Protection, on 28 March 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:
And again -- no one has said that a mech MUST run DHS, but we've repeatedly said and repeatedly been correct in saying that a mech with DHS will be better than a mech without DHS.
Can you do still well in a mech with SHS? Sure. But that isn't the point.
But with DHS, you can do everything you did in that same mech with SHS, except you can also be more heat efficient on top of that. If you dont want to make use of the extra heat efficiency, that's fine - you can still play the mech in the exact same way as you would with SHS without anything being at all different - except that you have more heat capacity to work with if you so chose to shoot more often (as well as, often, more armour, ammo, or larger engines).
Saying "But I didn't need DHS for my mech, I got by okay with SHS," is great, you did fine without minimaxing your gear. That is not the problem. The problem is that wanting to play with less optimized equipment is a poor excuse for the current role of single heatsinks in the game, and shoddy game design in general. It's restrictive to player decision making, it's limiting to variety, and it serves little purpose other than to have one more barriers for new players to achieve equal footing, and it's a waste of an item that might otherwise have an interesting purpose - even in high level or competitive play (and no, there are zero competitive league designs using Single Heatsinks). We want a more interesting and engaging system, and a purpose for SHS beyond wanting to run a mech that is either less optimized or less expensive.
Funny, I posted a mech, just one mech that I have that runs SHS, and I was told I was wrong so fast and was told just how horrible and bad my build was. Might not have been you, but where were you saying it's still a functional build then? That's right, you where the one telling me how bad it was and how much you could improve my build 100%. YOu increased my engine by 10 points, my heat efficiency by (smurfy) 3%, and increased leg armor to max as well as gave me 1-2 more tons of ammo.
You didn't tell me my build was a good build, but could possibly be better like this, you flat out said it was terrible and such a bad horrible build.
"Can you do still well in a mech with SHS? Sure.
But that isn't the point."
I think that IS the point. You say remove SHS in your original post. We said, no. I say no because builds can still be effective with SHS, and remain cheaper as well. If I am going for elites on, say, my Dragon, should I place DHS on each and every dragon I'm going to buy, when I'm going to sell two of the three off? Is it that worth it? Or a waste of C-bills? I'd rather save those C-bills and get the next Dragon I need for elites, thanks though.
Also, some of us are not minmaxers. I prefer to play more balanced designs. I work well with them, they work well with me. Are my designs good for everyone? No. Are all of them spreadsheet warrior worthy? Probably not. Your point?
Now, if you actually discussed changes to heat sinks or how heat runs in the game, you'd convince me your goal is not to remove SHS from the game, but to change them to be a choice between DHS and SHS, not an upgrade you just about always need. So far, I think I've contributed to that front. How about you? You made the thread. Where is your contribution to "wanting to point out the problems with heat sinks and present ways to fix it" that you mentioned to me. Where is it? I don't see it. I'd love (as I think I've proven) to discuss ideas and possible changes. I'll remark on what I feel would be good and bad about each idea (if I can), and maybe even suggest possible ways to make it work better. Am I always right? Heck no. But I'm trying to contribute to the intended, underlining discussion of "improving heat sinks".
Shumabot, on 28 March 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:
If I have the same mech, the same skill, and doubles I am going to beat you 100% of the time. Your argument is nonsense.
I wouldn't go saying that. Jagermech vs Jagermech (as an example). If each has the same build, but one has DHS, I can tell you two AC20 Jagermechs would probably fight to a stall. By the time the SHS Jagermech needs to worry about heat, either he will be dead, or his opponent will be head. In a multi-way, well, the DHS version can take down the Jagermech foe and move right into the next without stopping, unlike the SHS version, who might have to stop and cool for a couple moments before going on.
Or some mechs might not even get hot that fast. Most, like my Cicada, would need DHS to run fully, but I wouldn't go saying you could win 100% of the time. It still would depend upon he mech, forget about the pilot. If your mech is designed with SHS, and doesn't overheat except for extended and protracted fire engagements against multiple foes, in a one on one it shouldn't matter if it has DHS or SHS.
To end, yes. DHS are better than SHS. Just about all builds work better with DHS over SHS. I will not argue that fact. However, sometimes DHS do not improve a mech too much more over the SHS to make that large of a difference. Does it still improve? Yes, it will. Maybe just not as much, if it is even needed at all. (What the rest of us are saying.)
Shumabot, on 28 March 2013 - 03:08 PM, said:
I couldn't possibly care less about the 5% of terrible underpowered fringe builds (and commandos) that get away with singles. Not a single crap. No care at all. 95% of players shouldn't be punished for the eccentricities of the remaining 5%.
Why would I want to be reasonable with you? You are the enemy of this game. You will cause it to burn to death catering to a tiny audience of obsessive old men who just want to nostalgia trip and don't care that millions in money and infinite potential is wasted catering to a core group of diehards whose loyalty can only be lost by making good decisions.
I'd have to say that your inability to understand our point of view, and thus the point of view of anyone different from yourself, which is 95% of the population of this game (throwing numbers around and making them up just like you did), makes you the "enemy" of this game. If you where in control, this game would be dead already. Why? Because you can't understand other people apparently. I guess you "missed" my message back to you a couple pages ago.
Let me help, is this what your side of the argument looks like?
- DHS are so much better than SHS that SHS serve no purpose in the game.
- We should either remove SHS from the game as they serve no purpose, unless we can make them a competitive choice.
- All mechs should have DHS, as SHS are not needed (in the current iteration of the game).
- Any mech that has SHS are vastly inferior to DHS versions, therefor to help the new users (who are running away in droves but I have no proof to say otherwise so I'm just going to tell you this and you better shut up and understand me) we should have everything come with DHS standard (because heaven forbid if people might have to earn something in a game).
- I want to say I want to discuss changes to heat or heat sinks to make SHS a viable option, but still want to have DHS as a choice worth it's c-bills, but yet I'm not willing to say anything to actually promote this idea, as apparently I'm hoping that if I can squash all competition for change, that the Devs will have to listen to me and remove them or give DHS to everything.
Do I have the way you've been acting right? Because, no offense (well, maybe a little offense intended at this point) that is how we are all hearing you. I don't mind debating a point, but give me something to debate over.
I shall say, once more for you as you can't seem to respond to this and instead attack:
If you could do something, anything you wanted, to SHS, DHS and/or the whole heat system, what would you do? What would you change? Why do you think this would work?
Do that and I'll provide a dialogue and debate the point. I wont even tell you your wrong, but instead say why I think it might work, try to explain how I think your idea is (so you can say if I'm understanding the underlying points), and maybe even suggest changes that might make the idea better if I can think of anything. So far, I haven't seen you try in the, what? 10 plus pages I've been in this converstation? Instead you want to make snide remarks and refute everyone else as being i diots.
Shumabot, on 28 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:
You well and truly don't understand math.
I am starting to think you don't understand probability, chance and math. It comes down to change and build. It depends upon the build, how well it's used and pilot skill. If you are going to say that you each stand still and hit the same spot on the mech till one dies or the other, then... no. You will probably end up with a lot of draws, or builds with SHS that can last long enough to kill you as you kill them.
If you are talking about actual combat, then you have to add in skill, chance, and probability into the mix. I could 2x AC20 head shot you before you even get a shot off. Or, you could cause an ammo explosion in me and kill me. OR, the fight could last so long that my SHS mech overheats and shuts down, and then you kill me as I'm shut down. Anything could happen. Math isn't the only determining point here.
Josef Nader, on 28 March 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:
Yeah, I'm with Shuma on this one.
If the only variable between two mechs (including pilots) is whether or not one has doubles or not, the one with doubles will always win. Even if it only gives you an extra shot every two minutes of continuous firing, that's still a notable advantage if all other variables have been isolated.
As I've stated before, not always. Could they have a higher chance of winning? Probably. Are they ALWAYS (guaranteed. 100% going to happen) going to win? Think hard on this one, as the answer is clear to anyone who thinks. I'll give you the answer, nothing in life is guaranteed, not even the fact that you will live the next couple of seconds.
Shumabot, on 28 March 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:
Also assuming they remove elo from the game, otherwise you're going to live in your steering wheel underhive for the rest of time. I'm sure you'll do great against the Phracts without JJs and the LBX wielding dragons.
I'm going to take that as a poke... And, if ELO was visible, I think you might be a bit surprised what my ELO is. Heck, I'd probably be surprised as well. Could yours be higher? Maybe. But, I still don't think this elitist attitude is being productive for this conversation. What does my skills as a warrior have to do with my opinion on the forums? Are my number of kills to death really that important (0.80 general)? How about my W/L ( 764 / 871)?
Stats on the LBXAC10? Matches: 32 Shots fired: 551 Hits: 406 Accuracy: 73.68% Time in game: 02:19:20 Damage: 2,744
That's 6.75 damage per shot that hit.
That's 4.98 damage per shot fired (missed shots included).
Dragon stats are (and I've run with an AC10 and an LBXAC10 before settling onto the LBXAC10): Matches: 32 Wins: 17 Losses: 14 Ratio: 1.21 Kills: 15 Deaths: 24 Ratio: 0.63 Damage done: 8,011 EXP: 13,875
Should I post all my stats? I'm an open book, if these magic numbers are so important to you. Almost makes me wished I has scammed the system and DCed for state buffing before they fixed that... or I could have fought more carefully so I could try to steal more kills... (instead of having kills stolen on me more often than not.) I still don't see how any of these stats have anything to do with my credibility on the forums. What's that? They don't matter on the forums!? Elitist trash... (sarcasm on that last part.)
Josef Nader, on 28 March 2013 - 04:25 PM, said:
You're still completely missing the point.
Builds can work with singles, but singles are not -necessary- to make any build work. There is no build in the game that is made BETTER by the inclusion of single heatsinks. Builds -can- work with single heat sinks, and there's nothing wrong with running a suboptimal build (if I had a nickle for every time a build I posted over on the ELP forums gave Protection an anyurism, I'd be a rich man). However, that's completely missing the point of this thread.
As it stands, right now, the single best upgrade you can put on any mech is double heat sinks. You save yourself tonnage and significantly improve your heat efficiency for absolutely zero cost (aside from the 1.5 mil entry fee). There is absolutely ZERO gameplay reason to keep single heat sinks on a mech. The first thing I do after buying a new chassis is slap doubles on it, before I even know what build I'm going for, because no matter what build I do doubles will always, always, always be better. I might come up with a build that doesn't NEED 20 single heat sinks worth of cooling (shoot, it might not even need 10 single heat sinks worth of cooling), but my point is that there is no reason not to slap those doubles in there the minute you get the mech.
If you read the OP, both Protection and I are pushing for more interesting choices. Right now, there is only one choice: is it worth dropping 1.5 mil on this chassis? If you're using even one single heat sink outside of the 10 that come with your engine, you're better off with doubles. That's one ton and one crit you could be using for something else.
What you're saying is essentially, "I don't want to invest money in a real baseball bat, so I'm going to use an old broomstick as a stand-in. I can still hit the baseball with the old broomstick, and I can have fun with the old broomstick, so this means that given the choice between a real bat and a broomstick I should seriously weigh my options."
It's preposterous. Doubles are a straight upgrade and singles have no reason to exist right now. I want them to have a reason to exist. Is that so bonkers?
Reverse that statement and it's still true. Doubles are not -necessary- to make any build work. Do they improve the build? Yes. Not arguing that. However, I've been informed that this thread is not actually advocating the removal of SHS, but is trying to bring discussion on how SHS and DHS might be changed to make SHS still competitive, and yet have DHS still be worth an upgrade, but not a "must have". Thoughts on this? Instead of saying anyone who uses SHS are fools, how about bringing forth some options? You want to "push for more interesting choices" by bringing up ideas on how to create these interesting choices?
TruePoindexter, on 28 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:
I've thought about it for awhile and after messing around with the trial Trebuchet 7M which comes with DHS I find that I agree. There are a few builds that benefit specifically from SHS over DHS but these are in the minority. I think if mechs by default came with the DHS upgrade and instead you had to buy the SHS downgrade for those specific cases it would help a lot.
So... you have to pay to downgrade your heat sinks for all mechs... standard? Does that even make sense? I know that's the current system for upgrades (once upgraded, you have to pay to downgrade again), but why would you force people to have to pay for SHS if they wished to have it? Are you trying to make SHS more useless? We are trying to discuss ways to make SHS more competitive, with something they have over DHS, while DHS are still a viable upgrade. Just we want to turn it into an Upgrade you have to think about (like Artemis (extra ton per launcher (except for streaks) and an extra crit slot), Endo (14 crit spaces) and FF (14 crit spaces again)). Ideas on this?
Edited by Tesunie, 28 March 2013 - 06:00 PM.
10
