1107 replies to this topic

[armyof1]

NVM: dead horse etc.

Edited by armyof1, 22 March 2013 - 03:20 PM.

[MuKen]

Ph30nix, on 22 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

well there is ONE thing, DHS are only as efficent at 1.4 heatsinks and take up 3 criticals, so like alot of things it becomes a less weight works better, but takes up more criticals

As I just mentioned, choosing DHS immediately gives you 10 free SHS in the engine, that take up zero space and zero weight. It's pretty hard to make up for not having that if you go with SHS.

[Fenix0742]

Chemie, on 22 March 2013 - 03:15 PM, said:

IF? Come on. DHS saves you 10 tons AND 10 crits vs SHS right out the gate. Why wuold you use crit slots for endo or FF first? They save much less tons.

This is also why endo for big engines in heavier mechs works: because the ability to put DHS in the engine means that half the crits you're spending on endo was already being used for DHS, making endo an 8 or less crit upgrade instead of 14

Edited by Fenix0742, 22 March 2013 - 03:22 PM.

[Rakkar]

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 03:20 PM, said:

As I just mentioned, choosing DHS immediately gives you 10 free SHS in the engine, that take up zero space and zero weight. It's pretty hard to make up for not having that if you go with SHS.

Not on all chassis if I recall correctly. It scales based off max weight. Assaults get 10, I think heavies get 8?, Mediums 6?, etc.

[MuKen]

Rakkar, on 22 March 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

Plus, as someone else above said, more chance to lose a DHS as it takes up 3 crit spaces instead of 3. Is it more efficient? Absolutely. Is there a higher chance of losing that efficiency throughout a match? Absolutely.

No, that is actually an ADVANTAGE of DHS. If you are going to get a critical hit to a component, you WANT it to be the heatsink, because most likely everything else in there is more important and/or will blow up if destroyed.

Rakkar, on 22 March 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Not on all chassis if I recall correctly. It scales based off max weight. Assaults get 10, I think heavies get 8?, Mediums 6?, etc.

No, it scales off of engine. Any mech using an engine >250 will get the free 10. Which is by far most builds.

[Rakkar]

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 03:22 PM, said:

No, that is actually an ADVANTAGE of DHS. If you are going to get a critical hit to a component, you WANT it to be the heatsink, because most likely everything else in there is more important and/or will blow up if destroyed.



No, it scales off of engine. Any mech using an engine >250 will get the free 10. Which is by far most builds.

If your heat sink gets destroyed, it will likely branch out to everything else anyway, wouldn't it?

Thanks for the correction on the engine! =D

[MuKen]

Rakkar, on 22 March 2013 - 03:23 PM, said:

If your heat sink gets destroyed, it will likely branch out to everything else anyway, wouldn't it?

Thanks for the correction on the engine! =D

No problem.

Once you get assigned a critical hit, all of its damage WILL happen to things in that section of your mech. The more of that damage happens to heatsinks, the less is happening to important weapons, exploding ammo, etc.

Edited by MuKen, 22 March 2013 - 03:25 PM.

[Fenix0742]

Rakkar, on 22 March 2013 - 03:21 PM, said:

Not on all chassis if I recall correctly. It scales based off max weight. Assaults get 10, I think heavies get 8?, Mediums 6?, etc.

It's based on your engine rating: 250 inculdes a full complement of 10 heatsinks, every 25 under requires it to be stored externally, every 25 up lets you put another heatsink in the engine at no crit space cost. A 400 rated engine would give you 6 spaces for DHS: that's 18 crit spaces you're saving.

[MuKen]

This is another problem with the weakness of SHS, so many players don't KNOW all the reasons they are so crappy, and have bad builds because of it. I'm not blaming this on those players at all, it's the fault of a severely imbalanced system with close to zero documentation that would give people the information they need to see why one option is so much worse than the other.

Edited by MuKen, 22 March 2013 - 03:29 PM.

[Zyllos]

Mercules, on 22 March 2013 - 01:54 PM, said:

In TT Battletech you don't just get to rip equipment out of mechs willy-nilly. Even so there were mechs that had more tonnage than crit slots that could get more efficient heat cooling with singles than doubles. Since we can upgrade armor, weapons, and even incrementally upgrade engine size gaining a few kph instead of needing to upgrade to a size that would give another hex of movement... the extra 3 tons you could use for singles is often better spent to increase the engine to then next 25 and hide a double in the engine.

This is a LARGE part of why SHS exist.

Engines were a rating equal to a value divisible by the tonnage of the mech. And you could not just throw in Endo-Steel onto a mech (you could for Ferro-Fibrous though) and C-Bills have always limited the maximum you could customize. And the 100% loss of mechs meant that you usually sent in throw away mechs because it's too costly to send in your tripped out mech and accidentally die to an ammo explosion or headshot and could not recover the mech.

[Protection]

Ph30nix, on 22 March 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

well there is ONE thing, DHS are only as efficent at 1.4 heatsinks and take up 3 criticals, so like alot of things it becomes a less weight works better, but takes up more criticals

right now everyone just goes to DHS's because they need weight more then criticals, but eventualy people might start needing criticals over weight. and there ARE builds right now that dont need DHS.

This is my point - unless you are running a 150XL (or something similar - a joke build), then no such design exists except for horribly under-optimized, poorly conceived failmechs.

Every single functional optimized mech is running double heatsinks.

Again, open challenge to anyone not understanding this -- show me a decent build that relies on single heatsinks.

[MuKen]

I won't call it a great build, but I know someone was running something like this and enjoying it

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2bd933ab131deac

Edited by MuKen, 22 March 2013 - 04:01 PM.

[Fishbulb333]

Mandatory cbill sink for nearly all builds I use, only exception I can think off of the top of my head being gauss phract.. Shame, the extra cooling effect in water with heatsinks in legs is something that'd come in really handy on some maps, but it's just not worth dropping DHS for.

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

I won't call it a great build, but I know someone was running something like this and enjoying it

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2bd933ab131deac

I'd love to have that mech in my crosshairs, "component destroyed" pinata... mmmmmmm salvage.... *drools*

[Protection]

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

I won't call it a great build, but I know someone was running something like this and enjoying it

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...2bd933ab131deac

I think you've proved my point. That's an absurd build, and that's the sort of extreme heatsink boating required for singles to actually surpass doubles in usefulness from the critical slot advantage. In an Atlas running massive stripped armour and a slow XL engine.

You're right, DHS cannot improve this build, but is this Atlas really worth defending single heatsinks over?

[MuKen]

I definitely agree, I was just posting this build because I've seen it and it was interesting.

[Quxudica]

Mercules, on 22 March 2013 - 02:00 PM, said:

Oh, the other point to them was that they cost a lot less to repair... but then PGI removed a pointless mechanic that only punished experimenting and created unnecessary grind....

Fixed that for you. Seriously RnR added nothing of value to the game and only served to greatly hamper build diversity ensuring you saw the same tried and true low cost builds ad nauseam. It also helped create the entire fad of suicide farming stripped down light mechs, MWO is better without it.

[MuKen]

Their reasoning for removing RnR applies to this discussion too. They said they removed it because people were being incentivized not to rearm/reload, thus hurting their teams.

DHS superiority does this too. A player has a certain ELO playing good builds with DHS. Then he decides to level up some variant so he can get elite on his main variant, but because he doesn't want to spend $1.5mil cbills that he won't get back, he decides to do it with SHS, which means no build he makes can be as good. He now has a strictly inferior build, hurting his pug which was put together assuming he would play at the level indicated by his ELO when he clearly can't.

I know I do this all the time, try to make the best build I can with SHS to level up a variant, which is never quite as good as the builds I normally play. I should be able to put together something that uses the strengths of SHS to be comparable to a DHS build, but there is nothing like that.

This discrepancy between DHS and SHS means that players are being incentivized to not do what is best for their team for dozens of matches.

Edited by MuKen, 22 March 2013 - 04:33 PM.

[Zyllos]

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 04:30 PM, said:

Their reasoning for removing RnR applies to this discussion too. They said they removed it because people were being incentivized not to rearm/reload, thus hurting their teams.

DHS superiority does this too. A player has a certain ELO playing good builds with DHS. Then he decides to level up some variant so he can get elite on his main variant, but because he doesn't want to spend $1.5mil cbills that he won't get back, he decides to do it with SHS, which means no build he makes can be as good. He now has a strictly inferior build, hurting his pug which was put together assuming he would play at the level indicated by his ELO when he clearly can't.

I know I do this all the time, try to make the best build I can with SHS to level up a variant, which is never quite as good as the builds I normally play. I should be able to put together something that uses the strengths of SHS to be comparable to a DHS build, but there is nothing like that.

This discrepancy between DHS and SHS means that players are being incentivized to not do what is best for their team for dozens of matches.

Ya, but there are MANY situations during Battletech in which some times you have to deal with inferior designs because of constraints. I am hoping this is why SHS are staying around because they will be the only thing available during CW.

I am hoping all of the current mechanics will just completely change with CW. The current play is just for jumping into the game to play some fights while CW is something that takes time to plan with different rules.

[Carcoona]

I didnt play the table top version of Battletech but i do believe if anything the heatsinks in and heat ratings in the game where closer to Single Heat Sinks not doubles.


Doubles is an upgrade and 99.9% of the time something you have to do to get an efficient mech.

However I dont think they should be removed. It is a game mechanic to have to improve your mech, tweak it, and spend time on your beloved Mech. It is not Pay to win as someone pointed out and a money sink because you cannont pay real money for the upgrade. Only purchase a Mech with the upgrade already installed for MC. Thats your choice.

Second It should not be removed because it adds flexibility to builds. If you tote lots of Gauss weapons, or MG's or are good at managing your heat, you may not want to use double heatsinks, and use the money and critical slots elsewhere. Granted, any sane person would still use it, but it gives players something to work towards.

Trial mechs, are not just for N00bs, although of course new players have to use them. They are also for people to try out the feel of new mechs before spending CBills or MC on them. Yes they are far from optimal and usually get you killed because of it. But that depends on the mech, but it does give you an idea of a chassis characteristics and therefore if you want to spend 12.5 Mil Cbills on an atlas to find that after upgrading it...you still suck in it.

They are also the Stock Battletech mechs. Staying as true to the Battletech universe as possible. The mechs would come out of a factory like that, with there design flaws etc based on the cost of production, available tech etc etc. They would then be upgraded by their pilots as the time arose. This is all part of the game. Does it realy hurt that much to spend 1.5Million on and awesome upgrade? No not realy. Does it keep you playing the game. Yes. Is that good for everyone, Yes.


PGI need to make money, to continue their fantastic work on a game we all can happily say we love and are pretty blown away by, considering its free to play. Its pretty balanced with its pay scheme, and I for one dont mind paying for premium time and the occasional mech because I know I will use them and continue playing. So having to spend time to get double heatsinks is fine by me.

[Pyrometheus]

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 03:10 PM, said:

You're not taking into account that choosing DHS instantly gives you the equivalent of 10 free SHS by doubling the innate cooling value of your engine. Just changing to this already has more cooling than yours, plus a whole bunch of extra space and weight to do with as you wish.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ac30ccc19a138da


There are only a very few very niche builds that actually carry enough SHS to make up for this difference.

I'm actually not forgetting it at all. If you re-read my post you'll see that I stated the best I've been able to do while having DHS is 30%, which includes adding an AC/2 with the weight afforded after switching to DHS. Take the build you supplied, add an AC/2 and 1 ton of ammo. This drops your cooling efficiency to 27%.

You then have enough crit slots available to add 2 more DHS, which brings your cooling efficiency to ...30%. 3% less efficient than with SHS.

Feel free to try it yourself. You'll find you have 1 ton free, and no crit slots.

Edited by Pyrometheus, 22 March 2013 - 06:07 PM.