1107 replies to this topic

[Infernus1986]

I agree SHS are a huge problem on new players with stock mechs and that should be addressed, maybe hot variants get DHS while cooler variants get SHS and reduced cost.
With that said there are some builds regardless of effectiveness, that do not work at all with DHS so they cant just be removed from the game.

[Michael Costanza]

Chris Morris, on 22 March 2013 - 01:47 PM, said:

Was there a purpose for them in tabletop Battletech?

... because double heat sinks were only available in Star League Caches from 3025 (the original year of the game) to 3050. In those days, people did not even know how mech factories worked, but because the factories were mostly automated, more mechs were created. Most mechs were inherited father to son and if you lost your mech, you joined the ranks of the "Dispossessed" and spent the rest of your life in the infantry.

[Michael Costanza]

Michael Costanza, on 22 March 2013 - 02:11 PM, said:

... because double heat sinks were only available in Star League Caches from 3025 (the original year of the game) to 3050. In those days, people did not even know how mech factories worked, but because the factories were mostly automated, more mechs were created. Most mechs were inherited father to son and if you lost your mech, you joined the ranks of the "Dispossessed" and spent the rest of your life in the infantry.

I can't believe I'm the only person so far who mentioned the canon reason.... that's what happens when people play a game instead of reading the books/technical readouts/manuals that make up the backstory to the game.

[jay35]

I'd rather they make single heatsinks worthwhile than remove them. After all, you can't fit DHS in legs but you can fit two single heatsinks in each leg. And that could be significant cooling advantage on a map with areas covered in water, IF single heatsinks had any chance in heck of actually cooling a mech well.

In fact, it would be really cool if you could mix single and double heatsinks once you've purchased DHS, so you could still mount singles in the legs if you wanted to.

[Rakkar]

Michael Costanza, on 22 March 2013 - 02:14 PM, said:

I can't believe I'm the only person so far who mentioned the canon reason.... that's what happens when people play a game instead of reading the books/technical readouts/manuals that make up the backstory to the game.

This, being a F2P game, isn't going to necessarily prompt most people to run out and spend $20+ for technical readout books.

It may be awesome for people that are into TT (like myself), but it's not for the "target audience".

[Michael Costanza]

Besides, in table top, DHS work twice as well as SHS. However, in MWO, DHS only work at 1.4 * a SHS outside the engine. So, you can save a crit and get more heat efficiency if you have the extra ton to spare.

Rakkar, on 22 March 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

This, being a F2P game, isn't going to necessarily prompt most people to run out and spend $20+ for technical readout books.

It may be awesome for people that are into TT (like myself), but it's not for the "target audience".

But isn't that also part of the idea of the Inner Sphere News Feeds? To provide extra flavor etc.

Besides, these days, there's a Battletech wiki that has pretty much all the material from all the manuals. People browse the net for hints and builds, I'm sure they could find it

Edited by Michael Costanza, 22 March 2013 - 02:21 PM.

[WildeKarde]

They are only pointless because a mech with 10 SHS is the equivalent to the same mech with 10 DHS for matchmaking. Although they are still both rated the same as the mech with 30 SHS or 30 DHS (not possible I know but makes a point).

Without the matchmaker taking into account customisation when comparing sides then SHS are something to leave behind as soon as you can.

[Rakkar]

Michael Costanza, on 22 March 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Besides, in table top, DHS work twice as well as SHS. However, in MWO, DHS only work at 1.4 * a SHS outside the engine. So, you can save a crit and get more heat efficiency if you have the extra ton to spare.



But isn't that also part of the idea of the Inner Sphere News Feeds? To provide extra flavor etc.

Agreed, but (to my knowledge), there's not a real area to get free information on backstory/history on the MWO website (in detail). Sarna is good, but doesn't carry over entirely as MWO is apocryphal to the original source material.

Edited by Rakkar, 22 March 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[SteelJaws]

Trial mechs would be balanced and fine if the weapons were on the TT values that they are pulled from.

Since they are not, they tend to have heat problems

As to why SHS are still in, and not just DHS? Money sink ma' boy.

[Michael Costanza]

Rakkar, on 22 March 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

Agreed, but (to my knowledge), there's not a real area to get free information on backstory/history on the MWO website (in detail). Sarna is good, but doesn't carry over entirely as MWO is apocryphal to the original source material.

I ended up editing my post. The Battletech Wikis can help give some backstory, but yes, the specs of things like DHS, weapon damage and recycle time don't carry over. Half the MWO community probably thinks all mechs are Omnimechs with how customizable they are.

[Fenix0742]

jay35, on 22 March 2013 - 02:18 PM, said:

I'd rather they make single heatsinks worthwhile than remove them. After all, you can't fit DHS in legs but you can fit two single heatsinks in each leg. And that could be significant cooling advantage on a map with areas covered in water, IF single heatsinks had any chance in heck of actually cooling a mech well.

In fact, it would be really cool if you could mix single and double heatsinks once you've purchased DHS, so you could still mount singles in the legs if you wanted to.

Nope, at best, you'd get double power from 4 heatsinks giving you 8 + 10 from the engine for 4 tons. DHS gives you 20 for 0 tons at all times, not just in the water. The math just isn't there to support it.

[Damocles]

Dont DHS have an easier chance to be destroyed due to taking up more crit space?

[INSEkT L0GIC]

Michael Costanza, on 22 March 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Besides, in table top, DHS work twice as well as SHS. However, in MWO, DHS only work at 1.4 * a SHS outside the engine. So, you can save a crit and get more heat efficiency if you have the extra ton

That may be true for a new variants / pilots, but it is 1.4 for DHS outside the engine because you get around 2.1 or higher per heatsink overall with all the cooling efficiencies unlocked.

Mechs are closer to TT values in heat and speed when all efficiencies are unlocked.

I'd be surprised if SHS were still 1.0 rather than 0.8~0.85 to bring them in line.

[Pyrometheus]

Protection, on 22 March 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

Please, do share one of these builds...

While I am not the person this reply was posted to, I'll post one of my builds still using SHS, because doing so is actually more efficient that DHS.

Atlas-D-DC 33% cooling efficiency.

Clearly built as an LRM and long range boat. The best I've been able to achieve with DHS is 30% cooling efficiency.

That build adds DHS and places an AC/2 and 1 ton of ammo in the RT Torso. I could achieve 39% cooling efficiency with that build by leaving off the AC/2 entirely, but then I would have 8 tons of wasted space, and leaving weight on the table is horribly inefficient in itself.

[MuKen]

Pyrometheus, on 22 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

While I am not the person this reply was posted to, I'll post one of my builds still using SHS, because doing so is actually more efficient that DHS.

Atlas-D-DC 33% cooling efficiency.

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.

Edited by MuKen, 22 March 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[Chemie]

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

They're not required. They're an efficient upgrade (IF you have the critical location space). You can operate mechs w/o DHS.

As someone said above, learn to manage heat efficiently.

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.

[Diatribe]

Pyrometheus, on 22 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

While I am not the person this reply was posted to, I'll post one of my builds still using SHS, because doing so is actually more efficient that DHS.

Atlas-D-DC 33% cooling efficiency.

Clearly built as an LRM and long range boat. The best I've been able to achieve with DHS is 30% cooling efficiency.

That build adds DHS and places an AC/2 and 1 ton of ammo in the RT Torso. I could achieve 39% cooling efficiency with that build by leaving off the AC/2 entirely, but then I would have 8 tons of wasted space, and leaving weight on the table is horribly inefficient in itself.

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.

[Ph30nix]

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.

[Rakkar]

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.

Because this

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.

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.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

They may as well removes singles. Singles are useless and you should never drop without them. Even on a new ride, I won't use it until after it gets upgraded to doubles. There is simply no benefit to not having doubles. Singles are a handicap and you should drop them before you even use the Mech.

Naturally, Trials get the short stick since they all run singles.