23 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Issue -

In reference to Ask the Developers - #27 answer received on DHS:

Quote

Q: Can we please at least try DHS at 2.0? It doesn't seem like much of a boost to lights who usually benefit mostly from the engine heat sinks, but heavies and assaults that use big energy weapons need the boost. [Wolfways]
A: No. Prior to releasing the Dual Heatsink upgrade the forums were abuzz with whether or not they would be mandatory on all Mechs. With the numbers we've chosen, they aren't, so I'd say we answered those questions well. [Garth]

This is telling us a few things. PGI does not want 2.0 DHS (due to their internal testing saying the heat system became irrrelevant). So they want a lower dissipation for DHS so they leave SHS viable (whats the point of Lvl 2 Tech? Replacement of Lvl 1 Tech!) while not completely invalidating their heat system, which one good peice of news, they said in the future they *might* implement the other heat penalties:

Quote

Q: Has there been any talks about possibly bringing in the other heat scale penalties? There has been some great suggestions going around on the forums like making the heat increment across the cooldown of the weapon (PPC produces 3.0 heat per second for 3s instead of 9.0 heat on firing) and having DHS increase the heat capacity by 2.0 instead of heat dissipation. [Zyllos]
A: We've talked at great length about this - so we do read your threads, and we have 'threads' of our own. Currently it's a 'maybe later'. [Garth]

Now, based on PGI's theory, having 1.4 DHS outside the engine while 2.0 DHS inside the engine (for both dissipation and capacity) is their balanced approach to DHS. They allow for SHS to be useful but not invalidate SHS. But, this is an obvious issue with mechs that need more than the engine heatsinks to dissipate heat from their weapons efficiently. Here is some data of the current DHS implementation:

150 -



250 -



350 -



From the above charts, you can see that DHS for larger mechs is going to be an issue and will have extra tonnage laying around, thus will most likely have better dissipation with SHS while smaller mechs will have extremely good DHS as they will never need any more than the engine heatsinks. This is extremely visible with the AWS-8Q.

Proposal -

My proposal, in order to normalize the DHS and balance them across the mech classes while not invalidating SHS. DHS provide 0.17 dissipation across the board while providing 1.0 capacity. Below are some charts using the same engines listed above:

150 -



250 -



350 -



These charts show much more balance between larger mechs and smaller mechs. The proposed DHS will provide the benefits of what DHS are suppose to do, allow for the same dissipation for less tonnage, while at the expense of critical slots. What this also does is allow SHS to allow for larger capacities for more alpha strikes and higher dissipations for the same critical slots and more tonnage.

Summary -

The current DHS are a burden on the players, PGI trying to balance weapons around the wonky system, and unbalanced between the mech classes.

The proposed system will unburden the unbalance between the mech classes, by providing the same benefit across all mechs, and give a more balanced heat system so that issues with large heat weapons are not needing larger rebalancing in their numbers.

Edit: Google Docs for Excel Spreadsheet - DHS Compilation.xlsx
FYI, Google Docs broke my charts but all the work to calculate the dissipation rates and whatnot works. If you want to change the engine, do it by ratings of 25. Modify to your hearts content.

Edited by Zyllos, 04 December 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Raeven]

Can I ask, honestly, why it matters if DHS invalidates SHS? Isn't that the entire point?

They cost a ton of money to install them on a chassis.

They cost a ton to repair, compared the SHS.

They take up three times the amount of space and can only be mounted in 5 possible locations on the 'Mech...which just happen to be the 5 locations everyone is primarily shooting at.

Did I mention, they cost a ton to repair?

You don't need a chart to know that Assaults and Heavies are more limited by DHS than other weight classes, regardless of the efficiency of DHS. They carry more weapons, restricting the space remaining to hold DHS, limiting the total number of HS available.

[Zyllos]

Raeven, on 04 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Can I ask, honestly, why it matters if DHS invalidates SHS? Isn't that the entire point?

They cost a ton of money to install them on a chassis.

They cost a ton to repair, compared the SHS.

They take up three times the amount of space and can only be mounted in 5 possible locations on the 'Mech...which just happen to be the 5 locations everyone is primarily shooting at.

Did I mention, they cost a ton to repair?

You don't need a chart to know that Assaults and Heavies are more limited by DHS than other weight classes, regardless of the efficiency of DHS. They carry more weapons, restricting the space remaining to hold DHS, limiting the total number of HS available.

Well, PGI thinks it matters. And if PGI thinks it matters, it is part of my proposal as if I do not meet that requirement, then PGI will immediately deny any chance this suggestion has.

To those who grasp the issue, yes, charts are not needed to show this. But, there are many that do not and having visual data helps. Hell, it helped me see the changes each variable effects the range of heatsinks and I hope it convinces PGI to make the change.

Edited by Zyllos, 04 December 2012 - 12:05 PM.

[focuspark]

Raeven, on 04 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Can I ask, honestly, why it matters if DHS invalidates SHS? Isn't that the entire point?

No it's not the point. If DHS invalidate SHS, then SHS should be removed the game. This is a video game and therefore all things need to be lateral (not vertical) choices. If one choice is clearly better than another that balance needs to be fixed.

This is a video game, this is CBT or TT.

[Zyllos]

Bump as charts have been added!

[Bors Mistral]

Since compared to TT:
- armour was doubled;
- weapons fire rate was nearly tripled, with practically no adjustment to heat generated per shot;
- cooling equipment for some reason kept TT values or became worse (DHS).

Isn't it possible that:
- SHS need a boost, to possibly 1.2;
- DHS should really be 2.0, or at the very least 1.8 across the board;
- the heat generated by some weapons should really, really be looked at?

Edited by Bors Mistral, 04 December 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[Zyllos]

Bors Mistral, on 04 December 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

Since compared to TT:
- armour was doubled;
- weapons fire rate was nearly tripled, with practically no adjustment to heat generated per shot;
- cooling equipment for some reason kept TT values or became worse (DHS).

Isn't it possible that:
- SHS need a boost, to possibly 1.2;
- DHS should really be 2.0, or at the very least 1.8 across the board;
- the heat generated by some weapons should really, really be looked at?

Interestingly, with the 15% boost, putting DHS at 0.17 turns them into 0.195 and SHS from 0.1 to 0.115 so that may not need to be modified.

Of course, this thinking hurts Trial mechs even worse...

[Zyllos]

More visibility!

[Raeven]

focuspark, on 04 December 2012 - 12:21 PM, said:

No it's not the point. If DHS invalidate SHS, then SHS should be removed the game. This is a video game and therefore all things need to be lateral (not vertical) choices. If one choice is clearly better than another that balance needs to be fixed.

This is a video game, this is CBT or TT.

How is it not a vertical choice now for Light 'Mechs? It's an obvious choice for Light 'Mechs, just like Endo Steel. Light 'Mechs will always benefit more from DHS and Structure upgrades, because they have the room to mount those items and nothing to gain from not adding them.

Heavies and Assaults, even many Mediums, do not have that luxury. They must balance their weapon systems and heat with the limted critical space they have available in the 'Mech.

So the answer is to limit DHS across the board, because one class of 'Mechs get too much of an advantage from it? That's contrary to standard trouble shooting procedure. Maybe the answer should have been making DHS more expensive for light 'Mechs.

Zyllos, on 04 December 2012 - 12:04 PM, said:

Well, PGI thinks it matters. And if PGI thinks it matters, it is part of my proposal as if I do not meet that requirement, then PGI will immediately deny any chance this suggestion has.

Well, when Garth takes the time to Like someones comment when their finishing argument is, "It's a video game nyuh!" you might be fighting a losing battle.

[focuspark]

How is it a choice? Light mechs often do not need DHS at all. The reason heavier mechs need/want DHS is because they can mount more, larger weapons which generate more heat. The only thing keeping an Atlas from wtfbbqpwn everything is heat limitations (and net code - which will get fixed).

Zyllos, on 04 December 2012 - 04:28 PM, said:

Bump as charts have been added!

Nice charts!

[Raeven]

Niet comrade!

Lights are the only class that can take full advantage of DHS. As you say, they only need what comes in the CT. You can fill every hardpoint on a light, add Endo Steel, XL engines, AND DHS. Other than the XL engine, none of it has a drawback.

I'd rather have DHS on all my lights and NEVER overheat, vs. singles and sometimes overheat. It's the obvious choice, along with Endo, XL, and even FF.

Mediums, such as the Hunchback, have restrictions. Most of the weapons are in the torso and arms. You can't mount DHS in the legs, head, or CT, so you have to have room in the torso and weak/often destroyed arms. You can probably mount Endo and XL, but when you do you are pushing the limits to how many HS you can add to keep your 'Mech running cool and happy.

Heavies are actually in a better position than Mediums. They mount stronger weapons, but fewer in number. Giving them room for a couple of more HS, but these bigger weapons always come with a larger heat signature.

Assaults are boned. Very little room for DHS, when arms and torso's are literally filled with weapons. Assaults almost HAVE to maintain SHS (the Stalker will for certain, mark my words!), to maintain heat efficiency. Only ballistic heavy weapons offer little reason to not upgrade to DHS.

So there you have it. A sharp vertical line, that tapers off and and actually begins to head back to zero the further up the weight scale you go.

Of course everyone wants DHS. They are obviously better, even at 70%. But to argue that they have no drawbacks at all is disingeneous.

[Goreshade]

I think the numbers are great where they stand. People like this just want no draw backs, so they can fire their weapons all day, in a sense they want a Hawkenwarrior. Like you said they've read all the suggestions and they're comfortable where its at.

Edited by Goreshade, 07 December 2012 - 02:38 AM.

[Critical Fumble]

I'd think that even with full 2.0 DHSs, you'd still have to weigh your options in mechs that have limited critical slots. If light or medium mech build could be more efficient with SHS, its most likely a under armored deathtrap that could be outrun by a Segway.

Combining triple fire rate and full 2.0 DHS might be a bad thing, as more effective heatsinks lets you alpha strike and sustain fire for longer. Counterpoint to that is that it would let people use large lasers and PPCs (make the Awesome live up to its name); and that heavier mechs are supposed to be more dangerous, the extra tonnage is not intended to be flab.

[Goreshade]

Critical Fumble, on 07 December 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

I'd think that even with full 2.0 DHSs, you'd still have to weigh your options in mechs that have limited critical slots. If light or medium mech build could be more efficient with SHS, its most likely a under armored deathtrap that could be outrun by a Segway.

Combining triple fire rate and full 2.0 DHS might be a bad thing, as more effective heatsinks lets you alpha strike and sustain fire for longer. Counterpoint to that is that it would let people use large lasers and PPCs (make the Awesome live up to its name); and that heavier mechs are supposed to be more dangerous, the extra tonnage is not intended to be flab.

If you have that, then there would be no balance to weight vs weight. The assaults could just fire their weapons nonstop and not worry about making their shots count. Its as close as possible to balanced as it can be, that way no weight class has an advantage over the other.

[Critical Fumble]

Goreshade, on 07 December 2012 - 03:40 AM, said:

If you have that, then there would be no balance to weight vs weight. The assaults could just fire their weapons nonstop and not worry about making their shots count. Its as close as possible to balanced as it can be, that way no weight class has an advantage over the other.

Balance by weight only works in BT if everyone uses the same tech level, X tons of IS is not equal to X tons of Clan. Matching games by BV is more reliable.

Even with full DHS 2.0, what configuration would let you, in any assault mech, fire nonstop without consequence and without overheating that couldn't be matched by an equal tonnage of other mechs using the same tech? All it does is let you trade one crit slot for one ton, letting you optimize your mech.

Besides that, how many times have you seen maxed Jenner pilots say, "Don't close with that lone Atlas unless you have buddies with you"? I want them to put in some proper match balance first, but people really shouldn't get away with brawling a mech twice their weight and surviving.

[Volume]

Raeven, on 04 December 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Can I ask, honestly, why it matters if DHS invalidates SHS? Isn't that the entire point?

They cost a ton of money to install them on a chassis.

They cost a ton to repair, compared the SHS.

They take up three times the amount of space and can only be mounted in 5 possible locations on the 'Mech...which just happen to be the 5 locations everyone is primarily shooting at.

Did I mention, they cost a ton to repair?

You don't need a chart to know that Assaults and Heavies are more limited by DHS than other weight classes, regardless of the efficiency of DHS. They carry more weapons, restricting the space remaining to hold DHS, limiting the total number of HS available.

Balancing around cost has nothing to do with combat or how player engagement feels.
Balancing around a BV-style system with tonnage/class/BV considered in matchmaking could work.

This implementation of SHS/DHS is miles ahead of the current one, but it's still a bunch of stuff that wouldn't even need to be changed if heat/fire-rate worked the way it's supposed to.

[Raeven]

Volume, on 07 December 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Balancing around cost has nothing to do with combat or how player engagement feels.
Balancing around a BV-style system with tonnage/class/BV considered in matchmaking could work.

This implementation of SHS/DHS is miles ahead of the current one, but it's still a bunch of stuff that wouldn't even need to be changed if heat/fire-rate worked the way it's supposed to.

And how is that? Please don't say, "One shot every 10 seconds!"

Because that is just wrong. Get on Ebay and buy a copy of the Solaris VII box set from 1991. That is the Battletech ruleset that all FPS Mechwarrior games have been based on since the very beginning, using the same tech that's in the game.

[Raeven]

Critical Fumble, on 07 December 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

Besides that, how many times have you seen maxed Jenner pilots say, "Don't close with that lone Atlas unless you have buddies with you"? I want them to put in some proper match balance first, but people really shouldn't get away with brawling a mech twice their weight and surviving.

That's because it's not BV that the game should be based on. BV is great with random number generated results. It's worthless in a skill based game. Any single 'Mech elite Pilot can take on any other Noob one on one and win with any 'Mech in the game. That means a Commando can take out an Atlas pilot who doesn't know how to play, I've seen it. I've done it.

I'd rather players be ranked by their stats and matched by that system.

[Raeven]

Goreshade, on 07 December 2012 - 02:38 AM, said:

I think the numbers are great where they stand. People like this just want no draw backs, so they can fire their weapons all day, in a sense they want a Hawkenwarrior. Like you said they've read all the suggestions and they're comfortable where its at.

No-one wants Hawkenwarrior. Please keep the argument relevant instead of insulting.

I'd like to see a progressive scale, that allows Assaults the full advantage of DHS in comparison to Light 'Mechs. Light 'Mechs are the strongest class in the game because they can tak every advantage. I strongly suspect that Netcode complaints has more to do with player FPS than lag. I run great FPS and I have never lead my target when firing lasers.

[Critical Fumble]

Raeven, on 07 December 2012 - 12:27 PM, said:

That's because it's not BV that the game should be based on. BV is great with random number generated results. It's worthless in a skill based game. Any single 'Mech elite Pilot can take on any other Noob one on one and win with any 'Mech in the game. That means a Commando can take out an Atlas pilot who doesn't know how to play, I've seen it. I've done it.

I'd rather players be ranked by their stats and matched by that system.

Lets be honest here, the skill barrier in the game is pretty low. Except for the heat system, weapons aren't that far off from what you'd find in a canned FPS; and once you figure that out and that working together is the only way to reliably succeed the rest of what you learn has diminishing returns.

In a fight between two equal players, unless one is a boat out of water, the higher value mech should win. Thats where BV comes in; tier players by their effectiveness so you don't punish the greenhorns for being new, but balance the individual teams by BV.