41 replies to this topic

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

Voted "No". All DHS should be 2.0 and SHS 1.0. Base heat threshold (now its 30 for both types of HS) should be lowered for DHS and increased for SHS, so one could choose between high heat dissipationand high heat threshold. This way both DHS and SHS would be usefull.

[FiveDigits]

Krzysztof z Bagien, on 06 March 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

Voted "No". All DHS should be 2.0 and SHS 1.0. Base heat threshold (now its 30 for both types of HS) should be lowered for DHS and increased for SHS, so one could choose between high heat dissipationand high heat threshold. This way both DHS and SHS would be usefull.

Additional tuning possibility: Same heat threshold increase (1.0) for both SHS and DHS.

[Mad Cow Jenkins]

FiveDigits, on 06 March 2013 - 04:36 AM, said:

Additional tuning possibility: Same heat threshold increase (1.0) for both SHS and DHS.

I would also disagree to see only at heat dissipation of the heatsinks (said no) and concur with the heat threshold to be a factor which would actually balance them but it might be that the threshold actually needs to be slighly bigger then 1 .
Then people could make one/two shot builds or dps builds given their playstyle.

[Deathlike]

Based on the discussion alone, expect clan external DHS to be less than the current 1.4 for IS external DHS (assuming, that IS DHS's value doesn't change). Clan tech will already allow for DHS on the feet due to only consuming 2 slots (which allows for water affecting heat sink cooling a bit, not doable with IS DHS), and it is clear to me that clan DHS will intentionally be less efficient than IS DHS just based on slot usage alone.

Edited by Deathlike, 06 March 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

DocBach, on 05 March 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

I accidentally voted yes, but changed my vote to no - I don't believe in PGI's idea that single and double heat sinks are suppose to be balanced against each other. Single heat sinks by this time frame are considered obsolete tech, and Inner Sphere double heat sinks are necessary to use advanced weaponry like ER lasers to fight the Clans.

I would personally prefer if it was the case, but it's basically impossible to do so because TT stock mechs require these items to be straight upgrades, or they just would be horribly undersinked. If they would be willing to throw out TT entirely, and forget stock mechs, they could go to town and rebalance everything. But they have so far been unwilling to go that least step. Even though mechs work nothing like they did in the table top. The way they adapted weapons mean they all produce far more damage and heat than they did according to TT rules, making most builds (be it with single heat sinks, double heat sinks or poordubs) way too heat-inefficient. There's a reason the TT Hunchback 4P comes with 8 Medium Lasers and just works as such, while in Closed Beta people replaced the medium lasers with small lasers and increased the engine instead.


If we can't have true double heat sinks, we should at least alter the engine heat sinks and out-of-engine heat sink to be exactly the same. +1.8 heat capacity and 0.18 dissipation/sec would yield results similar to now ,but without all the confuse-the-player complexity that has people still stumped today, months after the introduction of DHS.

[Void2258]

I don't bother to run ANYTHING with single heat sinks. There is no reason to ever use them as currently implemented. It's the very first thing I change on every mech I get right behind endo steal, which again, there is no reason not to get on every mech you have given the current implementation.

[Deathlike]

TBH, single heat sink engines should get a buff, to 1.4, 1.5, or even 2.0. At least then, there would be some fair balance for single heat sinks that don't make them practically useless on virtually/literally all stock mechs.

[Xostriyad]

Homeless Bill, on 05 March 2013 - 07:59 PM, said:

That just makes the current problem worse. Single heatsinks are worthless, and making doubles even better is just going to exacerbate that problem.

My post wasn't that long, you could have read the whole thing.

Anyways, people talk about how they hold on too much to TT yadda yadda yadda.

Honestly the thing they have seriously failed to bring over is how they balanced all of these things different technologies together. Without a completely separate metric like battle value (http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Battle_Value) to compare mechs to other mechs you aren't going to be able to balance simple stuff like single vs double heat sinks.

This isn't even an alien concept to people who play games that have lots of tuning in it. Take racing simulation games like Forza Motorsport. You have cars that are of different classes, if you change out parts with better parts it increases the performance index of your car and eventually be classed and matched with similar cars of what you just tuned the thing to be.

[Deathlike]

Battle value (or any arbitrary system) will never correctly compare the Raven 3L's dominance vs the DC Atlas. That's a waste of time/space in the grand scheme of things.

[Xostriyad]

Deathlike, on 06 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Battle value (or any arbitrary system) will never correctly compare the Raven 3L's dominance vs the DC Atlas. That's a waste of time/space in the grand scheme of things.

By that logic you can't balance anything. This game, just about every game, is just a collection of data points where testing and testing things over and over again and comparing metrics gives you an idea of where to play different "things" in comparison to other "things"

Are you also going to tell me real life racing leagues that Forza base their Performance Index system on is a worthless arbitrary system since there is no way to compare a high modified MX-5 to a vanilla STi?

Besides I'm not saying it to be the only metric. Some things are just broken and need fixing. Other things like DHS vs SHS is just a straight upgrade and should be treated as such. A light mech with DHS is just flat out better than a mech with SHS and it should be reflected as such.

[Deathlike]

My point is not that it cannot be balanced... you need to make reasonable comparisons and not just stick with one metric that in itself is not perfect and flawed.

Every single time the DHS debate happens, ideas like "swapping internal vs external DHS values" blows my mind, especially when clearly people have not thought of WHY this was set like that in the first place. It wasn't meant to be confusing, but that's the least of the problems. We speculate too much for "DHS should be 2.0 across the board" and it is as if they didn't understand what "3 second jenners" when the internal testing (pre-closed beta) was being done. There's no perfect solution, but the simple fact is that that there needs to be a thorough examination of what the changes bring.. and not just spew out solutions because "you don't like the current system, especially if it doesn't favor you". These discussions boil down to that.

Edited by Deathlike, 06 March 2013 - 02:37 PM.

[Ialdabaoth]

Again, dissipation vs. capacity is the way to balance these. SHS should increase your dissipation by 0.1/s and your heat threshold by 1.0; DHS should increase your dissipation by 0.2/s and your heat threshold by 0.5.

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

Deathlike, on 06 March 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

My point is not that it cannot be balanced... you need to make reasonable comparisons and not just stick with one metric that in itself is not perfect and flawed.

Every single time the DHS debate happens, ideas like "swapping internal vs external DHS values" blows my mind, especially when clearly people have not thought of WHY this was set like that in the first place. It wasn't meant to be confusing, but that's the least of the problems. We speculate too much for "DHS should be 2.0 across the board" and it is as if they didn't understand what "3 second jenners" when the internal testing (pre-closed beta) was being done. There's no perfect solution, but the simple fact is that that there needs to be a thorough examination of what the changes bring.. and not just spew out solutions because "you don't like the current system, especially if it doesn't favor you". These discussions boil down to that.

"3 second jenners" are ******** and whole 1.4 DHS is an effect of a bug that turned to be a feature for some reason.
I did some math and changing DHS to 2.0 wouldn't make that much of a difference. And since DHS even in their current form are straight up better than SHS they should be made 2.0 to end this nonsense that PGI calls balance. My idea is to balance DHS vs SHS with heat threshold, as I stated earlier.
It just ain't gonna happen however.

Edit: stars are some bad word for "not true".

Edited by Krzysztof z Bagien, 06 March 2013 - 02:49 PM.

[Deathlike]

You didn't factor in coolrun, especially when it is doubled. It changes the numbers a bit.

Without changing too much, I.d probably rather see not straight 2.0 internally... probably closer to 1.8-1.9 and external DHS to be 1.5. That should be a reasonable buff to larger mechs that need them, but also not nerf light mechs too much.

[Xostriyad]

Xostriyad, on 06 March 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

Besides I'm not saying it to be the only metric.

Deathlike, on 06 March 2013 - 02:36 PM, said:

My point is not that it cannot be balanced... you need to make reasonable comparisons and not just stick with one metric that in itself is not perfect and flawed.

Just going to quote myself when you keep ignoring what I write.


Now the idea of increasing the heat threshold of SHS over DHS does sound kind of interesting.

[Ialdabaoth]

Xostriyad, on 06 March 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Just going to quote myself when you keep ignoring what I write.


Now the idea of increasing the heat threshold of SHS over DHS does sound kind of interesting.

It would mean that a DHS 'mech will shut down more often, but stay shut down for far less duration. If they also implement incremental heat effects, it would mean that DHS 'mechs will tend to suffer harsher heat penalties to targeting and movement, but for far less duration.

SHS would become the preferred option for alpha-strike configurations, while DHS would be better for chain-firing.

Edited by Ialdabaoth, 06 March 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Deathlike]

Xostriyad, on 06 March 2013 - 04:48 PM, said:

Just going to quote myself when you keep ignoring what I write.

I'm just too tired to argue this entire thing. I'm fine as is with the current system. I'm only saying that you should be prepared to be disappointed when Clan DHS will have lower cooling than IS DHS. It will happen, and people won't like it.

[urmamasllama]

i disagree but only because i have my own idea
at least to a degree. in a competitive game it makes no sense for a build option to be completely inferior to another as such there needs to be at least a fringe build situation where SHS are a decent choice. as such here is my proposal:

• change heat capacity of all heat sinks (SHS EDHS & DHS) to 1
  
• change heat dissipation of all DHS to 2

this gives the SHS the advantage of a much higher heat cap for alpha strike builds while giving DHS the advantage of higher cooldown for better DPS. i will note that this still makes DHS superior however SHS will have certain fringe cases where it is desired in a build much unlike now where there is really no reason to use SHS at all.

Edited by urmamasllama, 07 March 2013 - 06:58 PM.

[FiveDigits]

urmamasllama, on 07 March 2013 - 06:57 PM, said:

[...] i have my own idea [...]

• change heat capacity of all heat sinks (SHS EDHS & DHS) to 1
  
• change heat dissipation of all DHS to 2

[..]

While that's not your idea - but the conclusion many people who thought about DHS came to - it's still right.

[WolvesX]

Deathlike, on 06 March 2013 - 01:57 PM, said:

Battle value (or any arbitrary system) will never correctly compare the Raven 3L's dominance vs the DC Atlas. That's a waste of time/space in the grand scheme of things.

Yup, it need to be BV*skill level.