1107 replies to this topic

[Dukarriope]

My thirty tons of standard heatsinks say no.

[Captain Stiffy]

Mercules, on 22 March 2013 - 01:46 PM, said:

Hmmmmmm... or we could just go back to stock mechs and everyone would learn how to manage heat.

There are still builds making use of Single heatsinks.



No, they don't come this way because they are "STOCK" and that variant doesn't have it. Notice some stock mechs do have double heat sinks, endo steel, artemis, and other upgrades.

Some "stock" models do

[Corvus Antaka]

Totally 100% on.

This game is massively newb unfriendly unless you drop some cash and have premium time. I just spent 20m on 3 jaggermechs, and choked up 3 m cbills jsut to make sure they all had DHS, money ive lost forever but worth the hassle since SHS suck that badly.

im sure its a great money sink.

But new people...the intimidation factor, the suck factor...how does this hurt retention and learning curve?

[S3dition]

Easy - ballistics builds. Anyone who runs ballistics knows that you're eating up a lot of critical space for ammo. Heat isn't a big issue with AC/5's or AC/10's, but space is. Keeping single heat sinks can be much more efficient.

[Protection]

S3dition, on 22 March 2013 - 11:44 PM, said:

Easy - ballistics builds. Anyone who runs ballistics knows that you're eating up a lot of critical space for ammo. Heat isn't a big issue with AC/5's or AC/10's, but space is. Keeping single heat sinks can be much more efficient.

No they cant. Post a build, please.

[ArmandTulsen]

lolviabilitylol

[Terror Teddy]

Oh, so single heatsinks are useless. Well, why stop there.

Lets' remove everything else SOME people think are useless like:
-Small Lasers
-Machine Guns
-SRM2's
Etc...

Or you know, make things viable for everyone instead.

Besides, SOME builds are preferred to use with DHS but it's far from neccessary,

[Protection]

Terror Teddy, on 22 March 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

Oh, so single heatsinks are useless. Well, why stop there.

Lets' remove everything else SOME people think are useless like:
-Small Lasers
-Machine Guns
-SRM2's
Etc...

Or you know, make things viable for everyone instead.

Besides, SOME builds are preferred to use with DHS but it's far from neccessary,

Read my alternate suggestion: http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/

I would love to change them to make them viable. There seems to be no interest in doing anything to change SHS. If we aren't going to change them we might as well throw them out.

[Terror Teddy]

Protection, on 23 March 2013 - 12:02 AM, said:

Read my alternate suggestion: http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/

I like the idea about making DHS better at dissipation but less total heat capacity.

It's like the choice between a bigger heatsink on the computer and less effective fans or having a small heatsink but some really good airflow by having a lot of good fans.

This would set them apart and make them tactically different.

[S3dition]

Protection, on 22 March 2013 - 11:47 PM, said:

No they cant. Post a build, please.

I don't need to. Being that I've actually used the mechlab, I'm well aware of the tonnage/weight/heat triangle. Also, just because it's in the game, doesn't mean that YOU have to use it. I've done just fine with SHS builds. I'll let you figure out how to do it. It's not rocket science.

[Thirdstar]

S3dition, on 23 March 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

I don't need to. Being that I've actually used the mechlab, I'm well aware of the tonnage/weight/heat triangle. Also, just because it's in the game, doesn't mean that YOU have to use it. I've done just fine with SHS builds. I'll let you figure out how to do it. It's not rocket science.

Any SHS builds you may be using are inefficient. Again, this is not up for debate, DHS is just flat out better.

If you have any personal honesty, you'll take your current build in Smurfy's, switch it to DHS and see for yourself.

Or you can stonewall like you have here and declare that you're right, without any proof.

[MuKen]

S3dition, on 23 March 2013 - 12:22 AM, said:

I don't need to.

If you're going to say that SHS are good for ballistics, then yes you do need to. That's how these discussions work, you post examples for discussion. If you want me to first post a build that is better for using DHS, I will gladly do so, and in fact have done so multiple times in this thread already. Now where's yours?

If you're not willing to back up what you say, there's no point in saying it.

Quote

Being that I've actually used the mechlab, I'm well aware of the tonnage/weight/heat triangle.

There are exactly two situations where SHS don't suddenly become better when you change to DHS:

you have a craptastic engine (in which case your ballistic build probably sucks)
you have more than 18 of them outside the engine (which I'm sure your ballistics build doesn't)

I'm quite sure you don't know, and haven't bothered to read the multiple places in this thread where people have said, that adding DHS essentially gives you 10 free SHS right off the bat by boosting your engine.

Edited by MuKen, 23 March 2013 - 12:49 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

SHS do work on ballistic mechs but mostly on the larger mechs.

Just installing the DHS in the ENGINE is enough to boost a medium mech in a new efficiency territory. Single heatsinks gets better on energy mechs in the 80-100 tonne range since they have spare tonnage and criticals unless they go Endo-Steel and Ferro armour.

A light-medium mech with Endo+DHS can always more their ENDO space into legs while filling up the rest with DHS.

[MuKen]

Terror Teddy, on 23 March 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

SHS do work on ballistic mechs but mostly on the larger mechs.

Again, post one.

I reiterate again, that for most engines you will use, simply choosing DHS gives you 10 extra SHS worth of dissipation FOR FREE, even if you don't actually use any heatsinks at all.

If you have 10 or less SHS on your build, you should just get rid of them all, choose DHS, and boom better heat efficiency and you just freed up all that weight and crit space to do whatever you want with.

Edited by MuKen, 23 March 2013 - 12:58 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Protection, on 22 March 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

After watching another poor PUG die in the heat-death-traps (often called Trial mechs) while playing today, it occurred to me -- why are single heatsinks even in the game at all?


There is no reason for them to even exist. Double heatsinks are an absolute upgrade. They are basically a mandatory part of any functional design in the game.

The only mechs that benefit, at all, from the existence of single heatsinks are Urbanmech-esque joke light mechs that use up all their critical slots and try to run a 150XL Engine, or Atlas/Stalker builds that decide to run 40+ heatsinks, wasting twenty plus tons that would otherwise be spent on weapons in a good build. We can live without these joke builds.

And this is what kills stock mechs - more than anything else. The weapon loadouts are often terrible, and they are poorly optimized, but it's the lack of effective heat dissipation that makes most trial mechs so utterly terrible.

So why not simply remove single heatsinks from the game? If double heatsinks are going to be an absolute upgrade, then why not simply spare players the frustration and make it so that double heatsinks are the only type of heatsink (which would solve the whole "not really double" thing as well).

All stock mechs now come with double heatsinks instead of single heatsinks - making them much more viable for PUGs to learn the game in, and standardizes an extraneous game element that has no place or purpose any longer (except to mimic tabletop designs).

So let's just make Double Heatsinks the only type of heatsink, and throw away Single Heatsinks forever.




(Alternatively, I did. long ago, make a suggestion about how to make single heatsinks a viable option and the decision between singles and doubles interesting, but it went largely ignored:
http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/ )

They would have been better off setting this game in 3025 or 3055. In 3025, there would be none of the Level 2 Tech like Double Heat Sinks, and balancing things would be easier. In 3055, DHS would probably be the norm and we wouldn't need to bother with SHS.

[Thirdstar]

MustrumRidcully, on 23 March 2013 - 02:36 AM, said:

They would have been better off setting this game in 3025 or 3055. In 3025, there would be none of the Level 2 Tech like Double Heat Sinks, and balancing things would be easier. In 3055, DHS would probably be the norm and we wouldn't need to bother with SHS.

Could have avoided so many issues if they'd just, initially at least, started with this timeline/setting.

[Chemie]

DHS actually hurts variety. It is a must to have but with 3 critc slots, hard to add more. This means every mech has been 20 and 23 DHS in every build (including engine not as reported on summary). Before with SHS, much more combinations or options. DHS lowers the variety and this is bad.

Edited by Chemie, 23 March 2013 - 04:42 AM.

[Antonio]

DHS always improves the mech. I wish there were pros and cons to SHS and DHS to increase build variety.

[Khanahar]

A lot of absolutists in here. Anyone actually addressed my build other than the guy who issued a retraction? Kinda curious if there's a better way to build my 'mech, if all SHS builds are indeed "less efficient"

[Terror Teddy]

MuKen, on 23 March 2013 - 12:52 AM, said:

Again, post one.

I reiterate again, that for most engines you will use, simply choosing DHS gives you 10 extra SHS worth of dissipation FOR FREE, even if you don't actually use any heatsinks at all.

Calm down. I've never said anything against that and the base 10 heatsinks in the engine are always good to upgrade.

BUT - on larger mechs with few energy weapons that takes up few tonnage and space it's usually better to cram in many single heatsinks the way it's done now.