468 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Syllogy, on 20 March 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

PGI's internal testing found that with true Double Heat Sinks, that a 9ML Hunchback could repeatedly alpha-strike for up to 3 minutes without overheating.

That is Unbalanced.

I think that was the 9SL Hunchback, which the math would probably support. (in reference to the swayback)

Edited by Deathlike, 20 March 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[Syllogy]

The original post about DHS was lost with the Original Closed Beta threads, but this one is open:

Garth Erlam, on 05 December 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

I could literally hold my fire button(s) down on 6ML's while running around at 120km/h. For quite awhile.

And 240 damage is a lot of damage to put out before overheating, and I only had 18/19 DHS. At 2.0, you get more than 20 DHS on a Mech, and there are a lot of weapons you can simply fire forever without heat being an issue at all.

Put another way, I was doing a dual-gauss worth of damage every cycle. And I could do that (roughly) eight times in a row.

Seriously, I don't benefit from DHS being 1.4 - my favourite Mech was vastly superior with it being 2.0 - but there's a reason it isn't, and I understand it.

EDIT: I'm at home (and patching), so I don't have my armour values, but I have a 300 XL, Endosteel, 6 medium lasers, and 19 Dual Heatsinks on my CDA-2A. So an alpha = 30 damage; 8 alphas = 8 x 30 = 240 damage.

Also, this goes back to the original release of DHS (1.4) and shows that in it's current release, how much of an Upgrade it already is (without being 2.0)

Edited by Syllogy, 20 March 2013 - 08:28 AM.

[Tombstoner]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 March 2013 - 07:26 AM, said:

Citation Needed*. The example I know is that of a 5 ML Cicada, and I don't thinik it made it to 3 minutes.


Why is it unbalanced?


*For the record, 9 MLs produce 9 heat per second. If you had 20 True Double heat Sinks, your heat capacity is 70 (30 + 2 * 20 = 70) and you dissipate 4 (20 * 0.2) per second, leaving you with 5 heat per second that you gain. That means you will overheat after (70/5 = ) 14 seconds.
Where do you get the other 160 seconds? (I give you 6 for free.) Once you told me that, tell me where you got the tonnage for 20 DHS on a Hunchback, and the 9 MLs.

So... What's your source? How did PGI suppodely figure this out?

i use 1.33 heat/s for med lasers. 1.33 * 9 = 11.97
9 x mediums @ 4 heat each = 36 heat. 3 second cycle time = an average of12 heat generated per second cause its really a 36 point spike.
heat capacity = 70 your values
heat dissipation = 4/s your values

t-0 heat 0
t-1 heat 36-4 = 32
t-2 heat 32-4 = 28
t-3 heat 28-4 = 24
t-4 heat 24+36-4 = 56
t-5 heat 56 - 4 = 52
t-6 heat 52 - 4 = 48
t-7 heat 48+36-4 = 80
so i calculate 3 alphas before shut down in under 8 seconds.
if i alpha once every 9 seconds i'm heat neutral.

[Syllogy]

The following is taken from this post.

"Damage/Shot of the Weapon" / "Duty Cycle" / ( "Weapon Mass" + "Ammo Tonnage" + "Heat sink Tonnage")

Where:
Damage/Shot and Weapon Mass are fundamental aspects of the weapon.

Duty Cycle is the reciprocal ('1/x') of Rate of Fire ('x'). This rate of fire is assigned and is the Max Rate of Fire for the weapon unless otherwise indicated. The reason this is done is convenience.

Ammo Tonnage is a variable. I chose to represent this variable as something I termed "Common Ballistic Base ammo load" or CBBal. Basically CBBal is a time. It is the total time for continuous fire. Basically if you leaned on the trigger your weapon would fire this long (ignoring heat and shutdown).
Example: A Gauss rifle with a CBBal of 160sec would be carrying exactly 4 tons of ammo. An AC/20 with the same CBBal applied would be carrying 5.714 tons. Due to the lack of rounding (haven't been able to implement it, yet) this is actually overprecise. It represents the weapons with partial tons of ammo. However, the change from that partial ton (up or down) is small.

Heat sink Tonnage is based on Heat per Shot of the weapon, Duty Cycle, and the Heat dissipation Rate (HdR) of a single heat sink, and the tonnage of a single heat sink.

"Heat per Shot" / "Duty Cycle" = "Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle"

"Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle" / "Heat dissipation Rate (for a single heat sink)" = "# of Heat sinks to render heat neutral @ Duty Cycle".

Duty cycle, Heat per Second Generated, # of heat sinks to render heat neutral are linked. The faster you fire, the more heat you generate, and the more heat sinks you need to sustain that average rate of fire.

You don't have to assign RoF to maximum for comparison. It's just convenient. I can explore relative DPSpT comparisons at RoFs other than maximum for different weapons later in the thread if there's a demand.

Note the relative positions of the Ballistics group, the Small Laser, and the Medium Laser.

That graph describes the relative weapon balance that existed before the patch.
This next one shows the change that 2.0 Heat sinks would make.

Note the Small and Medium Lasers. The DPSpT of these two weapons is pushed pretty high. This is probably the cause for the Dev's concern. However, the current maximum Laser Boat is the HBK-4P with 9 mounts.

Total DPS, of 9 Small Lasers firing heat neutral at Max RoF:
3 damage/shot / 3 second DC = 1 DPS.
1 DPS x 9 = 9 DPS for the mech.
9/.26 DPS/T = ~34.6 tons Which probably goes to 35 in practice. So yes, this build is probably possible by tonnage.

Total DPS of 9 Medium lasers at Max Rof:
5 Damage/shot / 4.25 second DC = 1.1765 DPS
1.1765 DPS x 9 = 10.558
10.558 / .21 DPSpT = 50.276 tons, which probably goes to 51 in practice.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 20 March 2013 - 08:20 AM, said:

The original post about DHS was lost with the Original Closed Beta threads, but this one is open:



Also, this goes back to the original release of DHS (1.4) and shows that in it's current release, how much of an Upgrade it already is (without being 2.0)

Fun Fact: He speaks of 6 ML, not 9.

Also, they haven't really shown that 240 damage over 30 seconds is imbalanced.
A 6xSRM6 Cat delivers 270 damage in 12 seconds.

Their data could also show something else entirely - that the medium laser is imbalanced. Could they achieve such "amazing" feats of damage with other weapon choices and double heat sinks, at similar weight levels?

Okay, so you misremembered, no big deal. Except it might be, if we actually want to put the discussion on some mathematical foundation. It would also really help if PGI would show that these numbers are imbalanced and DHS are the single source of problem here. For example - the comparison is that this deals as much damage as 2 Gauss Rifles. But 2 Gauss Rifles don't overheat at all, not after 30 seconds, not after 180 seconds, not ever, basically. It also fires at much higher ranges! And Double Heat Sinks don't boost Gauss Rifles, you could take 10 standard heat sinks and cool 4 Gauss Rifles if any mech could carry that currently. Other mechs can deal the same damage in less time. So, it takes a bi tmore than just saying "oh, yes, with this mech and this weapon and double heat sinks, I get a value I find questionable":

Maybe they did all this. Maybe I don't have the right to ask for more details and for their in-depth analysis. But I've done my math, and it doesn't support their conclusions, so it would be really helpful if they'd show me where I am wrong, or if we can figure out if they are wrong, or we're both wrong.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 20 March 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

The following is taken from this post.

"Damage/Shot of the Weapon" / "Duty Cycle" / ( "Weapon Mass" + "Ammo Tonnage" + "Heat sink Tonnage")

Where:
Damage/Shot and Weapon Mass are fundamental aspects of the weapon.

Duty Cycle is the reciprocal ('1/x') of Rate of Fire ('x'). This rate of fire is assigned and is the Max Rate of Fire for the weapon unless otherwise indicated. The reason this is done is convenience.

Ammo Tonnage is a variable. I chose to represent this variable as something I termed "Common Ballistic Base ammo load" or CBBal. Basically CBBal is a time. It is the total time for continuous fire. Basically if you leaned on the trigger your weapon would fire this long (ignoring heat and shutdown).
Example: A Gauss rifle with a CBBal of 160sec would be carrying exactly 4 tons of ammo. An AC/20 with the same CBBal applied would be carrying 5.714 tons. Due to the lack of rounding (haven't been able to implement it, yet) this is actually overprecise. It represents the weapons with partial tons of ammo. However, the change from that partial ton (up or down) is small.

Heat sink Tonnage is based on Heat per Shot of the weapon, Duty Cycle, and the Heat dissipation Rate (HdR) of a single heat sink, and the tonnage of a single heat sink.

"Heat per Shot" / "Duty Cycle" = "Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle"

"Heat per Second Generated @ Duty Cycle" / "Heat dissipation Rate (for a single heat sink)" = "# of Heat sinks to render heat neutral @ Duty Cycle".

Duty cycle, Heat per Second Generated, # of heat sinks to render heat neutral are linked. The faster you fire, the more heat you generate, and the more heat sinks you need to sustain that average rate of fire.

You don't have to assign RoF to maximum for comparison. It's just convenient. I can explore relative DPSpT comparisons at RoFs other than maximum for different weapons later in the thread if there's a demand.

Note the relative positions of the Ballistics group, the Small Laser, and the Medium Laser.

That graph describes the relative weapon balance that existed before the patch.
This next one shows the change that 2.0 Heat sinks would make.

Note the Small and Medium Lasers. The DPSpT of these two weapons is pushed pretty high. This is probably the cause for the Dev's concern. However, the current maximum Laser Boat is the HBK-4P with 9 mounts.

And there you find the very interesting thing (seemingly using a very different methodology than I did: http://mwomercs.com/...-5th-2013-patch)

The Small and Medium Lasers appear to be outliers. If the other weapons are not, doesn't that suggest something is wrong with these 2 weapons, and DHS would just bring that flaw out?

I think the issue with small and medium lasers is that they are extremely weight efficient. Not just the heat is important here - the weapon itself is very light, and that means it can be relatively easy to add more of them. If you want another LL, that's a whopping 5 tons, even if the heat sinks were free, it's not an easy feat to add an LL to an existing build. My approach here would be: Nerf the damage of small and medium lasers. That means even if they are still heat efficient, you would need more of them to deal the same damage than currently, which means not only does the overall weight of a medium-laser based mech increase, you also run into hard point and crit slot lmitations much sooner. At some point, the jump from 1 ton to a 5 ton weapon is not that extreme any more.

It also makes sense that the weapons would be (im)balanced like this currently. In the Table Top, a LArge Laser doesn't just deal more damage than Medium LAser and reaches a bit further - it's also a lot more accurate, since range also affects hit probabilities. In MW:O, generally speaking this isn't true. Aiming a Medium Laser at a target 270m is exactly as easy as aiming a Large Laser at a target 270m away. That's now how things work in the table top, but that means the stats from the table top - if they are even remotely balanced - must value range pretty strongly. Much more strongly than you would do in MW:O - and this is independent even from the map design!

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 March 2013 - 09:16 AM.

[Deathlike]

I don't have the #s for how 6 med lasers are OPed with true 2.0 DHS, but seeing the effects of the current system, I can actually imagine it. I can fire only half of the 6 med lasers on Caustic over 5 seconds or so (I haven't actually measured/counted) so I don't shutdown, but still be combat effective. With true 2.0 DHS, I think having a complete alpha is far more sustainable.

I'll try to create the #s to show my work.

[Krell Darkmoon]

PPSSSSTTTTTT

We're not Playing Table Top

Get over it.

[Tice Daurus]

One thing the OP forgot is that the Inner Sphere version of the Ultra AC/5 had notorious problems with jamming issues due to high ROF. However, once the Clans came in with their version of the Ultra AC's in the game, none of them jammed. That's because they had worked out the jamming issues decades ago. Once the IS was able to get their hands on the Clan Ultra AC/5 and other Ultra AC's they were able to reverse engineer them, fix the problems, and then they sent out field repair kits to solve the problems, and the IS caught up to the Clans.

Ahem...in the year 3053. It took them 3 years to clear the jamming problems in the Inner Sphere and the Ultra AC/5 problems were not cleared until mid-3055 as it took them 18 months to put the field kits into full production to clear the problem so the repair techs could be taught how to fix the problem and then make the effective repairs.

The DEV's have it correct. OP has it wrong.

[AndyHill]

About double heat sinks and balance; here's the design I'm basing the calculations on (a 9 ML hunchback): http://mwo.smurfy-ne...60a94a01deb175f

It has 10 engine DHS at 2.0 and 8 external at 1.4 for a total of 31,2 heat dissipation with the current DHS.

It is one of the most affected designs due to the number of external heat sinks. With true doubles its heat dissipation would be 36, making the current design about 13,3% less heat efficient.

That 13,3% will not rock anyone's world. Garth was not referring to this particular design, but he was both horribly wrong and terrifyingly right at the same time.

1) 13.3% (or equivalent, since his example 'mech was somewhat different) does not turn a balanced design into a monster, so he's wrong.

2) The amount of damage done in the case of the true DHS version is terrifying, so he is absolutely correct. But it has nothing at all to do with true DHS. It has everything to do with the fact that with the current balance, even the present DHS-equipped version is a monster.

A ML fires every 3 (or 4?) seconds, giving that design a monstrous temporary dps of 15 (or 11,25). With true DHS it might be able to fire off one extra volley before shutdown, I'm not sure and can't be bothered with the calculation now. Anyway, 13,3% extra heat efficiency won't help much, especially if the heat capacity was much lower as it should be.

However, in the tabletop the design's dps would be 4,5. Four point five, making 45 damage over 10 seconds. Now that's the real problem. The thing with double heat sinks is just another balance-skewing effort to cure symptoms resulting from the decision to give the 'mechs immense pinpoint alpha / instant DPS capability - the very thing that should be avoided at all costs in translation from table top to real-time.

To recap, they took the example 'mech to 15 or 11,25 momentary (pinpoint) dps from the 4,5 it had on the tabletop, for a whopping 333% (250%) increase - supposedly for making the games faster paced. Now someone please tell me how the approximate 13,3% heat dissipation bonus from true DHS on top of this enormous change actually means anything? The 'mechs as they are now already are monsters, they will not become such if the DHS are double. The true problem lies elsewhere.

Edited by AndyHill, 20 March 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[Deathlike]

CDA-2A

Ok, so I build Garth's "infamous" Cicada... 6 meds + 18 DHS + 300XL

So... let's play with the #s (using 2.0 DHS theoretical #s).

An alpha strike will deal 30 pts of damage, 24 pts of heat.

A fully mastered mech will have 4.14 heat/sec of dissipation (15% bonus from elited Coolrun), and a heat capacity of 79.2 (20% bonus from elited Heat Containment).

Since it takes 4 seconds from cooldown (3 from cooldown, 1 for duration), after an alpha and cooldown, a mech will have 7.44 pts of heat left before the next alpha. This is only 9.4% of the mech's overall heat capacity. So, you are allowed to alpha 10 times at least before even getting close to shutdown, assuming, you continue to fire.

By this math, you would have dealt 300 pts of damage after 40 seconds worth of constant fire. This doesn't factor in the reality that you may not be engaging like you would an MG, and and few seconds not used to fire your weapons already gives you a decided advantage. Remember that it only takes 1 second to reduce the heat consumption by more than a half, and 2 seconds to completely forget the existence of heat from a 6 medium alpha. So, after 6 seconds (4 second cooldown, 2 second delay), you are virtually heat neutral.

The math suggests that it is a real problem.

[MustrumRidcully]

1) How much does this actually change with the current heat sink implementation?
2) Is 300 points of damage after 40 seconds really a problem?
3) A mech is not generally considered "heat neutral" when he doesn't overheat by firing not all of his weapons, or not firing all his weapons all the time. Your 2 second delay between shots is about the same as if you'd equip only 4 Medium Lasers.
4) Is this really a problem of the DHS? DO other mech builds also get "imbalanced" or "OP" with this. (And if all get "OP" by a similar rate - are they OP anymore? Do we just need a bit more armour padding so combat isn't too fast to compensate?).
5) What happens if you use some of the alternative suggested models? The current model is exceptionally complicated to understand (even today, people don't always get how in-engine and out-of-engine sinks work). What if we go with +1 capacity, +0.2 dissipation for example?*


*) Hey, I do this math for you.
The 20 DHS Cicada now has a capacity of 50 and dissipates 4 heat per second. 6 MLs produce 6 heat per second, so a net heat gain per second of 2. That leaves you 25 seconds before you overheat, dealing 25 * 1.25 * 6 = 187.5 damage. Interseting.
BTW, what does Hexa-PPC Stalker say to this? He probably hates it, becausehis first salvo already will put him to 2 points under maximum. Hope he's not running around right now, because he wouldn't afterwards.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 March 2013 - 10:08 AM.

[Deathlike]

HBK-4P

I built the classic build for this... 9 meds, 18 DHS, 260 STD.

An alpha strike will deal 45 pts of damage, 36 pts of heat.

A fully mastered mech will have 4.14 heat/sec of dissipation (15% bonus from elited Coolrun), and a heat capacity of 79.2 (20% bonus from elited Heat Containment). /copypasta

After going through 4 seconds of cooldown, the mech will have 19.44 points of heat left (24.5% of heat capacity). So, you can only dish 4 alphas before you are nearing shutdown.

Dishing 4 alphas in this time will dish 180 damage over 16 seconds... assuming constant fire. It will take 4-5 seconds to dissipate the heat involved, so this only excels at burst from 0 heat...

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 March 2013 - 10:05 AM, said:

1) How much does this actually change with the current heat sink implementation?

Will do later. My head hurts from wanting to do the math.

Quote

2) Is 300 points of damage after 40 seconds really a problem?

Well, a splatcat does 90 damage from 1 shot every 4 seconds (and they can't fire indefinitely due to heat). Of course this assumes a lot of other "working factors", so... technically yes.

In 20 seconds, 150 pts of damage will kill any assault (giving natural inaccuracies due to laser damage and spread) in the CT. It probably doesn't have the same burst damage as 2 AC20 Catas, but a short death is still short. If it were chasing the Raven, there would be significantly more scatter, but they'd go down in almost half the time (12 seconds, 90 pts of damage).

Quote

3) A mech is not generally considered "heat neutral" when he doesn't overheat by firing not all of his weapons, or not firing all his weapons all the time. Your 2 second delay between shots is about the same as if you'd equip only 4 Medium Lasers.

Meh. Oh well, you have to kinda account for mechs moving in combat, and the ability to hide. Light mechs like the Cicada (the overweight medium) can chase others down.. so some time factoring to simple repositioning is enough time spent, relatively speaking.

Quote

4) Is this really a problem of the DHS? DO other mech builds also get "imbalanced" or "OP" with this. (And if all get "OP" by a similar rate - are they OP anymore? Do we just need a bit more armour padding so combat isn't too fast to compensate?).

Do the numbers speak for themselves? Armor padding helps, but at designed previously, not very much.

Quote

5) What happens if you use some of the alternative suggested models? The current model is exceptionally complicated to understand (even today, people don't always get how in-engine and out-of-engine sinks work). What if we go with +1 capacity, +0.2 dissipation for example?*

How about we do that later... I just want the DHS 2.0 stupidity to go to rest.

Quote

*) Hey, I do this math for you.
The 20 DHS Cicada now has a capacity of 50 and dissipates 4 heat per second. 6 MLs produce 6 heat per second, so a net heat gain per second of 2. That leaves you 25 seconds before you overheat, dealing 25 * 1.25 * 6 = 187.5 damage. Interseting.

Skip to [/domathlater].

Quote

BTW, what does Hexa-PPC Stalker say to this? He probably hates it, becausehis first salvo already will put him to 2 points under maximum. Hope he's not running around right now, because he wouldn't afterwards.

Under which system?

[MustrumRidcully]

Deathlike, on 20 March 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

Will do later. My head hurts from wanting to do the math.


Well, a splatcat does 90 damage from 1 shot every 4 seconds (and they can't fire indefinitely due to heat). Of course this assumes a lot of other "working factors", so... technically yes.

In 20 seconds, 150 pts of damage will kill any assault (giving natural inaccuracies due to laser damage and spread) in the CT. It probably doesn't have the same burst damage as 2 AC20 Catas, but a short death is still short. If it were chasing the Raven, there would be significantly more scatter, but they'd go down in almost half the time (12 seconds, 90 pts of damage).



Meh. Oh well, you have to kinda account for mechs moving in combat, and the ability to hide. Light mechs like the Cicada (the overweight medium) can chase others down.. so some time factoring to simple repositioning is enough time spent, relatively speaking.



Do the numbers speak for themselves? Armor padding helps, but at designed previously, not very much.

I don't know. if 150 damage already kills any assault - does the current system ensure that doesn't happen? And what if that Assault fires back, enhanced by True Double Heat Sinks? Does the Cicada even get to live long enough?

If we want to be very stickly, by the way, our damage figures and heat figures are all a bit off. Because the Splatapult and the Cicada don't have to wait 4 seconds to fire their first shot. They can start the moment the combat begins. And that means the Splatapult has already dealt 180 damage after 4 seconds. The Cicada is still only at 60 damage here. And you do point out that there is time between shots often due to situational changes, movement and all that -that certainly also helps our dear overheat-prone Splatapult here...

I think that "let's start fire when we meet, not a cooldown cycle later" is a big deal in balancing M:WO well, because it plays into weapon convergence and importance of alphas strikes vs sustainable damage. If you can deal enough damage in 10 seconds to kill an Atlas, it is really not important if you overheat afterwards or not, because you just killed a frigging Atlas, which means you definitely already did your job for the team (assuming on average, every team member needs one kill...). If you can manage two, you're an eager beaver..

At this point, the question more becomes - is there a build that can do it in 9 seconds? in 8 seconds? in 7 seconds? Because that build might kill you before you get your job done. And for all this, heat capacity seems much more important in M:WO than heat dissipation, because you just can'T sink all that much in 10 seconds...

Quote

How about we do that later... I just want the DHS 2.0 stupidity to go to rest.

Skip to [/domathlater].

Under which system?

The system I did the math for. (I did it for +1 cap / +0.2 dissipation per DHS, not the current system.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 March 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Heat is to low. I can do 7 Alpha Strikes with my Atlas featuring 2 PPCs and a single Gauss before shutdown happens. Have tested it in Game. Ok Gausd did not produce much heat but without i'm able to do 8 however with much less damage.
generally only few mechs got more hits than 2 before armor is done.
4 PPC shots and 2 Gauss slugs.

Heat is not just the only problem. it just the top of the ice berg

[Deathlike]

MustrumRidcully, on 20 March 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

I don't know. if 150 damage already kills any assault - does the current system ensure that doesn't happen? And what if that Assault fires back, enhanced by True Double Heat Sinks? Does the Cicada even get to live long enough?

Unless you are very skilled, the short answer is no. It's a bigger no when the netcode is not at an optimal state (just go back to before the big network patch). The Cicada under previous patches would probably be able to perform feats of magic.

Quote

If we want to be very stickly, by the way, our damage figures and heat figures are all a bit off. Because the Splatapult and the Cicada don't have to wait 4 seconds to fire their first shot. They can start the moment the combat begins. And that means the Splatapult has already dealt 180 damage after 4 seconds. The Cicada is still only at 60 damage here. And you do point out that there is time between shots often due to situational changes, movement and all that -that certainly also helps our dear overheat-prone Splatapult here...

I think that "let's start fire when we meet, not a cooldown cycle later" is a big deal in balancing M:WO well, because it plays into weapon convergence and importance of alphas strikes vs sustainable damage. If you can deal enough damage in 10 seconds to kill an Atlas, it is really not important if you overheat afterwards or not, because you just killed a frigging Atlas, which means you definitely already did your job for the team (assuming on average, every team member needs one kill...). If you can manage two, you're an eager beaver..

Sure, you can adjust it however you wish. The fact of the matters is that the theoretical damage dealt is obscene for the amount of time it is dealt (DPS @ extreme high levels).

Quote

At this point, the question more becomes - is there a build that can do it in 9 seconds? in 8 seconds? in 7 seconds? Because that build might kill you before you get your job done. And for all this, heat capacity seems much more important in M:WO than heat dissipation, because you just can'T sink all that much in 10 seconds...

Min-maxers usually lead in such a direction that expresses DPS in a lot more "colorful" ways. When used correctly in context, then you can see the limitations of such a build.

Heat capacity is way too high IMO, and with the PPC heat reduction, the hexa-PPC builds suddenly become viable... which is why I believe a heat increase to them are warranted. It needs to be close to the ER large heat levels (ER large could stand to have a small heat reduction and/or duration reduction).

Quote

The system I did the math for. (I did it for +1 cap / +0.2 dissipation per DHS, not the current system.)

The next post after this, sure.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

The next post after this, sure.

There used to be a thread for people like you in Jettisoned, I could dig it up, but ... maybe later. I am busy doing nothing right now.

Quote

Heat capacity is way too high IMO, and with the PPC heat reduction, the hexa-PPC builds suddenly become viable... which is why I believe a heat increase to them are warranted. It needs to be close to the ER large heat levels (ER large could stand to have a small heat reduction and/or duration reduction).

Lower the heat capacity in general, not raise the heat of individual weapons. The PPCs were problematic because they could never alpha strike nor offer good sustainable damage for their weight. Unfortunately lowering the heat improves both, not just the latter, but raising the heat just means you make them useless again. (Warning, post may contain exaggerations for effect).


So lower the heat cap, increase the dissipation. +1 to cap per DHS, +0.2 dissipation per DHS. Hexastalker might stay around, but not alpahing all the time -instead learning the virtues of chain-firing. (But probably not, if you can'T alpha with your 6 PPCs, people will probably only equip 3-4 and equip some side weapons to be able to sustain their fire longer.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 20 March 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[Tombstoner]

As for game balance one can not forget to include clan tech in the decision to use 1.4 DHS.

The medium laser may have not been the deciding factor. the clan er medium i expect is the killer because of the relation ship between range, damage fall off and current engagement ranges / map size.

It would be interesting to see a comparison similar to what you did with current IS game stats but using clan TT stats overlay-ed

It should be possible to add in a co-factor for each weapon and tune heat performance individual.

yes we know its not TT.... thus if you missed it....we are discussing the current state of the game, with facts supported by data.

Edited by Tombstoner, 20 March 2013 - 11:37 AM.

[Deathlike]

STK-3F

Base reference for the Stalker (not sure if anyone can do better on the DHS) - 16 DHS, 6 PPCs, 315XL engine

With the current system...

6 PPC deals 60 pts of damage, 48 pts of heat.

Note that w/o even adding a DHS to a DHS engine, the 6 PPC stalker would overheat, but not immediately shutdown (50 pts of heat storage with 10 DHS 250+ engines, not factoring the Heat Containment bonus).

16 DHS will dissipate 2.84 heat/second. It will have a heat capacity of 70.08 (after 20% heat containment bonus).

After the initial shot and factoring cooldown (3 seconds), the mech will have 39.48 pts of heat, which is 56% of the total heat capacity. It will take slightly above 6 seconds before the mech can fire another alpha, to avoid shutting down. If you do fire that alpha, it will take that much time before going under 100%...

So, it's death in under 3 seconds, if things work the way they should.

It will take almost 17 seconds before another alpha can be produced when heat is @ 100%. 8.5 seconds for half of the alpha (3 PPCs), 5.66 seconds for 2 PPCs, 2.83 seconds for 1 PPC (which is essentially, after regular PPC cooldown).

MustrumRidcully, on 20 March 2013 - 11:27 AM, said:

There used to be a thread for people like you in Jettisoned, I could dig it up, but ... maybe later. I am busy doing nothing right now.

Is that good or bad? I try to avoid reading anything in jettisoned, unless it wasn't there in the first place.

Quote

So lower the heat cap, increase the dissipation. +1 to cap per DHS, +0.2 dissipation per DHS. Hexastalker might stay around, but not alpahing all the time -instead learning the virtues of chain-firing. (But probably not, if you can'T alpha with your 6 PPCs, people will probably only equip 3-4 and equip some side weapons to be able to sustain their fire longer.)

If we alter the #s as you suggest (assuming the #s are applied to both internal and external DHS)...

Heat Dissipation is now @ 3.2 heat/sec (3.68 with the 15% coolrun bonus)., with Heat Capacity is now @ 46 pts (55.2 pts with the 20% Heat Containment bonus).

So, if we were to do the 6 PPC alpha... after cooldown... 36.96 pts of heat remain (67% of total capacity). It will take approximately 8 seconds before another alpha can be dished out.

ALL YOU DID WAS BUFF TEH HEXA PPC STALKER

You cannot change the heat dissipation on the mech w/o actually helpout out energy weapons more. Lowering the heat capacity by just swapping the effects of the SHS and DHS with respect to heat capacity would be significantly more workable.