94 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

Heat in relation to the bad coolant mechanic:
http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2086786

[Rejarial Galatan]

here is the thing, and this is to those who find the current situation where <not counting those on the reactor> a DOUBLE heat sink is only 1.5 times a SINGLE heat sink is even remotely acceptable, let me put it this way: would you find it acceptable if you went to say Burger King and ordered a Double Whopper, but only got 1.5 patties but where charged as if you got 2 full patties? I think not, so, why is it acceptable to have a DOUBLE heat sink cost like a DOUBLE but only give 1.5 times the out put?

[Deathlike]

I have revised my opinion on this and have to reevaluate how dramatic a change this is to swap external and internal DHS values.

[FiveDigits]

How dramatic it is? It would make DHS nigh useless to Lights and Mediums, cutting their heat efficiency by ~30%.

Edited by FiveDigits, 25 March 2013 - 04:53 PM.

[Deathlike]

In order to have the revised system be better than current one, you'd have to put in more than 10 external DHS (20+ DHS minimum).

The starting point of the revised system (assuming 250 engine) would be the equivalent to 14 SHS, instead of the 20 SHS that the current system enjoys. Dumbing down the engine is actually beneficial in this case.. where using external DHS to replace the internal DHS. This isn't perfect as it requires free crits to be useful, but you'd move the engine sweet spot to like 225 and 200 for tonnage related implications. On paper, that would benefit the lighter mechs (< 35 tons) and assault mechs that don't mind waddling instead of gimp-walk. I would say a hunchy would benefit from this, since they are built to be rather slow with the engine limits.

Edit:
You can keep adding external DHS as long as you have the crics as lowering the engine will provide you enough tonnage to keep doing this.. until you get to the slowest engine possible. I'm not entirely sure where the sweet spot would be, but look at adding .06 to heat dissipation (per 3 crits) every single time you lower then engine from 250...

Edited by Deathlike, 25 March 2013 - 05:41 PM.

[ryoma]

this thread has nice ideas for heat

http://mwomercs.com/...reates-choices/

[Xerxys]

Zyllos, on 15 March 2013 - 05:32 AM, said:

I originally thought this would have been true. But I have spreadsheets with calculations that I can modify the weight of heatsinks, number of critical slots needed, and dissipation/capacity values, and after doing those calculations, places them into graphs.

What I found is that even with 0.17 DHS with 1.0 capacity, SHS will still not be viable unless your equipping like 40+ SHS. The tonnage needed at that point is 30+ tons needed. That is no where near balanced. And that is with 0.17 dissipation.

Why in the world do you think EVERYTHING has to be fair? It's a damn upgrade! DHSs are not supposed to be equal to SHSs. It's meant to give a clear and concise advantage over someone who is running SHS. Did your graph tell you how many slots are grouped in 3's around the various mech slots? The mech might have 24 open slots, but if 4 of those are split between the two legs, one is in the head and say 4 or 5 to each torso side, the two in the CT and then what you have left in the arms exactly how many DHSs can you fit into the mech? By my count you have 7+ slots that are open, but you most certainly could not fit 2 DHSs because these open spaces have to come in groups of 3's. Just by this explaination your 24 open slots have dropped to only 17 possibly useful open slots. So by my count the most you could possibly fit on this mech would be 5 DHSs in addition to the engine unless the engine can hold more HSs than just the 10. For a total of ~15 DHSs. So 15*1.4=21 DHSs in all. I'm not certain how the HSs in the engine actually work, but if they are true doubles then you can add the difference making it the equivalent of 27 SHSs.

SHSs will get you through your first battles until you can afford to upgrade to 1.4 heatsinks. The unfair would only really come into being at the beginning of the game when you're trying to make enough money and that has been taken care of by the cadet bonus. So DHSs would not be OP at a value of 2.0 because everyone has access to them.

"But then you have Alpha-strike online" - like that's not already the case. What other ignorant, stupid, ******** argument can we add to this one? **** only becomes OP if you don't have access to the same thing. Guess you should have saved up a bit and gotten the Splatapult instead of your Hunchie.... You make decision and those have consequences. Sometimes you'll dominate and sometimes you'll be dominated. It's all in the choices we make and the skill we show in piloting at this point.

"Balance" is an illusion. Do I think energy weapons need a tweak? Not if they had actual 2.0 double heat sinks as they were designed to work. It's more the increased heat cap and no penalties for high heat that is making this game Alpha-strike online. Will people be able to alpha faster if you cool down faster? Absolute, conversely they would overheat and shut down much faster too. The smart player will win out in the end.

[ICEFANG13]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Why in the world do you think EVERYTHING has to be fair? It's a damn upgrade! DHSs are not supposed to be equal to SHSs. It's meant to give a clear and concise advantage over someone who is running SHS. Did your graph tell you how many slots are grouped in 3's around the various mech slots? The mech might have 24 open slots, but if 4 of those are split between the two legs, one is in the head and say 4 or 5 to each torso side, the two in the CT and then what you have left in the arms exactly how many DHSs can you fit into the mech? By my count you have 7+ slots that are open, but you most certainly could not fit 2 DHSs because these open spaces have to come in groups of 3's. Just by this explaination your 24 open slots have dropped to only 17 possibly useful open slots. So by my count the most you could possibly fit on this mech would be 5 DHSs in addition to the engine unless the engine can hold more HSs than just the 10. For a total of ~15 DHSs. So 15*1.4=21 DHSs in all. I'm not certain how the HSs in the engine actually work, but if they are true doubles then you can add the difference making it the equivalent of 27 SHSs.

SHSs will get you through your first battles until you can afford to upgrade to 1.4 heatsinks. The unfair would only really come into being at the beginning of the game when you're trying to make enough money and that has been taken care of by the cadet bonus. So DHSs would not be OP at a value of 2.0 because everyone has access to them.

"But then you have Alpha-strike online" - like that's not already the case. What other ignorant, stupid, ******** argument can we add to this one? **** only becomes OP if you don't have access to the same thing. Guess you should have saved up a bit and gotten the Splatapult instead of your Hunchie.... You make decision and those have consequences. Sometimes you'll dominate and sometimes you'll be dominated. It's all in the choices we make and the skill we show in piloting at this point.

"Balance" is an illusion. Do I think energy weapons need a tweak? Not if they had actual 2.0 double heat sinks as they were designed to work. It's more the increased heat cap and no penalties for high heat that is making this game Alpha-strike online. Will people be able to alpha faster if you cool down faster? Absolute, conversely they would overheat and shut down much faster too. The smart player will win out in the end.

I agree I think the A/C-20 should have an upgrade that doubles its damage. Upgrades are good stuff. It could even cost MC.

[MustrumRidcully]

ICEFANG13, on 26 March 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

I agree I think the A/C-20 should have an upgrade that doubles its damage. Upgrades are good stuff. It could even cost MC.

Clan Tech salutes you.

[focuspark]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Why in the world do you think EVERYTHING has to be fair?

Because this is a PVP MMO. Get over it or go back to TT.

[EvangelionUnit]

MustrumRidcully, on 26 March 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Clan Tech salutes you.

also eats double amount of ammo AND jams in the worest moments
^.~

[Protection]

http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/

[StalaggtIKE]

I like the second option because it is a simple yet effective solution. It's a simple swapping around of the system we currently have in place. This circumvent the current "free" engine 2.0 DHS that most of us take for granted. I didn't want to go the route of deliberately "nerfing" DHS as they are a payed for upgrade. Instead I wanted to ensure that people invest in the heatsinks if they upgrade, by encouraging more external heatsinks. Why? Because DHS takes up 3 critical slots. Relying on engine DHS circumvent this con, plus it dissipated at a 2.0 rate. For example a XL300 engine comes with 10 "free" 2.0 DHS. I do not have to to take up any additional crit slots from the DHS upgrade, so in essence getting them without the drawback. At this point there is no reason not to go for the DHS upgrade. Eliminating this "workaround" ensures that pilots must make a choice between 1 crit slot, 1.0 heat dissipation or 3 crit slots, 2.0 heat dissipation. This makes them both viable solutions.

Link: DHS VS SHS: A POSSIBLE FIX [SUGGESTION]

This is what I got messing around in the mechlab:

Edit: I used mwo.smurfy-net to get my values. Great site if you haven't used it before.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 26 March 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[FiveDigits]

EvangelionUnit, on 26 March 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

also eats double amount of ammo AND jams in the worest moments
^.~

Clan Ultra ACs do not jam.

StalaggtIKE, on 26 March 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

I like the second option because it is a simple yet effective solution. It's a simple swapping around of the system we currently have in place. This circumvent the current "free" engine 2.0 DHS that most of us take for granted. I didn't want to go the route of deliberately "nerfing" DHS as they are a payed for upgrade. Instead I wanted to ensure that people invest in the heatsinks if they upgrade, by encouraging more external heatsinks. Why? Because DHS takes up 3 critical slots. Relying on engine DHS circumvent this con, plus it dissipated at a 2.0 rate. For example a XL300 engine comes with 10 "free" 2.0 DHS. I do not have to to take up any additional crit slots from the DHS upgrade, so in essence getting them without the drawback. At this point there is no reason not to go for the DHS upgrade. Eliminating this "workaround" ensures that pilots must make a choice between 1 crit slot, 1.0 heat dissipation or 3 crit slots, 2.0 heat dissipation. This makes them both viable solutions.

Link: DHS VS SHS: A POSSIBLE FIX [SUGGESTION]

This is what I got messing around in the mechlab:

Edit: I used mwo.smurfy-net to get my values. Great site if you haven't used it before.

This implementation is just as bad as the current one - just reversed. It is equally difficult to understand for new players. It disadvantages Lights/Mediums instead of Heavies/Assaults.

PS: There are no "external engine heat sinks" in a 250 engine (HBK-4P example).

[StalaggtIKE]

FiveDigits, on 26 March 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

This implementation is just as bad as the current one - just reversed. It is equally difficult to understand for new players.

I would think it would be easier for new players to understand, because each non engine DHS you add to your mech would be a true 2.0 DHS, where as now it's only 1.4. It can't get any simpler than that. Keeping the engine at a 1.4 dissipation is to minimize the huge disparity between SHS vs DHS. So, that SHS are still worthwhile and to minimize the inferiority of trial mechs.

Quote

It disadvantages Lights/Mediums instead of Heavies/Assaults.

I respectfully disagree. You are correct in stating that, it will disadvantage lights. However Lights currently have considerable advantages. Only they have the capacity to utilize every Upgrade, while still being able to reliably fill every hardpoint. Only running into trouble when trying to equip weapons beyond your weight class, such as llasers, PPC, large AC and ect. Light already have the advantage of speed and size, realistically there must be a limitation in armament. There are 3 parts to the full "cost" of DHS:
1)Initial upgrade fee of 1,500,000
2)cost of 12,000 per heatsink
3)3 critical slots per heatsink
Most lights carry large XL engine which come with 10 free heatsinks. After paying the initial upgrade cost, rarely does a light need any additional heatsinks. So in essence they're getting DHS at a "discount." It is larger mechs that need additional heatsinks for the larger, hotter weapons. In which they must pay the full price. Thus it is Light mechs that are cheating the current system. This proposed suggestion doesn't necessarily fix that, however it does ensure that anyone that wants to get true DHS, must pay the full price.

Quote

PS: There are no "external engine heat sinks" in a 250 engine (HBK-4P example).

There sure isn't. It is supposed to be 10 (internals) and 8 (externals), so the efficiency percentages are correct. I will update the chart. Thanks.

[Xerxys]

focuspark, on 26 March 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

Because this is a PVP MMO. Get over it or go back to TT.

Who cares if it's PVP. By your statement my raven should have just as much armor and just as many weapons as an Atlas. Everything would be fair and equal. Everything would be exactly the same just to make certain that everything is equal.

Things are not ment to be even, equal or anything of the sort. Balance is the only thing we can hope and work for.

So unless you want everything the exact same, get over it. Or go back to CoD.

[Xerxys]

ICEFANG13, on 26 March 2013 - 07:11 AM, said:

I agree I think the A/C-20 should have an upgrade that doubles its damage. Upgrades are good stuff. It could even cost MC.

**sniff** **sniff** Something stinks... Troll?

Edited by Xerxys, 27 March 2013 - 08:47 PM.

[focuspark]

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Who cares if it's PVP. By your statement my raven should have just as much armor and just as many weapons as an Atlas. Everything would be fair and equal. Everything would be exactly the same just to make certain that everything is equal.

Things are not ment to be even, equal or anything of the sort. Balance is the only thing we can hope and work for.

So unless you want everything the exact same, get over it. Or go back to CoD.

No, but your Raven should be completely viable. Never played CoD, don't even know what it is - anyways, different but balanced is the meat and potatoes of PVP. You cannot have pure upgrades if you ever want to make a PVP game work. Upgrades are for PVE MMO and single player experiences.

[ICEFANG13]

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

**sniff** **sniff** Something stinks... Troll?

Nope, you want the same thing. You want a 100% upgrade to double the cooling of heatsinks, I want a 100% upgrade to double the damage of the A/C-20. Why is this so hard to grasp why balance is key to designing a competitive game, as PGI said they wanted to in ATDs.

[Xerxys]

focuspark, on 27 March 2013 - 09:20 PM, said:

No, but your Raven should be completely viable. Never played CoD, don't even know what it is - anyways, different but balanced is the meat and potatoes of PVP. You cannot have pure upgrades if you ever want to make a PVP game work. Upgrades are for PVE MMO and single player experiences.

Not true at all. In EVERY FPS or even FPCS that I have every played, you upgrade things such as armor, weapons, ammo, etc...

This is an upgrade, plain and simple. Can you still function for your team? Yes. Can you still help your team out? Yes, but you need to listen up and keep with the plan. Are you going to be able to keep up with or top the damage charts like the people that have fully upgraded their mechs? Nope, but you're not useless and given some time you'll be able to upgrade your mech just as they have.