12 replies to this topic

[DM30]

I first started thinking about this when I saw the graphs in the General Discussion stats thread, which lead me to look more closely at the heatsink values on the mechs in-game. From this, I came to one simple question:

Why do the A-class mechs, who have the option of running away from unfavourable engagements, have better base heatsink stats than the C-classes who don't have this option_

As an example, the Scout has a base heatsink value of 91% (weapons generate heat at 91% of their defined heat rates) while the Brawler, with the same Flak+Two combo, has a base value of 101% (the weapons are actually generating 1% MORE heat than their defined values on the Brawler). The key difference between these classes being that when the Scout overheats it can run to safety while it cools down, while if the Brawler overheats it's basically screwed until its guns come back up.

In what way does this make sense_

Sorry if this has already been discussed here -- didn't see a topic for it.

[HubbaBubba9849]

I very much agree that this seems to be completely backwards. You would think the lighter mechs wouldn't be able to carry as good of heatsinks as the heavier mechs.

On the other hand though, you could say the heavier mechs are sacrificing the better heatsinks for that extra armor. However, by that same logic, you could ask where all the extra weight is coming from if you're sacrificing the weight of the heatsinks for the weight of the additional armor. Unless the armor you're adding is ridiculously heavier than the weight of the heatsinks you're taking off, in which case, why not just leave the same heatsinks on since they must not be that heavy_

Or maybe I'm just over-analyzing the whole thing...

[EliteShooter]

yea ... that's how B-Class is supposed to be and not C-Class !

[Dictatorfish]

It's very simple. Everyone knows heat rises, right_ And everyone knows heatsinks are used to transport heat. Therefore it makes perfect sense that heatsinks rise and effectively decrease the weight of mechs. However, to prevent A-class mechs from becoming too light and floating away in the breeze like hot air balloons, they're weighed down by the same heavy weapons normally attached to C-class mechs.

Science.

[DM30]

HubbaBubba9849, on December 31 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

I very much agree that this seems to be completely backwards. You would think the lighter mechs wouldn't be able to carry as good of heatsinks as the heavier mechs.

On the other hand though, you could say the heavier mechs are sacrificing the better heatsinks for that extra armor. However, by that same logic, you could ask where all the extra weight is coming from if you're sacrificing the weight of the heatsinks for the weight of the additional armor. Unless the armor you're adding is ridiculously heavier than the weight of the heatsinks you're taking off, in which case, why not just leave the same heatsinks on since they must not be that heavy_

Or maybe I'm just over-analyzing the whole thing...

They're already sacrificing mobility for that armour, though, Why should they have heat generation as an additional penalty when the ability to run away is already taken from them_ But I'm glad you agree.

Dictatorfish, on December 31 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

It's very simple. Everyone knows heat rises, right_ And everyone knows heatsinks are used to transport heat. Therefore it makes perfect sense that heatsinks rise and effectively decrease the weight of mechs. However, to prevent A-class mechs from becoming too light and floating away in the breeze like hot air balloons, they're weighed down by the same heavy weapons normally attached to C-class mechs.

Science.

Lol

[Muffintrumpet]

I've been banging on about this a lot recently
it is indeed backwards

[ShadowWarg]

Revolution! Decrease the effectiveness of A-class heatsniks by a lot and B-class by half of a lot.

Edited by ShadowWarg, January 01 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[DM30]

ShadowWarg, on January 01 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Revolution! Decrease the effectiveness of A-class heatsniks by a lot and B-class by half of a lot.

Or maybe just switch A and C class values to start with. They can always adjust it more later if it's not enough.

[Hijinks_The_Turtle]

ShadowWarg, on January 01 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Revolution! Decrease the effectiveness of A-class heatsniks by a lot and B-class by half of a lot.

Imo, B-classes are fine.  It 's C and A classes that truly needs balancing on heatsinks.

Edited by Hijinks_The_Turtle, January 01 2014 - 01:00 PM.

[Beefsweat]

Hijinks_The_Turtle, on January 01 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

ShadowWarg, on January 01 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Revolution! Decrease the effectiveness of A-class heatsniks by a lot and B-class by half of a lot.

Imo, B-classes are fine.  It 's C and A classes that truly needs balancing on heatsinks.

Agreed, B-types have finally been bumped from a meager, milquetoast category into the true 'in-between' mechs that they should be.

[ShadowWarg]

Beefsweat, on January 01 2014 - 05:30 PM, said:

Hijinks_The_Turtle, on January 01 2014 - 12:59 PM, said:

ShadowWarg, on January 01 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

Revolution! Decrease the effectiveness of A-class heatsniks by a lot and B-class by half of a lot.

Imo, B-classes are fine.  It 's C and A classes that truly needs balancing on heatsinks.

Agreed, B-types have finally been bumped from a meager, milquetoast category into the true 'in-between' mechs that they should be.

Fine. Lower the A class heatsink efficiency and increase the B class heatsink efficiency.

[VYR3]

C classes ~90%
B classes ~95%
A classes ~100%
brawler gets 89%
scout gets 101%, balance the rest between.

[Dracorean]

Its possible that the lighter mechs concept of 'moving fast, hitting hard' and their ability to support gives them the choice of generating less heat so they can spit out more shots than the more armored variants.