1107 replies to this topic

[Terror Teddy]

Shumabot, on 24 March 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

And I have a centurion that goes 70 and has an AC/10, 3 SRM 6's, and four times your armor. Good job making the worst mech I have ever heard of.

Good for you, but im talking about a spider k at 20 tonnes lighter than your centurion with 4 ballistic points and 1 energy point. And i did fairly well with him with 2 kills 7 assists and duelled 2 atlas i frozen city - the kind of urban environment i designed it for.

Worst mech? You definitely have not seen the horrible designs som players have made with their 80-100 tonners like the X6 ERPPC oven stalkers.

[Radko]

Terror Teddy, on 24 March 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

Good for you, but im talking about a spider k at 20 tonnes lighter than your centurion with 4 ballistic points and 1 energy point.

What does THAT have to do with anything?

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

SHS are here to stay. They work with some builds.

Other than extreme edge cases, they really don't.

That's not a good reason to inflict them on newbies.

Edited by Radko, 24 March 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[Kdogg788]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

Meh. They can't even admit when they're wrong. Not worth arguing over.

SHS are here to stay. They work with some builds. Others need DHS. That's been proven already in this thread. Deal with it.

Exactly. SHS are the starting point, the basic level if you will. If you want DHS, invest in them. The argument is not whether SHS are better than DHS because we know doubles are better, as the thread has become a cyclical argument over whether a good build should use DHS, which is beside the point. By this same logic, some people would say that the small pulse laser is redundant and should be removed from the game as it takes up the same tonnage as a medium laser, offers no damage bonus over a small, and produces more heat. Mech builds are not going to all start off with double heat sinks, and I highly doubt the entire heat system is going to be overhauled to make everything essentially produce less heat, so lets move on from this as I would be seriously shocked to see any radical changes.

-k

Grr autocorrect

Edited by Kdogg788, 24 March 2013 - 09:46 PM.

[p00k]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 09:37 PM, said:

Meh. They can't even admit when they're wrong. Not worth arguing over.

SHS are here to stay. They work with some builds. Others need DHS. That's been proven already in this thread. Deal with it.

spoken like someone who...won't share their build because they know we can make it better with DHS

[SteelShrike]

p00k, on 24 March 2013 - 09:49 PM, said:

spoken like someone who...won't share their build because they know we can make it better with DHS

Nice try, but all my builds do have DHS, because I actually designed them to facilitate their use. By the way, they are heavier 'Mechs, where the engine size actually negates the issue of DHS being triple the size. Even still, my Atlas literally has 0 critical slots left. I -wish- I could add more DHS in it, but even if I had the tonnage, they wouldn't fit space-wise. Sometimes, space is necessary more than heat dissipation in the event of being ballistic heavy. I'm willing to bet that'll become more evident in the event something like the Annihilator is introduced.

Find a better argument, one you can actually back up with evidence, rather than random shots in the dark.

Edited by SteelShrike, 24 March 2013 - 10:00 PM.

[Protection]

The point has not been proven. Some bad, ineffiecient Commando build, and some terrible RS Atlas build did not work -- pointless really. No optimized build runs single heatsink. You haven't shown one, and every build hsared has been improved with Doubles. Change the way they work or remove SHS from the game.

But stop being so ignorant and stupid as to pretend that they are worthwhile.

[Radko]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Nice try, but all my builds do have DHS

Find a better argument

How about "Single Heat Sinks are a cruel disadvantage to inflict on newbies because they are worthless for everything except streak commandos and joke builds"?

edit: And I'm not sure about the streak commando part.

Edited by Radko, 24 March 2013 - 10:13 PM.

[SteelShrike]

Honestly, what would you suggest they do, then? Because I can guarantee you two things. One, they aren't going to be removed. And two, they aren't going to be replaced in stock builds by DHS.

Personally, I still think the suggestion made earlier is a good compromise, and PGI essentially has it backwards. Make engine-mounted DHS dissipate less, maybe even the same as single heatsinks, and external DHS dissipate the full 2.0. That way, it's a true tradeoff of space versus efficiency. A band-aid fix though it may be, theoretically, I feel like it'd work.

[Radko]

I don't see why you claim we can't have DHS trial mechs. If that build-a-trial contest vote sticks, we'll see one very soon.

Alternatively, buff SHS until there's a sane tonnage-vs-critical break even point.

[SteelShrike]

I never claimed we can't have DHS trial 'Mechs. I say bring them on. There are a few stock 'Mechs available already that are designed with DHS. I just don't like the idea of custom-built trial 'Mechs in general, but that's more because I'm a fiction purist and enjoy seeing stock builds on the battlefield. Half the incentive of building up C-bills is to get your own stock 'Mech and finally get the chance to customize it to your heart's content.

You just have to be careful about buffing SHS and still keeping DHS a worthwhile purchase. Too much heat dissipation on SHS, and the difference between them is negligible. As it is DHS aren't even true "double strength" and is a bit of a misnomer by name.

I know I used to run a stock Jenner first starting out. I realize the heat dissipation is god-awful. Having to wait so many seconds before you make another shot. Or, alternatively, are forced to chainfire your lasers and ride the peak of your heat scale. It's not really fun, I can't disagree with that. But people need to realize the ramifications of buffing SHS.

Personally, I think the problem is in the heat scale more than anything. Dissipation in general is slow, even with DHS. Make heat more meaningful. Have it make your 'Mech slower, distort your aim. But at the same time, buff dissipation in general, because I do at least agree that the heat scale feels balanced towards the assumption of DHS being present. Single heat sinks should maybe be regulating heat as fast as DHS is now, and DHS somewhere around 1.5 times faster than that, both internal and external. DHS -needs- to be an advantage, otherwise, why take it? But at the same time, SHS are indeed slow as molasses in doing anything worthwhile.

The problem with heat right now and I feel the reason why PGI has balanced heat the way it is is because there are only two states heat causes: you're either online, or shut down. They nerfed DHS because heat was no longer a factor under that circumstance. If you never reached 100%, then heat was being ignored. If there are other penalties up the scale besides hitting that 100% mark, then you've got a more meaningful experience, and also a stronger reason for heat sinks to do what they're intended to do. Heat is no longer "meaningless" just because you're dissipating it faster. That second or two of slowed speed or distorted aim suddenly becomes a factor.

Heat, in general, is a feature that I feel is sitting incomplete at the moment, which is likely why DHS and SHS feel so out of whack with each other. The whole system needs a hard look to make it more in-depth than it currently is, and then DHS and SHS can be balanced around that.

Edited by SteelShrike, 24 March 2013 - 10:43 PM.

[p00k]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

Nice try, but all my builds do have DHS, because I actually designed them to facilitate their use. By the way, they are heavier 'Mechs, where the engine size actually negates the issue of DHS being triple the size. Even still, my Atlas literally has 0 critical slots left. I -wish- I could add more DHS in it, but even if I had the tonnage, they wouldn't fit space-wise. Sometimes, space is necessary more than heat dissipation in the event of being ballistic heavy. I'm willing to bet that'll become more evident in the event something like the Annihilator is introduced.

Find a better argument, one you can actually back up with evidence, rather than random shots in the dark.

correction then

spoken like someone who...won't share their build because they already know that DHS is better and already use it

since about 4 pages ago when i posted asking someone else for builds, i have yet to see a build that isn't better with DHS. lights, mediums, heavies, assaults. you can pretty much make any mech cooler, faster, more armored, take more ammo, or drop an xl engine to a standard, with DHS keeping the rest of the loadout equal

Edited by p00k, 24 March 2013 - 10:41 PM.

[MuKen]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

@MuKen

*golfclap*

Bravo sir, way to NOT read the rest of the page, and know the context of the comment, opening your yap and making yourself look the *****. You do however, sir, get to take the goldenazzhat award from 3rdworld. Congrats.

Wow, talk about irony. Forget about reading the page, did you even read the first 4 words in my post?

I know what your conversation was about. My point was that it's completely irrelevant to this discussion, and I was mockingly saying how much of a stretch you'd have to go to to MAKE it relevant. Now get on topic or get out.

Edited by MuKen, 24 March 2013 - 10:49 PM.

[SteelShrike]

p00k, on 24 March 2013 - 10:39 PM, said:

correction then

spoken like someone who...won't share their build because they already know that DHS is better and already use it

since about 4 pages ago when i posted asking someone else for builds, i have yet to see a build that isn't better with DHS. lights, mediums, heavies, assaults. you can pretty much make any mech cooler, faster, more armored, take more ammo, or drop an xl engine to a standard, with DHS keeping the rest of the loadout equal

I never really denied DHS aren't superior. There are certain rare situations where you don't have the room for them, like a Light packing Endo Steel and Ferro Fibrous, and a big XL engine with a ridiculous amount of speed. Maybe there are ways around that. I haven't built anything like that, so I don't have anything solid to put in front of you.

I also admit, even when designing 'Mechs for table-top, the instant upgrade of engine heatsinks that take up no space or extra tonnage suddenly do double the dissipation. You're right, it's completely cheap. That's why I'm advocating for engine heatsinks to always be equivalent to SHS, even with a DHS upgrade.

The only point I've been arguing is that SHS need not either be removed or replaced. There are other solutions that are less drastic.

Edited by SteelShrike, 24 March 2013 - 10:51 PM.

[p00k]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

There are certain rare situations where you don't have the room for them, like a Light packing Endo Steel and Ferro Fibrous, and a big XL engine with a ridiculous amount of spe

ah, but that's where you're mistaken. if you can take ferro you're better off taking DHS and a bigger engine, to cram more of the DHS in the engine. and pretty much any light build, commando/raven/jenner/spider, you have more than enough crits to take endo and ferro and dhs and an xl engine. hence my challenge from 4 pages ago, and the lack of responses to said challenge.

ton for crit, DHS saves you more than endo, which saves you more than ferro

endo and ferro use 14 crits, always. how much they save you depends on the mech, with the biggest tonnage savings in the biggest mechs, and meager savings in smaller mechs. if you have crits and need tonnage, the first upgrade you should get is DHS, pretty much no contest. second is endo. only if you still have 14 crits free do you then choose ferro

[Thirdstar]

SteelShrike, on 24 March 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

The only point I've been arguing is that SHS need not either be removed or replaced. There are other solutions that are less drastic.

OP correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what the OP meant to do with this drastic suggestion is to draw attention to the issue. We all know that moderate thread titles are often ignored.

In fact I believe I've seen the OP chime in often during these threads that he's rather see some sort of solution to the issue rather than simple removal.

[SteelShrike]

p00k, on 24 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

ah, but that's where you're mistaken. if you can take ferro you're better off taking DHS and a bigger engine, to cram more of the DHS in the engine. and pretty much any light build, commando/raven/jenner/spider, you have more than enough crits to take endo and ferro and dhs and an xl engine. hence my challenge from 4 pages ago, and the lack of responses to said challenge.

ton for crit, DHS saves you more than endo, which saves you more than ferro

endo and ferro use 14 crits, always. how much they save you depends on the mech, with the biggest tonnage savings in the biggest mechs, and meager savings in smaller mechs. if you have crits and need tonnage, the first upgrade you should get is DHS, pretty much no contest. second is endo. only if you still have 14 crits free do you then choose ferro

Point conceded. Like I said, it's purely hypothetical, and I'd actually have to really work at it to find something where I ran out of space probably. Only reason to take both ES and FF I can think of is to try to squeeze as much tonnage out as possible for a bigger engine, because you're sure not going to make it up in firepower likely.

At any rate, engine heatsinks feels like it's the main problem, because it genuinely is a free upgrade for the most part. Even in situations where the engine isn't big enough to pack all 10 heatsinks inside, you usually have space available to fit the rest in.

Thirdstar, on 24 March 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

OP correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what the OP meant to do with this drastic suggestion is to draw attention to the issue. We all know that moderate thread titles are often ignored.

In fact I believe I've seen the OP chime in often during these threads that he's rather see some sort of solution to the issue rather than simple removal.

You're probably right, but I haven't seen a whole lot of civil discussion on a proper solution, either. I'd love to find one, because it is something I've noticed, too. It's been a problem ever since DHS was introduced in the table-top game even. There's literally no reason except cost to upgrade, especially if engine heatsinks are all you have. And in a lot of cases, that's all you really need.

Edited by SteelShrike, 24 March 2013 - 11:04 PM.

[Protection]

Thirdstar, on 24 March 2013 - 10:58 PM, said:

OP correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what the OP meant to do with this drastic suggestion is to draw attention to the issue. We all know that moderate thread titles are often ignored.

In fact I believe I've seen the OP chime in often during these threads that he's rather see some sort of solution to the issue rather than simple removal.

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

Thank you yes, I'm more than happy to suggest any ideas to make SHS an option to players rather than a requirement for optimization. If not such arrangement works - then I feel that it is better to outright remove them, if DHS are more or less required to be absolutely pareto superior.

[MuKen]

p00k, on 24 March 2013 - 10:55 PM, said:

ah, but that's where you're mistaken. if you can take ferro you're better off taking DHS and a bigger engine, to cram more of the DHS in the engine. and pretty much any light build, commando/raven/jenner/spider, you have more than enough crits to take endo and ferro and dhs and an xl engine. hence my challenge from 4 pages ago, and the lack of responses to said challenge.

ton for crit, DHS saves you more than endo, which saves you more than ferro

endo and ferro use 14 crits, always. how much they save you depends on the mech, with the biggest tonnage savings in the biggest mechs, and meager savings in smaller mechs. if you have crits and need tonnage, the first upgrade you should get is DHS, pretty much no contest. second is endo. only if you still have 14 crits free do you then choose ferro

That's not true 100% of the time. Fact is, if you want to build a streakmando with ECM, 3 streaks, 2 tons of ammo, and a small las,(not an unreasonable loadout) you're going to need to go single heatsinks, or sacrifice a lot of armor (not smart on a commando). This is because the commando CAN'T equip a larger engine.

Try finishing this build, and you'll see what I mean. Remember that you have to put in at least 2 more external heatsinks somewhere.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0f8144d55e76fac

He needs the ferro more than the DHS.

Edited by MuKen, 24 March 2013 - 11:11 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

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.

i'd love to agree but quiet simply no one is going to take an less effective mech unless they're not awear that DHS is better. learning to manage heat efficiently translates to the enemy can fire at me more often than i can at him so i'll lose. in MW2 and 3 critslots per heat sink vs dispertion effectiveness was balanced. in those games large mechs with more energy weapons had the tonnage and could spare the space to make singles more viable, where as smaller mechs that can carry less weapons and didn't have tonnage to play with leaving even more space to fill would use doubles.

this game doesn't work to that balance and thus stock mechs carrying not enough singles for the high heat output of so many weapons means you either use only a third of the potential or fry. i'm still certain that the customisation gap is too high thus heat is balanced perfectly for the formular one ferraris in this race but anything less heat sink crammed will be lapped and ashamed.

this is just a theory but knowing they can't take customisation away thus making weapons and heat balancing easier they let BT trial mechs stay broken and try and entice newbies into the customised haven quicker with the cadet bonus which is only a month or so old. if pgi has failed at anything it would be the heat to weapons carrying ratio through an arcadic customisation which to be fair to them plagued the previous tittles. it's saddly the nature of this complicated addaption to the video game world and i hope the devs soldier on to bring trials more inline with the uber boats and so forth.

[GalaxyBluestar]

MuKen, on 24 March 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

That's not true 100% of the time. Fact is, if you want to build a streakmando with ECM, 3 streaks, 2 tons of ammo, and a small las,(not an unreasonable loadout) you're going to need to go single heatsinks, or sacrifice a lot of armor (not smart on a commando). This is because the commando CAN'T equip a larger engine.

Try finishing this build, and you'll see what I mean. Remember that you have to put in at least 2 more external heatsinks somewhere.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0f8144d55e76fac

He needs the ferro more than the DHS.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...89974696212ddfc
doubles

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...75933af61fdaeab
singles

i think internals heatsinks give alot more than externals thus dhs wins again regardless of ferro armour which means you can max armour too and still have better dps and effeciency through doubles. please prove me wrong but i think this proves that the extra mechanics regarding engine and internals bonuses are hideously wrong. big engines and dhs do the work of singles at least twice over thus rendering singles perhaps usefull only for small engine builds where the external amount ratio can be tanked higher {more crits available} however you'll be running a slow mech with added slow torso twist {another mwo quirk that goes against singles and the smaller engine range} and those mechs either have to survive with tanked weapons and armour or they get killed. i think speed usually wins so the one prospect small engines and especially the single heatsink mechanic is just inferrior, not good design.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 24 March 2013 - 11:30 PM.