1107 replies to this topic

[Protection]

Mercules, on 26 March 2013 - 10:43 AM, said:

It's still 1.5 million C-bills you can choose not to spend on the off chance you are dumb enough to stand in a Caldera firing when you know there is some possibility you might overheat.

Cost is a terrible mechanic for game balancing.

Ryvucz, on 26 March 2013 - 10:44 AM, said:

I'm sorry, I must lack the sheer stupidity to overheat myself with one medium laser at 1.93 heat efficiency out of 2 MAX.

I am sorry if I have offended you or proven you wrong in any way.

I agree, single heatsinks should be removed because double heatsinks are superior, and NO ONE needs a single heat sink, on anything.

Regardless.

Enjoy your day good sir, for you have earned it.

Again, it is irrelevant whether or not "I manage my heat well," or "This build is almost as good with SHS."

The DHS version is still totally superior.

[Kdogg788]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Here's the thing - if you want to segregate SHS users in trial mechs from all the upgraded DHS users with seperate queues, that idea is workable, but now we have 3 separate queues - one for newbies, one for pugs with less terrible builds, and one for organized 8 mans.

This is actually what we need and a lot of new players would congratulate PGI personally for making it happen. Half of the argument hear would disappear. Even if the equipment were absolutely equal, they would still get lit up by more experienced organized groups, focused fire, ECM, etc.

-k

[Mercules]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Cost is a terrible mechanic for game balancing.

People keep saying this, but I have found the opposite to be true.

[Protection]

Kdogg788, on 26 March 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

This is actually what we need and a lot of new players would congratulate PGI personally for making it happen. Half of the argument hear would disappear. Even if the equipment were absolutely equal, they would still get lit up by more experienced organized groups, focused fire, ECM, etc.

-k

I could live with that compromise.

[Jakob Knight]

I don't understand why this is even being suggested. DHS work better for some builds, but not others. Singles work better for some and not others. If a mech has few tons to spare, then DHS are more efficient. If the mech has tonnage to spare, then SHS are better.

To illustrate, consider an Awesome. With weapons slots filled, good armor, average engine, the mech has, say, 20 tons free and about 20 free slots. With single heat sinks, that translates to +20 heat dissipation if all slots are filled with SHS. However, if you take the same and use doubles, you only end up with 6 extra heat sinks (20/3 crits each = 6 maximum) for a total of +8.4 heat dissipation (1.4 dissipation x 6 heat sinks). Thus, using double heat sinks is actually a -downgrade- in this situation.

In another situation, a Dragon with a similar setup has 3 tons free and 10 crits after all is done. Using single heat sinks, the mech could gain +3 heat dissipation using 3 SHS. However, that same mech using doubles receives +4.2 dissipation with 3 DHS, making it beneficial to use the doubles instead.

Assuming SHS have no place in the game is, thus, faulty. They have a place the same way endosteel has a place...if the situation makes them beneficial. Removing them is not just pointless but an actual detriment to the game.

[Protection]

Mercules, on 26 March 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

People keep saying this, but I have found the opposite to be true.

Because cost only determines who has played more. I have 50 million C-Bills, I can buy pretty much anything I need on a whim. Should I be allowed to buy more powerful PPCs and and higher velocity Gauss Rifles as well?

This is a PVP game. Why should another player have to put in additional time and grind in order to have the same level of power that I have -- this isn't Warcraft. It's a multiplayer PVP game - the goal is fair competition. It's not fair when I'm dissipating my heat twice as fast as an opponent in an otherwise identical build.

Jakob Knight, on 26 March 2013 - 10:51 AM, said:

I don't understand why this is even being suggested. DHS work better for some builds, but not others. Singles work better for some and not others. If a mech has few tons to spare, then DHS are more efficient. If the mech has tonnage to spare, then SHS are better.

To illustrate, consider an Awesome. With weapons slots filled, good armor, average engine, the mech has, say, 20 tons free and about 20 free slots. With single heat sinks, that translates to +20 heat dissipation if all slots are filled with SHS. However, if you take the same and use doubles, you only end up with 6 extra heat sinks (20/3 crits each = 6 maximum) for a total of +8.4 heat dissipation (1.4 dissipation x 6 heat sinks). Thus, using double heat sinks is actually a -downgrade- in this situation.

In another situation, a Dragon with a similar setup has 3 tons free and 10 crits after all is done. Using single heat sinks, the mech could gain +3 heat dissipation using 3 SHS. However, that same mech using doubles receives +4.2 dissipation with 3 DHS, making it beneficial to use the doubles instead.

Assuming SHS have no place in the game is, thus, faulty. They have a place the same way endosteel has a place...if the situation makes them beneficial. Removing them is not just pointless but an actual detriment to the game.

The Awesome you speak of does not exist and is impossible. Please share: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab

[AndyHill]

Phatel, on 26 March 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Gauss Cat. You're welcome

Here is one example with single heat sinks: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...36a5721d36201d2

Click the magic DHS button and observe improvement.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 26 March 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

and used singles because he could fit around 45 total SHS into the mech, a degree of cooling it is literally impossible to match with doubles due to space.

What size Engine is that Bishop? I have a 9M and am not happy with the 40 sinks still overheating with a mere 30 heat! I hate how the 10 second turn rule was interpreted by the DEVs. Full sink capacity should work in around 4-5 seconds to get that fire vent fire feel. Instead of teh hack Old Solaris heat rules.

[Protection]

Gillopi, on 26 March 2013 - 10:52 AM, said:

I can't count the number of match's i was use in a trail and got two or more kills and was in the top 4 for damage.

Irrelevant (and nothing more than an anecdote).

That doesn't change that trial mechs are less optimized and inferior to custom mechs. If you did well in a trial mech, you would have done even better in that same mech with DHS. This discussion is about the optimization of the build, not whether or not you think you are good.

[Ryvucz]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 10:46 AM, said:

Again, it is irrelevant whether or not "I manage my heat well," or "This build is almost as good with SHS."

The DHS version is still totally superior.

[Protection]

And, again - if you want an idea that would make Single Heatsinks more relevant - an idea I would find greatly preferable to removing them, here is this old idea from 4 months ago about what to do:

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

This would make the SHS and DHS decision into a meaningful choice, rather than a strict upgrade, and be relevant to players of all skill and C-Bill levels.

[Joseph Mallan]

AndyHill, on 26 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Here is one example with single heat sinks: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...36a5721d36201d2

Click the magic DHS button and observe improvement.

An improvement that is not necessary to make a Gauss Cat deadly. And you should put the Lasers in the arms. Also Cycling Gauss then Lasers you should stay active just fine with singles.

[Jakob Knight]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

.



The Awesome you speak of does not exist and is impossible. Please share: http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab

I used it as an example, but I can give you an actual situation if you wish. My AWS-8R has a total of 27 Single Heat Sinks, translating to 27 heat dissipation. From my own configuration attempts, I know the most doubles I can fit on that same configuration would be about 18 doubles (being generous). While that is more efficient in terms of tonnage, the heat dissipation would end up being 25.2, a -reduction- of 1.8 heat dissipation. As I have no weapon slots remaining to fill, this setup means I find single heat sinks to be -better- than doubles in this situation. On my Catapult, by comparison, I need tonnage more, and thus the doubles are more efficient.

The above are hard facts, since you seem to want to nitpick instead of understanding the point I was making. Now, that is solved, and the result is the same. I hope this was not the waste of time you seem to have made it.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 26 March 2013 - 11:03 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Ryvucz, on 26 March 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

Good use of a proper scout Mech!

[Protection]

Joseph Mallan, on 26 March 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

An improvement that is not necessary to make a Gauss Cat deadly. And you should put the Lasers in the arms. Also Cycling Gauss then Lasers you should stay active just fine with singles.

Joseph, come on, you can still understand this.

It doesn't matter if you can manage the heat.

It doesn't matter if it's pretty close with SHS.

The DHS is build strictly superior.

Jakob Knight, on 26 March 2013 - 11:02 AM, said:

I used it as an example, but I can give you an actual situation if you wish. My AWS-8R has a total of 27 Single Heat Sinks, translating to 27 heat dissipation. From my own configuration attempts, I know the most doubles I can fit on that same configuration would be about 18 doubles (being generous). While that is more efficient in terms of tonnage, the heat dissipation would end up being 25.2, a -reduction- of 1.8 heat dissipation. As I have no weapon slots remaining to fill, this setup means I find single heat sinks to be -better- than doubles in this situation. On my Catapult, by comparison, I need tonnage more, and thus the doubles are more efficient.

The above are hard facts, since you seem to want to nitpick instead of understanding the point I was making. Now, that is solved, and the result is the same. I hope this was not the waste of time you seem to have made it.

Share the build with smurfy please. We will fix it for you.

[Mercules]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Because cost only determines who has played more. I have 50 million C-Bills, I can buy pretty much anything I need on a whim. Should I be allowed to buy more powerful PPCs and and higher velocity Gauss Rifles as well?

This is a PVP game. Why should another player have to put in additional time and grind in order to have the same level of power that I have -- this isn't Warcraft. It's a multiplayer PVP game - the goal is fair competition. It's not fair when I'm dissipating my heat twice as fast as an opponent in an otherwise identical build.

There is really no "cost" in this game. You buy a weapon once and then use it forever. There is no upkeep, you don't have to pay for transport, you don't have to pay for ammo, you do not pay for anything in this game. Basically C-Bills are not money, they are XP that unlocks new weapons/mechs/upgrades. If there was a functioning economy(which is not easy to create in an MMO) then balance can actually be achieved with cost.

Repair and Reload did a poor job of it, but it DID create some balance. People didn't want to run the most expensive mech with tons and tons of the most expensive ammo, and expensive upgrades they would have to repair all the time. That is why most of them exploited the 75% R&R "feature". They dropped in non-optimized mechs out of greed, even more so than someone who drops in a GaussCat with SHS. It was a crappy economy but did have a balancing effect. Mediums were actually being used a good deal because they were cheap to run and easy to make money in if they simply didn't have an XL.

Furthermore, if we expand on your idea having any gear people can't use simply by logging in goes against the PVP philosophy. It's not fair when they have 1-3 tons less on their mech because you have EndoSteel. It's not fair when they are stuck using a standard engine in their Commando because they can't afford the XL and the boost to speed it would offer them. It's not fair... anything you pay money for.

So why does this game have it? F2P. There MUST be a grind of some sort. The XP grind isn't enough as MMO players are into the idea of "Fat Loot" only instead of randomly dropping it and grinding that way, we purchase it. That is why we upgrade from SHS to DHS that whole "loot" mentality.

[Radko]

Mercules, on 26 March 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

People keep saying this, but I have found the opposite to be true.

Cost merely adds more barriers between new players and fun, competetive builds.

[Bishop Steiner]

Andy.

My gcat runs 2 gauss. Period. I cannot overheat in the caldera on caustic, period. With SHS. I also cannot with DHS. Either way i cannot overheat, in any but possibly the most extreme of conditions (i have that a 9 flamer Awesome try to toast me on Tourmaline yet, so there may, theoretically price an exception). So in what realistic way does DHS and their extra cost actually benefit me? Is the .0005% chance i might get jumped by a lance of Flaming Awesomes on Tourmaline actually worth the 1.5 million investment?

the answer is that paper advantage does not always equate to advantage in practice. Also people confuse the terms viable and optimal. Viable simply means that it is capable of getting the job done. Optimal is actually in reference to extreme specialization, as what is an optimal build for one map is not for another. A brawler is optimal on a map that forces close combat. The most "optimal" Atlas brawler is useless most of the time on Alpine. If the plan is to run a base cap on Alpine, a lance of Spiders and a lance of scrappers to distract the enemy force is better than 2 lances of "optimal" hex PPC Stalkers. Extreme examples? Of course, as extremes always lay an illustration out for best clarity. Optimization IS specialization. Not what lays out the highest alpha in Smurfy.

SHS are seldom "optimal" save for a small handful of builds. They are, on the other hand VIABLE in many others, and as such, continue to have a place in the game, no matter how much some might hate them. Too many examples of perfectly viable builds have been posted here for any other conclusion, regardless of if some "experts" among us think they are crap or not.

[Protection]

Mercules, on 26 March 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

There is really no "cost" in this game. You buy a weapon once and then use it forever. There is no upkeep, you don't have to pay for transport, you don't have to pay for ammo, you do not pay for anything in this game. Basically C-Bills are not money, they are XP that unlocks new weapons/mechs/upgrades. If there was a functioning economy(which is not easy to create in an MMO) then balance can actually be achieved with cost.

Repair and Reload did a poor job of it, but it DID create some balance. People didn't want to run the most expensive mech with tons and tons of the most expensive ammo, and expensive upgrades they would have to repair all the time. That is why most of them exploited the 75% R&R "feature". They dropped in non-optimized mechs out of greed, even more so than someone who drops in a GaussCat with SHS. It was a crappy economy but did have a balancing effect. Mediums were actually being used a good deal because they were cheap to run and easy to make money in if they simply didn't have an XL.

Furthermore, if we expand on your idea having any gear people can't use simply by logging in goes against the PVP philosophy. It's not fair when they have 1-3 tons less on their mech because you have EndoSteel. It's not fair when they are stuck using a standard engine in their Commando because they can't afford the XL and the boost to speed it would offer them. It's not fair... anything you pay money for.

So why does this game have it? F2P. There MUST be a grind of some sort. The XP grind isn't enough as MMO players are into the idea of "Fat Loot" only instead of randomly dropping it and grinding that way, we purchase it. That is why we upgrade from SHS to DHS that whole "loot" mentality.

RnR was terrible at the highest levels when it was still in place -- because high level teams almost never lost, they were free to run what they wanted. So we were using optimized AC/20 Cats, Gausscats, Warboss Atlai, and 300XL Jenners when we faced opponents using inferior equipment and running with 75% of their ammunition. So almost every game was a slaughter, for us, so we kept raking in more money, even with RnR, and we kept having to face less-well-equipped opponents.

It wasn't enjoyable. Once in a while we got to face a real team, like Steel Jaguar or Wolfs Spiders or something, but 90% of our games were PUG slaughters. Most of us had auto-repair on the whole time, paid no attention to the mechanic at all, and just kept bringing home the C-Bills.

[Joseph Mallan]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

Joseph, come on, you can still understand this.

It doesn't matter if you can manage the heat.

It doesn't matter if it's pretty close with SHS.

The DHS is build strictly superior.

Share the build with smurfy please. We will fix it for you.

There is no fixing. I can manage and kill folks with a Gauss cat with singles. I can do it well. This does not NEED doubles. I highly doubt you could fix a build I make. I have been doing the numbers game with Mechs for 30 years now. I even got a build published in a TRO from a competition held on BattleCorps. You guys do good work, But there are times that good enough works perfectly.