1107 replies to this topic

[Protection]

Pyrometheus, on 22 March 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

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 your self.

he can leave it at 90 tons and his build is still 100% better in every way.

[Spheroid]

I think single heatsinks could be made more attractive by upping the heat dissipation rate for leg heatsinks in water, possibly being better than doubles on builds using engines under 250.

Edited by Spheroid, 22 March 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Khanahar]

Okay, I'll bite. Below is my COM-2D, the Papillon. Isn't this design clearly better without DHS? (It has absolutely no heat issues; HS are only to meet engine requirements. By contrast, FF saves me a little extra space for additional armor. You can't quite upgrade to an XL200 and DHS because you are short one critical slot.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0f13c78f684fa49

Of course, this stuff should still be made clearer to new players. It is kinda a trap right now. There should prolly be a place where we tell them:
USUALLY:
Endo, DHS
No Ferro
Pulse worse than normal
BUT NOT ALWAYS BECAUSE FRINGE CASES
e.g.
Lights that can affort Ferro
CN9-D CT slots

Edited by Khanahar, 22 March 2013 - 06:22 PM.

[General Taskeen]

Because PGI made them bad, and they should feel bad, about making them bad.

[Pyrometheus]

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

Take your build and remove Endo, add double heat sinks. If you fill up all the spare weight with Double heat sinks, you now have 45% cooling and 7 extra crit slots to play with. You're welcome. Double heat sinks are pretty much always better.

This does increase the cooling efficiency but, as yourself remarked, one needs to fill up the mech's maximum 100 tons with DHS to get that 45% efficiency. 7crit slots don't mean a thing if you don't have tonnage free to mount things in them.

Protection, on 22 March 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

he can leave it at 90 tons and his build is still 100% better in every way.

Please expound on how leaving weight and slots on the design room floor is "better".
PS: he'd be leaving the build at 95 tons, not 90.

Edited by Pyrometheus, 22 March 2013 - 06:29 PM.

[Helbourne]

DHS do not fit into mechs legs. You get more cooling out if you put 4 SHS in your mechs legs and stand in the water. However people seem to rather put ammo in the legs most of the time.

Spheroid, on 22 March 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

I think single heatsinks could be made more attractive by upping the heat dissipation rate for leg heatsinks in water, possibly being better than doubles on builds using engines under 250.

I am not convinced it would be a good idea to have SHS better than DHS, when mounted in the legs for mechs using engines under 250. After all balance is a HUGE part of the grips on these here forums.

Edited by Helbourne, 22 March 2013 - 06:29 PM.

[FupDup]

Khanahar, on 22 March 2013 - 06:19 PM, said:

Okay, I'll bite. Below is my COM-2D, the Papillon. Isn't this design clearly better without DHS? (It has absolutely no heat issues; HS are only to meet engine requirements. By contrast, FF saves me a little extra space for additional armor. You can't quite upgrade to an XL200 and DHS because you are short one critical slot.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0f13c78f684fa49

Of course, this stuff should still be made clearer to new players. It is kinda a trap right now. There should prolly be a place where we tell them:
USUALLY:
Endo, DHS
No Ferro
Pulse worse than normal
BUT NOT ALWAYS BECAUSE FRINGE CASES
e.g.
Lights that can affort Ferro
CN9-D CT slots

If you equip DHS, the engine-sinks will bump your efficiency up to 78% (without any externals!) and you have an extra 3 tons for whatever your heart desires. DHS are 100% superior on that build.

EDIT: Nevermind, forgot about the silly 10-heatsink requirement. I feel derpy now. :\

Edited by FupDup, 22 March 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[Thirdstar]

No wonder PGI can get away with terrible balance. The majority of the playerbase doesn't know how the game works.

[Michael Costanza]

Thirdstar, on 22 March 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

No wonder PGI can get away with terrible balance. The majority of the playerbase doesn't know how the game works.

****** that. PGI didn't invent single heat sinks, FASA did. If PGI hadn't tried to balance anything to match real time play, your machine guns would fire once a minute and one shot from a single gauss rifle would destroy the head of your mech.

On that note, in TT, there was a 1 in 36 chance of doing damage to the head and a 1 in 36 chance of getting an automatic center torso crit. An LRM 20 usually did 12 damage or so, in two groups of 5 and one group of 2. Meanwhile, SRM 6s were favored because of those 1 in 36 head hit and crit chance rolls. A Cicada with an ERPPC could take out an Atlas just by going in reverse and staying exactly 22 or 23 hexes away.

[MuKen]

Pyrometheus, on 22 March 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

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.

You lost efficiency BECAUSE you added another weapon. Take it out and boom the efficiency is higher than yours by a lot.

Are you sure you understand what the efficiency stat is? It tells you your heat dissipation as a ratio against the heat you generate by firing all your weapons. So of course if you add another weapon, the efficiency will go down.

Pyrometheus, on 22 March 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

Please expound on how leaving weight and slots on the design room floor is "better".
PS: he'd be leaving the build at 95 tons, not 90.

I just did, I linked it to you the first time. What I linked you is your build, but with more heat efficiency and a bunch of extra slots you can do whatever you want with. Look at it, the heat efficiency is 35%, which is more than yours.

Here, let me link it again

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

Your build has an effective 23 SHS giving you 33% efficiency:

13 SHS and 10 from the engine.

What I linked has an effective 24.2 SHS giving it 35% efficiency:

3DHS = 4.2 SHS, and 20 from the engine.

Plus it has a spare 10 tons and 8 critical slots. Do whatever you want with those.

You want me to do something with those slots and weight? Fine, I'll push the build even further ahead of yours

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...80268cfa0d7467e

Now its efficiency is up to 41%, it has more armor, and a better engine. All with the same weapons you had. Your build is losing out by sticking to SHS.

Edited by MuKen, 22 March 2013 - 07:27 PM.

[Thirdstar]

Michael Costanza, on 22 March 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

****** that. PGI didn't invent single heat sinks, FASA did. If PGI hadn't tried to balance anything to match real time play, your machine guns would fire once a minute and one shot from a single gauss rifle would destroy the head of your mech.

On that note, in TT, there was a 1 in 36 chance of doing damage to the head and a 1 in 36 chance of getting an automatic center torso crit. An LRM 20 usually did 12 damage or so, in two groups of 5 and one group of 2. Meanwhile, SRM 6s were favored because of those 1 in 36 head hit and crit chance rolls. A Cicada with an ERPPC could take out an Atlas just by going in reverse and staying exactly 22 or 23 hexes away.

I don't see what that has to do with what I said. SHS and DHS work in a certain way in this game. DHS is objectively better than SHS in any build (barring some extreme outliers), in THIS game. Discussions about TT are academic.

[Brilig]

I'm going to have to chime in with single heat sinks are pointless. Repair & rearm was the only thing that kind of made them useful.(They cost less.) Since R&R is gone there is no reason to have them. Double heat sinks are better in every mech aside from a few odd builds. Cannon by itself is not a good reason to have them. We obviously aren't playing a cannon simulator so it would be nice if there was an in game reason to take single heat sinks over double.

Not to highjack but FF armor also seems pointless unless you are fitting it and ES.

[Pyrometheus]

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

You lost efficiency BECAUSE you added another weapon. Take it out and boom the efficiency is higher than yours by a lot.

Are you sure you understand what the efficiency stat is? It tells you your heat dissipation as a ratio against the heat you generate by firing all your weapons. So of course if you add another weapon, the efficiency will go down.

I just did, I linked it to you the first time. What I linked you is your build, but with more heat efficiency and a bunch of extra slots you can do whatever you want with. Look at it, the heat efficiency is 35%, which is more than yours.

Here, let me link it again

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

Your build has an effective 23 SHS giving you 33% efficiency:

13 SHS and 10 from the engine.

What I linked has an effective 24.2 SHS giving it 35% efficiency:

3DHS = 4.2 SHS, and 20 from the engine.

Plus it has a spare 10 tons and 8 critical slots. Do whatever you want with those.

Yes I am aware of that.

The facet you seem to be choosing not to ignore is that, if what one chooses to do with those slots is add another weapon in the only available slot there is to do so, one loses efficiency by having DHS.

MuKen, on 22 March 2013 - 07:06 PM, said:

You want me to do something with those slots and weight? Fine, I'll push the build even further ahead of yours

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...80268cfa0d7467e

Now its efficiency is up to 41%, it has more armor, and a better engine. All with the same weapons you had. Your build is losing out by sticking to SHS.

This is interesting though. Not sure how it is I hadn't hit on going to a 325 in all the wrenching I've done on this build. This is why you sometimes want an extra pair of eyes to look at things.

Though I'm sure you will agree the "more armor" is a rather gratuitous 'benefit' as it is leg armor.

Keeping the leg armor the same though, allows the addition of an AMS and 1 ton of ammo for it. Which is nice.

Edited by Pyrometheus, 22 March 2013 - 08:06 PM.

[MuKen]

Pyrometheus, on 22 March 2013 - 07:54 PM, said:

Yes I am aware of that.

The facet you seem to be choosing not to ignore is that, if what one chooses to do with those slots is add another weapon in the only available slot there is to do so, one loses efficiency by having DHS.

So you're saying that because they might take MORE weapons, and then lose efficiency because of it, and therefore the DHS has cost them? That's a really weird way to analyze anything. The DHS has given you extra space and weight FOR FREE. You can do whatever you want with it, or you can do nothing with it. Trying to say DHS has a downside because you can chose to use the extra it gives you on weapons and thus lose cooling efficiency is a bad way to analyze balance.

And as I showed you, you can just as easily spend it getting even more heat efficiency, or more armor, or engines, or ammo or whatever. Or you can do nothing with it, and you still got some extra heat efficiency for nothing even if you don't use the extra weight and space. You are basically saying that extra weight and space was bad. If there was a button you could click and the Atlas just magically got 5 more tons of capacity and 1 extra heatsink, and all you could think to do was use that extra weight on weapons, would you say that button was bad for efficiency? No, because you can choose just not to use the extra weight if you don't want to. That's basically the situation we're looking at here.

There's no way to look at this build and conclude that SHS has helped it.

Edited by MuKen, 22 March 2013 - 08:37 PM.

[random51]

Let me get this straight. You're complaining that an upgrade is actually an upgrade over standard?

[Memowolf]

Why are there even small or medium lasers? We should just have large pulse lasers and have them weight 1 ton . Half of my builds use SHS. Part of the fun is buidling mechs just to see what the heck can be accomplished. SHS allow you to have more weapons but heat management becomes very important. Heat is an integral part of the tabletop game and while you can do superbuilds in it it becomes boring after a while to always beat your opponents. The same applies here. What fun would it be if we all used the same mech and configuration because it provides the most damage?
Half of my fun comes from firing in a middle of a fight and shutting down because of heat or worse yet, dying because of it. And if you ever care to disagre we may meet on the battlefield to share our different points of view at cannonpoint.

[MuKen]

Memowolf, on 22 March 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

SHS allow you to have more weapons but heat management becomes very important.

Post one build where SHS has enabled more weapons over DHS.

[Thirdstar]

Memowolf, on 22 March 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Half of my builds use SHS.

Then half your builds are inefficient. This is not a question of fun, it's a purely objective reality that DHS is superior in ALL cases to SHS.

Note: Except of course when it comes to price. If you don't HAVE the 1.5 mil then of course SHS is your only option.

Edited by Thirdstar, 22 March 2013 - 09:20 PM.

[Mackman]

Memowolf, on 22 March 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

Why are there even small or medium lasers? We should just have large pulse lasers and have them weight 1 ton . Half of my builds use SHS. Part of the fun is buidling mechs just to see what the heck can be accomplished. SHS allow you to have more weapons but heat management becomes very important. Heat is an integral part of the tabletop game and while you can do superbuilds in it it becomes boring after a while to always beat your opponents. The same applies here. What fun would it be if we all used the same mech and configuration because it provides the most damage?
Half of my fun comes from firing in a middle of a fight and shutting down because of heat or worse yet, dying because of it. And if you ever care to disagre we may meet on the battlefield to share our different points of view at cannonpoint.

All this is saying is "Half my fun comes from being bad at the game." And that's fine, I guess. But that's all you're saying. The point of the post was, I believe, that SHS loses out in almost any conceivable scenario to DHS's... which your post doesn't contest at all.

Your argument is "Leave SHS in so people can build bad mechs if they want." And you might be right: That could be a valid argument. Just don't pretend it's anything more than that.

Edited by Mackman, 22 March 2013 - 09:21 PM.

[Alilua]

I agree there is a large disparity between single and double and alot of things are not balanced right now, but I don't agree on your solution.