1107 replies to this topic

[SteelShrike]

You guys have to consider the ramifications of making all 'Mechs with DHS, too. As it is, I'm not too excited about custom-designed trial 'Mechs. What's going to be the point of the game if everyone starts with optimized builds? The next question that's going to come around is "Why is this guy in a trial 'Mech equal to the guy that's been tweaking his design for months?" There's no incentive to play if there's no goals to work towards. It's just COD or Quake in BattleMechs again. Might as well take out the MechLab if pure efficiency is what people want to start with, not work towards.

The last thing I want is the game dumbed down to the point of being like MW4 where NHUA was the only game type one could find people playing.

[Shumabot]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

You guys have to consider the ramifications of making all 'Mechs with DHS, too. As it is, I'm not too excited about custom-designed trial 'Mechs. What's going to be the point of the game if everyone starts with optimized builds? The next question that's going to come around is "Why is this guy in a trial 'Mech equal to the guy that's been tweaking his design for months?" There's no incentive to play if there's no goals to work towards. It's just COD or Quake in BattleMechs again. Might as well take out the MechLab if pure efficiency is what people want to start with, not work towards.

The last thing I want is the game dumbed down to the point of being like MW4 where NHUA was the only game type one could find people playing.

If the only depth this game has is upgrading your heat sinks and instantly being equal in every respect then this game deserves to die.

Edited by Shumabot, 24 March 2013 - 01:10 PM.

[MuKen]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 01:07 PM, said:

There's no incentive to play if there's no goals to work towards. It's just COD or Quake in BattleMechs again. Might as well take out the MechLab if pure efficiency is what people want to start with, not work towards.

It's a PVP game, not PVE. Do Street Fighter players play so that their Ryu can get bonuses over everyone else's Ryu? No, they play so THEY can get better AT RYU than everyone else.

If you WANT your stuff to get better than the new guy's, that just reeks of lack of confidence that you are building your skills up with experience.

Edited by MuKen, 24 March 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[Terror Teddy]

Shumabot, on 24 March 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

If the only depth this game has is upgrading your heat sinks and instantly being equal in every respect then this game deserves to die.

-Weapons
-Armour Values
-Armour Quality
-Ammunition Load
-Number of heatsinks
-Quality of heatsinks
-Engine Power
-Engine quality
-Internal Structure
-Support Modules

These are CHOICES
CHOICES are GOOD
They are also GOALS
GOALS are GOOD

Removing ONE aspect of the game (SHS) just because they are suboptimal removes one of the possible GOALS in the game, to gain money to GET these upgrades and guns.

In the end we could forward the same argument about standard engine vs XL engine.

CHANGING how Single Heatsinks to make them DIFFERENT is something else as we now would inject another tactical CHOICE - and as I posted above - Choices are GOOD.

[Shumabot]

Terror Teddy, on 24 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

-Weapons
-Armour Values
-Armour Quality
-Ammunition Load
-Number of heatsinks
-Quality of heatsinks
-Engine Power
-Engine quality
-Internal Structure
-Support Modules

These are CHOICES
CHOICES are GOOD
They are also GOALS
GOALS are GOOD

Removing ONE aspect of the game (SHS) just because they are suboptimal removes one of the possible GOALS in the game, to gain money to GET these upgrades and guns.

In the end we could forward the same argument about standard engine vs XL engine.

CHANGING how Single Heatsinks to make them DIFFERENT is something else as we now would inject another tactical CHOICE - and as I posted above - Choices are GOOD.

Except, and this is where you basically ruined your argument, you listed quality of heat sinks as a choice.

It's not a choice, it's mandatory. They are better in every respect to single heat sinks. Thus that isn't a choice, and you're little diatribe about choice becomes wholly pointless. As implemented they are a 1.5 million cbill tax on performance and create a gulf of quality that drives people away from the game (deservedly, a game with systems that bad shouldn't have players and deserves to die).

Edited by Shumabot, 24 March 2013 - 01:19 PM.

[SteelShrike]

It may be a PvE game eventually. Clan invasion and all.

Also, it's a F2P game. This is standard. There need to be incentives to play, a grind of sorts. Like it or not, it's the model. Dropping in a predesigned 'Mech skin that's already loaded out to be the best possible is at least not what I want. I enjoy tweaking my 'Mech and buying shiny new weapons and equipment for it.

What I -do- agree with is the heat system needs a massive overhaul. Removing single heat sinks from the game isn't the answer. Removing content from a game is never the right answer. Repair and Rearm was a hindrance because the rest of the functions of the game that really needed to exist to make it worthwhile are currently missing. Making heat more meaningful by having varying degrees of penalties for overheating, and then having a more tolerant heat scale would be a few steps in the right direction.

[Saint Rigid]

It's alright guys. I know this is a business... but unless you actually work for the company, then it's not "serious business" lol

The problem is not double heat sinks... and the problem is not even double heat sinks. The problem is actually engines.

Boost DHS's to 2.0 outside the engine, and cut the internal engines capacity for heatsinks in half (rounding down).

That way changing over to DHS's doesn't give you an INSTANT ADVANTAGE. Engines would always provide a consistent amount of heat sinking, and single heat sinks and double heat sinks would be balanced against EACHOTHER.

Then you use this newfound consistency (despite it "breaking" talbe top purity) to review heat values of weapons.

Profit.

[MuKen]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Also, it's a F2P game. This is standard. There need to be incentives to play, a grind of sorts.

The "grind" is for variety. You play to unlock new options, not better ones. Seeing as you put stock in what is 'standard', then stand by what you said. The game should be consistent here with the standard mechanics it uses elsewhere.


Is endo better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Is ferro better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Are XL engines better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Is artemis guidance better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Are DHS better than SHS? Absolutely, they give access to better builds.

Edited by MuKen, 24 March 2013 - 01:24 PM.

[Shumabot]

MuKen, on 24 March 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

The "grind" is for variety. You play to unlock new options, not better ones. Seeing as you put stock in what is 'standard', then stand by what you said. The game should be consistent here with how it works elsewhere.


Is endo better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Is ferro better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Are XL engines better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Is artemis guidance better than standard? No, it just gives you access to new comparable builds.

Are DHS better than SHS? Absolutely, they give access to better builds.

Realistically endo is better. It's pretty much as mandatory as DHS, and should probably be totally reworked alongside DHS.

[Everything Bagel]

I think this is a very informative thread. I literally have only 1 build out of 20 that uses SHS, and honestly if I bothered to change some ammo placement around it would probably be better with DHS. The issue is that the engine heatsinks are twice as good. There is just no good reason not to upgrade. There are many "pro/con" type choices in this game, but heatsinks are not one of them. Like many others have said, this is a mandatory upgrade.

[Dasein]

I wonder about ff which is armor upgrade but actually it is not because it's just the same as endo - trade 14 slots for additional weight but endo is always better, so ff is only for lights.and mb some mediums. IMHO they should limit armor in weight not in points so ff would be a real armor upgrade.

[SteelShrike]

Actually, I'd argue that at least some of those things are better than others. Artemis is better than standard missiles. They do more damage, period. You lose a ton and a critical slot, though, to get them.

Also, in a twist, Endo is better than Ferro in every way if you had to pick between the two. Not a comparison you made, but nonetheless, it's there. And taking both is never a good idea, unless you're maybe a Light.

I don't argue though that DHS are mandatory. You're absolutely right. I'm just arguing that SHS need not be removed to find the answer.

Natanael Cormac, on 24 March 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

The problem is not double heat sinks... and the problem is not even double heat sinks. The problem is actually engines.

Boost DHS's to 2.0 outside the engine, and cut the internal engines capacity for heatsinks in half (rounding down).

That way changing over to DHS's doesn't give you an INSTANT ADVANTAGE. Engines would always provide a consistent amount of heat sinking, and single heat sinks and double heat sinks would be balanced against EACHOTHER.

Then you use this newfound consistency (despite it "breaking" talbe top purity) to review heat values of weapons.

Profit.

This right here. There's your answer.

EDIT: Though, I'd actually do it a little differently and say don't cut the engine capacity for heatsinks in half. Just make all engine heatsinks be single heatsinks. Even cutting the capacity in half, double heatsinks would be superior to single. Unless I understand you wrong, Natanael?

Edited by SteelShrike, 24 March 2013 - 01:45 PM.

[qki]

ferranis, on 23 March 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

You cant beat the 20 engine heatsinks, thats all there is to say.

Never seen a good build with shs.

3 SSRM2 1ML ECM COM-2D that chooses extra FF armour over extra dissipation from the DHS it does not need, as it can't fit both. Now chill the hell out - you are nowher near being a good player, so drop the attitude.

[wolf74]

I have a commando that will not work with double heat sinks due to the fact he already has all his critical slot full, and he does not over heat even on the hottest maps.

Edited by wolf74, 24 March 2013 - 01:48 PM.

[MuKen]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 01:41 PM, said:

Actually, I'd argue that at least some of those things are better than others. Artemis is better than standard missiles. They do more damage, period. You lose a ton and a critical slot, though, to get them.

Which is why they aren't better. There is a tradeoff. More weight and space for better performance does not equal strictly better.

The INTENTION of the designers is for all of these to have tradeoffs, that's highly obvious. The actuality is that the 'downside' of DHS is overwritten by one of its upsides for 90% of mechs (100% of good mechs).

Quote

Also, in a twist, Endo is better than Ferro in every way if you had to pick between the two. Not a comparison you made, but nonetheless, it's there. And taking both is never a good idea, unless you're maybe a Light.

Yes, so there's reasons to take both. (I never get why non-light players always seem to talk like lights don't exist. "oh, that's only an issue if you're a light, so therefore it's not an issue") I agree they could use some balancing in relation to each other, but the point is both have a place in good builds.

Quote

I don't argue though that DHS are mandatory. You're absolutely right. I'm just arguing that SHS need not be removed to find the answer.

This thread moved past that pages and pages ago. All we are saying is that there should not be a 'choice' in the game where one side is strictly inferiorr to the other, which they are now.

Edited by MuKen, 24 March 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[Shumabot]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

3 SSRM2 1ML ECM COM-2D that chooses extra FF armour over extra dissipation from the DHS it does not need, as it can't fit both. Now chill the hell out - you are nowher near being a good player, so drop the attitude.

Yes it can. Hit the double heat sink upgrade button, instant extra 10 heat sinks. no crit space required. You don't know how this system works, stop posting about it.

[Terror Teddy]

Natanael Cormac, on 24 March 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

The problem is actually engines.

Boost DHS's to 2.0 outside the engine, and cut the internal engines capacity for heatsinks in half (rounding down).
Then you use this newfound consistency (despite it "breaking" talbe top purity) to review heat values of weapons.

So what you are saying is that all engines can AT BEST have 5 internal heatsinks, thus making engines even HEAVIER since you need Engine+5 heatsinks.

That's insane as you would punish mechs more the lighter they are. And engines in MWO are ALREADY heavier than their boardgame counterpart making some mechs impossible to create with the current system.

Also, one reason for heatsink 2.0 only making 1,4 outside the engine is rather simple - we are not suffering from all the OTHER drawbacks one would usually suffer from in the boardgame - something heatsinks in general would take care of.

-Targeting Penalties
-Movement Penalties
-Pilot loosing conciousness
-Increasing risk of mech shutdown (without actually overheating)
-Ammo explosion risk due to heat (without actually overheating)

[DeadlyNerd]

qki, on 24 March 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

3 SSRM2 1ML ECM COM-2D that chooses extra FF armour over extra dissipation from the DHS it does not need, as it can't fit both. Now chill the hell out - you are nowher near being a good player, so drop the attitude.

Get DHS and ditch extra heatsinks outside the engine. You get the same effect as putting several heatsinks outside the engine.
Oh btw, FF on a commando gives only a fraction of a ton. If that is more useful to you than another heatsink, you must really work on your priorities.

[SteelShrike]

MuKen, on 24 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

Which is why they aren't better. There is a tradeoff. More weight and space for better performance does not equal strictly better.

The INTENTION of the designers is for all of these to have tradeoffs, that's highly obvious. The actuality is that the 'downside' of DHS is overwritten by one of its upsides for 90% of mechs (100% of good mechs).



Yes, so there's reasons to take both. (I never get why non-light players always seem to talk like lights don't exist. "oh, that's only an issue if you're a light, so therefore it's not an issue") I agree they could use some balancing in relation to each other, but the point is both have a place in good builds.



This thread moved past that pages and pages ago. All we are saying is that there should not be a 'choice' in the game where one side is strictly inferiorr to the other, which they are now.

Seemed like some people were still arguing for their removal just a page or two back, that every 'Mech should just have DHS. which is basically the same as removing them. If I misunderstood, though, I apologize.

Shumabot, on 24 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Yes it can. Hit the double heat sink upgrade button, instant extra 10 heat sinks. no crit space required. You don't know how this system works, stop posting about it.

Except it does take critical space. Smaller engines require heatsinks -outside- of the engine. He may need to put at least two external double heatsinks to meet the requirement of 10 heatsinks, as the engine will only hold 8 internally.

Edited by SteelShrike, 24 March 2013 - 01:54 PM.

[Terror Teddy]

MuKen, on 24 March 2013 - 01:48 PM, said:

All we are saying is that there should not be a 'choice' in the game where one side is strictly inferiorr to the other, which they are now.

The problem wih that argument is that the entirey system of Battletech is build upon different efficiency of gear.

Let's say they implement Clan weapons. They are:
-Lighter
-Smaller
-Better range

The difference is COST - same as DHS vs SHS.

These items are not MEANT to be tactially different but simply different levels of technology with a different pricetag because they are simply BETTER.