. "Always kick a man when he's down, it's the best time!" -- Viking proverb.
I also would take all lasers because I always worried I'd get into a scenario where it was "You're on your way back home and you're ambushed. Hope you thought to save some ammo for the trip home!"

Regarding economic issues, I dearly hope we get to salvage downed opponents. I'll be fighting Kurita, and they all drive Cadillacs.

As to repair issues, I can't see how it would be possible that beam weapons were cheaper to repair than ballistic. They generate huge amounts of specific heat in sharp intervals, and it's heat cycling that kills electronics and fine control systems. Heat causes stuff to thermally expand, then contract. Repeat this, with very high spikes, and it gets expensive in a hurry. I'm given to understand that maintenance on high power industrial lasers is expensive, and they're pretty finicky.

Ammo is cheap. When you can get it.

[Zylo]

William Petersen, on 08 May 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

If you think anything I said is indicative of trying to convince you that coolant doesn't cool, then clearly your reading comprehension is below my abilities to explain. For that, I am sorry I fail you. Go ask a university professor why dumping out coolant and not replacing it is a bad, bad, *bad* idea. They're professional Explainers-To-Laymen/Learners.

Seems like he got comments from another post mixed up with yours in his poorly executed attempt to counter your point. I suspect this was the comment which seemed to be based on flushing the coolant but not replacing it unless the mech had the coolant pods described in the post:

guardian wolf, on 07 May 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

*facepalm* Here we go again...
Let me explain this for you, if you flush your coolant, you should run hotter if not ex-friggin-plode, a lot hotter. The only way to counter act this, is if you have coolant pods, which are experimental, and volatile. Therefore, coolant flush is not a viable tactic.

[Suicidal Idiot]

Re: Peterson vs Reg on coolant flushing.

I strongly suspect that Reg assumes flushing = 100% replacement of coolant with fresh, cold coolant
and Peterson assumes flushing = losing coolant with no replacement.

In both cases, the specific heat (heat absorption capacity) of the coolant is going to make a huge difference. Both volumetrically as well as latent heat of phase changing and also, does the replacement coolant have some latent phase change action happening as well, such as suspended solidified salts which are totally liquefied in 10 seconds and remain liquid thereafter? Even if it's just pressurized water, a complete changeout of coolant is going to have some significant effect, since advanced tech is almost certainly going to have some non-trivial volume of coolant, and thus a non-trivial thermal mass.

The reason nobody uses coolant replacement, even in racing, is that most piston powered internal combustion engines are most usably effecient where the cooling fluid stays around 190 deg. F. and have systems designed to keep them that way.

And, of course, if you were to replace the coolant with even room temp water to cool an overheating motor, that 'cracking' sound you'll hear is differential thermal contraction causing parts to shrink at different rates, killing gaskets by shear, as well as louder cracking noises, which are your head and crankcase cracking. Then you get to watch 'coolant flushing' as you blow lots of greasy smelling white smoke out the exhaust. Trust me on this, I've done it.

I can't imagin it would do a mech much good either, and somebody might have had thermal shock in mind when they described the omni-mechs often failing when using the coolant pod.

If we want to discount all that and just go with "game says it can be done" then we get back to economics. How much will the coolant pod cost, and more importantly, will they be available? In what quantities?

[William Petersen]

Suicidal *****, on 08 May 2012 - 11:12 PM, said:

Re: Peterson vs Reg on coolant flushing.

I strongly suspect that Reg assumes flushing = 100% replacement of coolant with fresh, cold coolant
and Peterson assumes flushing = losing coolant with no replacement.

Half right. I assume it is one or the other (and in neither case necessarily a 100% replacement/expulsion, it could be, and likely would be less than that, especially in the expulsion case). The first has no basis in physics, the second has no basis in canon. Which, as said: if this [replacement coolant] were standard equipment, there would be no need for coolant pods. Since there are coolant pods in the canon, we can conclude that it is not canon standard equipment.

Ergo, "coolant flush" has no basis.


The problems you go on to describe (I bow to your superior understanding and knowledge of thermodynamics) with replacement coolant are probably the foundation for coolant pods being a very experimental tech (and outright not working at all on Omnis).

As I also said before. I'm fine with the inclusion of the canon coolant pods in the game. They'll cost tonnage and crit space, and be susceptible to 'ammo explosions'. But they're not a magical "get rid of all my heat now" button. They only increase the efficiency of your heat sinks, and only for a short period of time. And, as with all tech, should only be available when canonically available (I don't know when that is, since Sarna, for whatever reason, doesn't have it listed on the page, and I don't have most of the source books).