94 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

I prefer the true 0.2/sec dissipation and +1 to heat capacity approach. If anyone now wants to point out that this "actually" gives heat sinks more than 0.2/sec because everyone has Cool Running or what's the skill's name and thus it's broken:
1) The skill is supposed to be a bonus. Let it be one.
2) The nice thing is that with +1 capacity, double heat sink users gain less from the heat capacity booster skill than standard sinks.

No, it won't make double heat sinks balanced against single heat sinks. But this is almost impossible to pull off without wrecking so many other parts of the the game that the devs better start throwing out all those stock designs now. They weren't supposed to be balanced in the table top game, and so it's basically impossible to rebalance MW:O with that in mind without severely making any stock mech configurations utterly pointless. I mean even more pointless than they are now.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 March 2013 - 01:21 PM.

[M4rtyr]

I selected other because they've completely broken heat in a very complex fashion.

First we have tripled rate of fire, meaning more heat generated.

Second is sort of a counter balance, there is no disadvantage to high heat other then shutdown.

Then there is the useless 1.4 'double' heat sink. since their are no disadvantages to high heat that actually not too bad of a concept. But when you consider the higher rate of fire with no heat generation changes then it gets ugly.

The triples fire rate without changes to damage is why they needed to double armor so fights would last more then 6 seconds. why didn't they just realize if we are going to fire that fast we need to alter damage and heat to match. It's really poor game design.

Anyway to fix double heat sinks, make them a legitimate double and give canon heat disadvantages.

As it is If I ran an assault I'd likely run single heat sinks because doubles don't do enough for the space I would need.

Edit: think the devs need to study up on the Solaris variable rate of fire rules.

Edited by M4rtyr, 15 March 2013 - 03:25 PM.

[Targetloc]

Double Heatsinks in the engine rules have always been incredibly silly, even in TT. The only reason it was acceptable there was because of BV.

As long as you can pay 1.5 million c-bills for essentially 10 extra tons on your mech, SHS will never be used.

[Monky]

To be honest, the problem with heatsinks isn't dissipation.

It's heat storage. You see, the weapons entire balance structure is based on a set amount of heat being a maximum. That amount is 40. Or at least, it should be.

The devs implemented heatsinks in a way so that each normal heatsink in your mech adds 1 point to your mechs capacity (set to 30 in game, since 10 heatsinks are required, this does set a minimum of 40 storage when using single heatsinks).

However, additional heatsinks increase this capacity. For single heatsinks, this may be fair enough, however double heatsinks can store 2 heat for every engine DHS, and 1.4 heat for every additional one outside this. This matters because MWO is a real time game. More capacity = more time to shoot before you're forced to face the consequences of a heat imbalanced build. Heatsink boating is the name of the game as it drastically increases just how much stupidity you can get away with.

To give you an example - my stalker has 21 DHS total, 10 in engine, 11 in mech (1 stored in an extra engine slot as it has a 275 in it). This gives me 65.4 + xp efficiencies in heat capacity - and double heatsink cooling. You read that right - I can store 1.75x the normal amount of heat than the weapons are balanced for. This is why you see 6xPPC stalkers at all, and 6xSRM cats firing near constantly. DHS dissipation + DHS heat storage = too much heat efficiency.

What to do about it? Well, if they're dead set on heat storage going up with # of heatsinks, reduce DHS storage to SHS levels. Ideally, I would recommend hardcapping at 40 - aka; just get rid of it as it's an unnecessary mechanic.

Edited by Monky, 15 March 2013 - 08:55 PM.

[Ialdabaoth]

I disagree that it's an unnecessary mechanic.

Also, if they ever implement graduated heat penalties, it will become an even better distinction.

I've been a strong proponent of 0.2 dissipation / 1.0 capacity for awhile now, but I'm realizing that even that's not quite enough of a trade-off. Note that external DHS have a legitimate trade-off in that they take up 3 spaces per 0.2 dissipation, compared to SHS's 1 space per 0.1 dissipation. Internal DHS are effectively 'free', which is why SHS will never be viable in comparison without some kind of boost. So, what if:

- Set the basic heat capacity to 25.

- Each SHS provides 0.1 dissipation and +1.0 capacity, whether mounted in the engine or in a critical space.
- Each DHS provides 0.2 dissipation. Internal DHS provide +0.5 capacity, while external DHS provide +1.0 capacity.

This means that SHS have a legitimate advantage of saving space if your goal is maximizing capacity, while DHS have a legitimate advantage of saving tonnage if your goal is maximizing dissipation. For the same tonnage, SHS 'mech will have a higher shutdown threshold (by at least 5), while a DHS 'mech will have a faster dissipation rate. It also means that internal vs. external DHS are a legitimate trade-off, since external DHS aid in capacity better than internal DHS, at the cost of taking up a large number of spaces that could otherwise go to XL engines or Endo-Steel internals.

[Monky]

Ialdabaoth, on 16 March 2013 - 02:07 AM, said:

I disagree that it's an unnecessary mechanic.

I would say it is - heat dissipation is still as it is, the only thing it allows is more back to back alpha strikes/reckless firing, which isn't what MWO, battletech, or previous mechwarrior games had ever been about. Alpha strikes do exist, but they are generally risky one off maneuvers that would force you into cover afterwards to cool down.

This is why poptarting was a thing in MW4; it was easy to shoot all of the damage at one spot in an instant and then fall back down below the hill to cool off. In MWO, poptarting is extremely difficult to do with any consistency.

It seems by removing this mechanic, we still have all of our bases covered, and no longer have back to back alpha strike heatsink boats with loadouts that should be laughable, if not outright impossible.

Edited by Monky, 16 March 2013 - 02:42 PM.

[kiltymonroe]

1.5 heat dissipation/capacity for all DHS, scale back some large energy weapon heat as follows:

LL: 6 heat, 8 damage
LPL: 7 heat
ERLL: 8 heat, 8 damage
PPC: fine
ERPPC: 10 heat

[Sable Dove]

Just make Enigine heat sinks 2.0 at all times; regardless of the heatsink type. Make single/double apply only to external heat sinks. Keep balance as-is, or buff DHS back to 2x, depending on how much this helps SHS.

Edited by Sable Dove, 18 March 2013 - 09:37 AM.

[LethalMezzle]

Engine Heat Sinks need some kind of nerf.

Simple reason for this really - you can get 10 Double Heat Sinks for absolutely no drawbacks, as the heat sinks inside the mech don't take up any extra space or negatively impact the mech at all.

Ages ago someone proposed that Single Heat Sinks should have a higher heat threshold but lower heat dissipation, and Double Heat Sinks should be the opposite. I like this idea.

Edited by LethalMezzle, 17 March 2013 - 11:32 AM.

[idle crow]

A lot of mech designs right now are based around the engines 10 DHS that run at 2.0. Almost every mech uses a 250+ engine as a result.

Additional heat sinks are nice but often not as important as speed, armor or even more weapons.

I like to see the non-engine heat sinks scaled up. Even if that means scaling down the engine heat sinks.

[Rejarial Galatan]

they are called DOUBLE heat sinks for a reason, as such, they MUST act as such.

[TyGeR STD]

I think all enternal engine heatsinks should be 1.0 reguardless of useing DHS or SHS. Then start replaceable SHS at a 1.0 value and DHS at a 2.0 value. After testing the values may need to be adjusted for balance but not by much.

This would totally eliminate lighter Mechs from useing the higher DPS builds just from installing DHS on the mech and useing the enternal engine heatsinks. they have to give up tonnage and space to use placeable DHS to get the benifit of having them installed. larger Mechs would have more benifit from having more tonnage to use.

[Ralgas]

a rather easy fix ( although doubtful it would ever happen) would be to lower shs weight to .75 ton, and increase cool run to 10% (20% with the double up for 2+ elites of the same class) heat containment drops to 5%/10%.

still has the same balancing role (weight vs slots) but is close enough to make it a consideration. engine weights remain unaffected

[Kmieciu]

Ralgas, on 17 March 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

a rather easy fix ( although doubtful it would ever happen) would be to lower shs weight to .75 ton, and increase cool run to 10% (20% with the double up for 2+ elites of the same class) heat containment drops to 5%/10%.

still has the same balancing role (weight vs slots) but is close enough to make it a consideration. engine weights remain unaffected

There is about 0.01% chance that PGI will ever change the weigh or size of a item. That happened only once (TAG weight increased from 0.5 to 1 tonne), but it was a bug fix rather than a balance issue.

Edited by Kmieciu, 18 March 2013 - 12:22 AM.

[kiltymonroe]

Kmieciu, on 18 March 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

There is about 0.01% chance that PGI will ever change the weigh or size of a item. That happened only once (TAG weight increased from 0.5 to 1 tonne), but it was a bug fix rather than a balance issue.

And the reason that they won't is that the stock builds are borrowed directly from tabletop BT, and if you start changing the weight of components then the stock 'mechs end up being over/undertonnage.

[Ralgas]

Kmieciu, on 18 March 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

There is about 0.01% chance that PGI will ever change the weigh or size of a item. That happened only once (TAG weight increased from 0.5 to 1 tonne), but it was a bug fix rather than a balance issue.

Well aware it's a pipe dream, but would be an effective fix that would bring more interest in shs.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I'd go with a 1.0 threshold. DHS are good enough without giving you a higher heat maximum- particularly since there are no ill effects to running hot. Ideally, I would change the relationship that engine HS and critical space interacts. I would give every engine 10 crits worth of space to stuff heat sinks in. Maybe make in engine DHS take only 2 crits instead of 3. That way you have to choose between having lots of space, or having lots of cooling (I'd make them true doubles though)

TyGeR STD, on 17 March 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

I think all enternal engine heatsinks should be 1.0 reguardless of useing DHS or SHS. Then start replaceable SHS at a 1.0 value and DHS at a 2.0 value. After testing the values may need to be adjusted for balance but not by much.

This would totally eliminate lighter Mechs from useing the higher DPS builds just from installing DHS on the mech and useing the enternal engine heatsinks. they have to give up tonnage and space to use placeable DHS to get the benifit of having them installed. larger Mechs would have more benifit from having more tonnage to use.

That alone would go a long way to fixing DHS. Not having to pay the space penalty the majority of your DHS was always a big issue, even in TT I thought.

[Roland]

Monky, on 16 March 2013 - 02:41 PM, said:

I would say it is - heat dissipation is still as it is, the only thing it allows is more back to back alpha strikes/reckless firing, which isn't what MWO, battletech, or previous mechwarrior games had ever been about.

You mean except for EVERY MECHWARRIOR GAME EVER, right?
Because every single one has been about putting together the biggest alpha strike possible, and dumping it onto a target.. It's due to how armor is modeled in the game. You need to punch through a single panel to kill a mech, thus alpha strike power is the most important part of mech design.

This is not new. This has always been a feature of mechwarrior.

[Zyllos]

idle crow, on 17 March 2013 - 08:10 PM, said:

A lot of mech designs right now are based around the engines 10 DHS that run at 2.0. Almost every mech uses a 250+ engine as a result.

Additional heat sinks are nice but often not as important as speed, armor or even more weapons.

I like to see the non-engine heat sinks scaled up. Even if that means scaling down the engine heat sinks.

This is why sub-250 engines are not considered good.

0.16 dissipation for DHS and 1.0 capacity for all heatsinks (or 0.5, that would with the high heat alpha striking) is what I find balanced on my excel spreadsheets, if balancing against SHS.

If SHS are not to be balanced against, I would venture to say 0.17 dissipation is a good start.

[Deathlike]

I've just realized that the "3-second Jenner" is actually built off of 6 small lasers... not 6 medium lasers.

Based on Smurfy's Mechlab data...

JR7-F

It would run virtually indefinitely with true 2.0 DHS across the board. It's already 75% heat efficient, and that's with the current 1.4 external DHS system. With Coolrun+Elite bonuses, it has a sustainable DPS of 5.1. True DHS should probably put this literally @ 6 DPS....

Edited by Deathlike, 18 March 2013 - 07:23 PM.