I have been trying to limit my Stream viewing, but did notice that ML heat is only 10, which seems a little low if we can sink a base of 50 heat per turn.
Medium Laser heat too low
- Thread starter Agent.0.Fortune
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Water tiles and Arctic? modifier boost sinking... But heat is a legitimate factor in this game we have observed.
And a cost factor, too. While it is not extremly expensive to fix slight structural damage, it does cost money better spent elsewhere. So watch that heatlevels!
Yeah, it's interesting. I beginning to think energy-heavy designs are very limited and perhaps punished a bit too much. I wouldn't touch a black knight on a bet, at least not without converting at least one or even two big guns into more heat sinks. Stock build puts out 145 heat on an alpha strike, and soaks just 60. Get rid of the PPC for heat sinks, and you can manage constant fire two large lasers and two medium lasers, but you're burning 17 tons and slots just on heat sinks- past a certain point it just isn't practical.
I don't know about that. The variety of biome bonus/maluses means that a Black Knight can absolutely RULE, depending on where.
Hm, I just played around in the MWO mechlab with the blackknight. ripping out on large laser for a medium and 4 HS seems to help alot. Ok, it loses some long range firepower, but you can fire the LL and PPC indefinitely. Alphas go down from 80 overheat (ouch!) to 48. Closing in, you can fire everything but the PPC for 8 overheat, that's still alot of firepower. Don't think it's too punishing, just some designs might need some work.
I believe one biome gives a benefit two heat dissipation, and two give a penalty. So, yeah, if you want to haul out a black knight just for arctic missions you can, but it seems impractical to me. Even with the bonus, the BK will still tend to over heat- its a percentage bonus to disipation, iirc.
I'd rather stick with more balanced designs that can sustain fire without massive heat build up. The internal damage and repair costs for overheating double down on that.
I'm happy enough with a single large laser or PPC balanced by missiles or ACs and a mix of short ranged weapons.
But even a couple old reliable designs like thunderbolts and battlemasters can really benefit from turning tertiary weapon systems into a couple extra heat sinks.
Consider how many opponents we may face too with Vees included. Ammo shortage will be a real limiting factor if not careful. I think this is going to be the first Battletech where the weapon classes will all be relevant in their own way. Lets hope!
I'm just adding different biomes and associated HS efficiency ratings to my weapon stats overview excel file. Damn, that's alot of numbers now, gonna polish it and upload it. May take until tomorrow, as it is a little hard to understand unless i add some explanations. But long story short: Yeah, energy weapons suffer more by lower HS efficiency (about 30% less dmg/ton), but all weapons do. ballistics about 10%, missiles about 15-20%. for arctic biomes it's a totally different story. Overall, I think balancing between different weapon types is about ok, mixed loadouts will run decent in all environments, energy heavy builds might want some more HS 
Thus the min/maxing begins.
If the devs do thing right in the campaign...We are going to need builds that promote flexibility and endurance not just scraping every little bit of damage out of every build.
Take out both LLs and add another ppc and
ml + 2 hs Fire the ppcs till inside minimum range and run W/0 heat gain switch to ml's with ppc shots every other turn in close.
I also wouldn't use MWO to plan ,heat is non-symmetrical in mwo
I just use MWO mechlab to see what fits in, not to check heat efficiency. I calculate heat in my head most of the times, use calc.exe for tough ones
I just use MWO mechlab to see what fits in, not to check heat efficiency. I calculate heat in my head most of the times, use calc.exe for tough ones
I';ve build so many mechs for TT I just do it in my head...lol.
I the Blackjack Screenshot is any indicatoe hardpoints are worse than MWO. Which I detest..
I think you're completely misunderstanding me. The stock BK as built has very little endurance. I'm actually advocating dropping its damage capabilities, partly because the changes to large laser and PPC heat push the mech way outside the assumed operating range. Tabletop wise, it was designed to fire the 2 large laser and PPCs and slow work up the heat scale until it has to back off (+6 per turn for the three weapons, which is +18 heat per turn in HBS BT terms). Under the new heat rules, it generates 100 heat per turn and dissipates 60, leaving 40. The same STOCK design more than doubles its heat output with the system change. It simply can't be used the same way. You'll quickly fry your internal structure and be stuck with repair bills.
By turning a main gun into more heat sinks, I am promoting more endurance for this design (as pure energy hardpoints, its pretty much incapable of flexibility, which is one of the reasons I don't like it). And helping it fit the new system as it is designed... which includes less laser boating.
I (sadly) never played TT, so I need some help to remember loadouts. And smurfy's for MWO is really helpful, because hardpoints are the same (lacking support hardpoints), so it's a nice tool to have.
I don't want to get involved in another hardpoint discussion, though. I think this has been discussed more than enough.
I don't want to get involved in another hardpoint discussion, though. I think this has been discussed more than enough.