1107 replies to this topic

[ferranis]

You cant beat the 20 engine heatsinks, thats all there is to say.

Never seen a good build with shs.

[ShadowFighter88]

I've got a Cataphract 3D I was using for a while (not using it much since the host state rewind was added for lasers so I've been using a Hunchback 4P instead) but I checked on Smurfy.net and it's actually more heat-efficient with single heat sinks - just don't have the space for enough doubles to even match the efficiency of the metric bleepton of singles I've got in there already. Endo-Steel and an XL engine take up a lot of space, after all.

The loadout for those curious - not the best, I know, but it's served me well: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f5c2105f21d4bfa

EDIT: Actually, double-checking it seems I can fit enough double heat sinks to match the singles, but that's it - no room for any more so I'll save my C-Bills and leave it on singles.

EDIT 2: I should really check all this stuff before opening my big mouth - putting it on Doubles frees up the tonnage for full armour and a much larger engine. Leaves me with another ton free, too. No idea what to use it for, though.

Edited by ShadowFighter88, 23 March 2013 - 03:44 PM.

[Valder]

The problem is we have developers still running around thinking SHS are useful... Here's a quote from the recent Command Chair Post on Consumables by Paul Inoyue:

Quote

My personal CPLT-K2 has 19 single heat sinks on it.

At first glance, it looks like he doesn't realize if he spent a little bit of CBills he'd be more heat efficient AND free up 9 tons. You could argue that if 4 of the heatsinks are in his legs and he stands in water, it makes it a little more efficient than a 250+ rated engine with DHS... but he's spending NINE tons for that. If the developers of the game can't even put decent builds on their own mechs, what makes you think they'll make it easier for new players?

[Protection]

ShadowFighter88, on 23 March 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

I've got a Cataphract 3D I was using for a while (not using it much since the host state rewind was added for lasers so I've been using a Hunchback 4P instead) but I checked on Smurfy.net and it's actually more heat-efficient with single heat sinks - just don't have the space for enough doubles to even match the efficiency of the metric bleepton of singles I've got in there already. Endo-Steel and an XL engine take up a lot of space, after all.

The loadout for those curious - not the best, I know, but it's served me well: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f5c2105f21d4bfa

EDIT: Actually, double-checking it seems I can fit enough double heat sinks to match the singles, but that's it - no room for any more so I'll save my C-Bills and leave it on singles.

EDIT 2: I should really check all this stuff before opening my big mouth - putting it on Doubles frees up the tonnage for full armour and a much larger engine. Leaves me with another ton free, too. No idea what to use it for, though.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...62143e2b72c2c81

100% better in every way.

I even saved so much tonnage I was able to give you a STD engine to survive longer.

[FupDup]

Alternative option: change the way DHS and SHS work.

1. Make DHS actually 2.0 in efficiency when outside of the engine, but make them no longer increase your heat capacity (or only increase it by 1, same as current SHS).
2. Make SHS increase your heat capacity by 2-3 (and still provide only 1.0 dissipation).


SHAZAM! Now there's a tactical decision when it comes to picking your heat sink types. You can pick DHS for really fast dissipation (spamming a small number of weapons constantly), or you can go SHS for a really high heat cap (good for alpha-striking).

Edited by FupDup, 23 March 2013 - 05:00 PM.

[Kaspirikay]

I support removal of shs. None of my mechs uses them and I can't think of a build that would benefit from shs.

[Protection]

FupDup, on 23 March 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Alternative option: change the way DHS and SHS work.

1. Make DHS actually 2.0 in efficiency when outside of the engine, but make them no longer increase your heat capacity (or only increase it by 1, same as current SHS).
2. Make SHS increase your heat capacity by 2-3 (and still provide only 1.0 dissipation).


SHAZAM! Now there's a tactical decision when it comes to picking your heat sink types. You can pick DHS for really fast dissipation (spamming a small number of weapons constantly), or you can go SHS for a really high heat cap (good for alpha-striking).

I'm like this idea. You might want to check the link at the bottom of my original post ;P

[FupDup]

Protection, on 23 March 2013 - 05:13 PM, said:

I'm like this idea. You might want to check the link at the bottom of my original post ;P

Ah, I forgot all about that thread until just now. That is where I'd gotten the idea from (I even have some likes I gave a few posts left over from months ago in that thread).

Edited by FupDup, 23 March 2013 - 05:28 PM.

[Stuii OCAU]

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

Please, do share one of these builds...

Both of my atlas builds.
in the heavy mechs for a fair few builds you need the slots for weapons and are less bothered by tonnage

[p00k]

Stuii OCAU, on 23 March 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Both of my atlas builds.
in the heavy mechs for a fair few builds you need the slots for weapons and are less bothered by tonnage

by all means show us your atlas builds
and chances are, short of a couple odd gimmick builds, we can make your mech either faster, cooler, or more survivable with DHS

[Khanahar]

Thirdstar, on 23 March 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

Drop a ton of SSRM ammo, remove FF, add DHS.

Double your previous DPS. Less longevity. You're in a metal babby, you're not going to live all that long anyway.

Discussing this build:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0f13c78f684fa49

Don't be silly... 3SSRM and 1ML/TAG causes you to NEVER overheat. Increased heat dissipation does not actually affect my DPS. But with a ton less ammo you will OFTEN run out (I know... I used to run the precise build you describe). The fact is that this is one of those fringe cases where DHS are inferior. Admittedly, it relies on the fact that the build generates nearly no heat at all, but is sometimes the case. Don't know why people are so zealous about this.

[KingCobra]

I think the heat sink system is OK except you should be able to mix single or double heat sinks to fill slots as desired.

[Thirdstar]

Khanahar, on 23 March 2013 - 08:47 PM, said:

Admittedly, it relies on the fact that the build generates nearly no heat at all, but is sometimes the case.

That's the point though. If you have to pull out extreme outlier examples like your build and Terror Teddy's, then your argument isn't very sound.

Is SHS viable on extreme cases where heat isn't an issue anyway? Of course. However, on any build that generates even a medium amount of heat DHS is superior in every way.

I think some of confusion, such as those Atlas pilots in the thread, stems from a lack of understanding how engine heatsinks work. For which I don't blame them, because lets face it, this game has no documentation or explanation of anything at all.

p00k, on 23 March 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

by all means show us your atlas builds
and chances are, short of a couple odd gimmick builds, we can make your mech either faster, cooler, or more survivable with DHS

What he said. Again, this isn't an attack. We CAN probably improve on your build.

[MustrumRidcully]

ShadowFighter88, on 23 March 2013 - 03:29 PM, said:

I've got a Cataphract 3D I was using for a while (not using it much since the host state rewind was added for lasers so I've been using a Hunchback 4P instead) but I checked on Smurfy.net and it's actually more heat-efficient with single heat sinks - just don't have the space for enough doubles to even match the efficiency of the metric bleepton of singles I've got in there already. Endo-Steel and an XL engine take up a lot of space, after all.

The loadout for those curious - not the best, I know, but it's served me well: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...f5c2105f21d4bfa

EDIT: Actually, double-checking it seems I can fit enough double heat sinks to match the singles, but that's it - no room for any more so I'll save my C-Bills and leave it on singles.

EDIT 2: I should really check all this stuff before opening my big mouth - putting it on Doubles frees up the tonnage for full armour and a much larger engine. Leaves me with another ton free, too. No idea what to use it for, though.

Consider ditching the CASE and put two tons of AC/2 ammo in the legs. A slightly bit riskier than relying on CASE, but it now requires your leg to be shot off first, basically, and the ammo explosion will transfer to the side torso first - it's unlikel ysomething will still be left to hit the CT afterwards, unless you get legged before shooting much with the AC/2.

You could also sacrifice one DHS to equip an AMS and ammo. It should not hurt all that much...

Valder, on 23 March 2013 - 04:01 PM, said:

The problem is we have developers still running around thinking SHS are useful... Here's a quote from the recent Command Chair Post on Consumables by Paul Inoyue:



At first glance, it looks like he doesn't realize if he spent a little bit of CBills he'd be more heat efficient AND free up 9 tons. You could argue that if 4 of the heatsinks are in his legs and he stands in water, it makes it a little more efficient than a 250+ rated engine with DHS... but he's spending NINE tons for that. If the developers of the game can't even put decent builds on their own mechs, what makes you think they'll make it easier for new players?

If this really is a build he uses, it is evident that the developers do either not care for optimizing their mechs or don't know how to do it. Which might explain why the game balance develops so poorly...

[Noobzorz]

There has to be some better tradeoff for single heatsinks. I like the idea of keeping both of them in the game.

[Wildstreak]

MuKen, on 23 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Firstly, what's "all this stink"? Most people, the OP included, alternatively advocate buffing them to be comparable to DHS.

Exactly what I said, what's all this stink about SHS?
Why buff them to be comparable to DHS?
Are SHS OP?
No and given the items that are OP that should get priority attention, why raise a fuss over SHS?
Makes no sense at all.
Assuming a few postings are 'most people' is a false argument especially when you check the linked poll topic on this, most votes are NO for buffing SHS.

MuKen, on 23 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Secondly, you read the title, didn't read the arguments for it that have been made, then ask what all the arguments for it are. Nice.

Assuming someone doesn't read posts because they don't agree with you and a FEW others is arrogant as well as a false argument.

You have presented no case for changing anything regarding SHS.
All I could support doing is creating the Consumable experimental Davion DHS that were better than existing DHS but burnt out after some use and could be mixed with SHS. That's it.

[MustrumRidcully]

What is the stink about SHS:
1)) There is little reason to use them. DHS are strict superior.
2) But there are mechs that new players are using by default that use single heat sinks, and they work badly due tot he way weapon heat output and heat sink dissipation are handled. Result is that new players start the game with not just weak mechs, but also mechs that are poorly designed.

Add this with this:
3rd person perspective is considered by PGI because they hope it will allow better player retention. But 3PP is unpopular with at least a vocal majority of players on the boards, it is complex to implement in a way that itw ill satisfy current and new players, especially if it is not to split the player base.

On the other hand - just changing standard heat sinks is dialing a few numbers in an XML sheet, and could then immediately improve new player game experience. Whether that will be sufficient is another matter, but compared to all the other options on how to fix the situation, it's easy.

[Wildstreak]

1 - DHS are supposed to be superior.

2 - Trial Mechs can be used despite DHS. Using them teaches heat management and encourages players to be creative when building their own Mechs to find something better.

3 - PGI is already allowing people to design Trial Mechs, see first topic on Designing next Heavy Mech for Trial use, further Designing will take time but probably will be done allowing use of better Trial Mechs.

4 - 3rd person is irrelevant to discussion.

5 - There are other items need time and attention that are priority before this. Short list:
- ECM
- possible further Missile tweaking
- ACs
- SPL damage
- MGs
- Map problems
- game crashes/hangs
- various Known issues shown in Patch section of Forums
- various issues shown in Suggestions section of Forums

If I made a full list, SHS would wind up in the bottom 3 of anything needing what time PGI staff has to spend on anything.

Again, why make a big stink considering all those other things that should be more important?

[Kdogg788]

It doesn't take reading all ten pages of this monster topic to realize removing SHS from the game is redundant. True doubles are better but it's a choice that players should be able to make, otherwise you'd just have buffed standard sinks and no doubles and no difficult choices as to manage your crit spaces. Singles are an alternative in the lab and there really isn't a reason to remove them. Players should have to save for the better sinks in order to deploy them on every mech that they own.

-k

[MustrumRidcully]

Merchant, on 24 March 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

1 - DHS are supposed to be superior.

2 - Trial Mechs can be used despite DHS. Using them teaches heat management and encourages players to be creative when building their own Mechs to find something better.

YOu can also teach heat management with less heat intensive mechs utilizing double heat sinks, but you get the perk of the game being fun while you learn it, so that maybe some more people keep playinginstead of being frustrated by constantly shutting down.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 24 March 2013 - 11:24 AM.