1107 replies to this topic

[Protection]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

Gee. Sounds like it was a thread calling for the complete removal of single heat sinks. So...



I guess I am on topic form the original post perspective. I didn't read all 36 pages of the conversation. I just needed to simply say I have mech designs that are highly effective with single heat sinks. Could double improve them? Sure. But singles work fine.

Also, you needed a reason to have single heat sinks in the game? Something they can do better than double heat sinks? Here it is. Crit buffers. A single heat sink takes up one crit slot, and one crit chance. You can fit several of them into a mech to protect, say, ammo or weapons. Double heat sinks take up three crit slots to place, but only one crit chance (from my understanding of the crit system). Thus, single heat sinks can be used as a crit buffer to protect gear you don't want destroyed, like a Gauss Rifle or ammo.
Also, single heat sinks can be placed into the legs to improve cooling while in water. Double heat sinks can not be fit in a leg, so it can never gain this bonus (Unless you mech is up to it's neck in water). Just some more food for thought.



That's about what I found out with my 4 PPC stalker. All I got from it was a .04 increase to heat dissipation and a larger engine. I don't need speed on my PPC mech, as I am staying at long range and counting on my team to keep pests from getting too close, or my own damage counters to keep them from getting too close.



As for my Stalker build in question: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...d0721f2c3140e34

Sure, I could downgrade Endo for DHS, but I don't have the C-bills to do so. However, even without DHS, extra LRMs and such, this design is very effective. It's great for posing as an LRM boat, and then pin point frying anything with the 6 lasers. I have enough LRMs for my taste for long range combat and support, and enough close in fire power to make people think twice before closing in, or make them regret charging into me without a thought.

Could I pay 1,721,500 C-bills to remove Endo and add in DHS? Then I might be able to change a couple LRM5s into LRM10s (which shoot slower but build up less heat than 2 LRM5s, and have 1 ton less efficiency), or maybe even add in Artemis into my already LRM5 system, if not even combine the two ideas together.

It COULD look like something on these lines: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...34b02109eb23103

I placed the LRMs in the arms for the tube limit. The torso launchers are only 6 tube launchers. I actually end up bringing damage up a bit, but end up over all dropping my heat by 1%. And I'm forced into throwing ammo in the legs (very un-lore like) and even into the CT, instead of to the buffered arms. The arms that, I find, normally don't get blown off unless I lose a side. Ammo normally doesn't blow there, so I don't recall ever dieing from an ammo explosion. So, I increased the risk, got a little more fire power, and for what? Just to cost me more than my original set up? And if R&R was placed back in any time, I'd be paying more for repairs now than with my older setup.

So, yes. DHSs do provide benifits and are better in most cases compared to SHSs. However, in the case of my Stalker, it doesn't feel right, and overall, the original version is just as good. Thus, I propose, for the cost, SHS are just as playable in my Stalker as DHS. Same went with my PPC stalker. DHS where more effective, and effective enough for me to change it (to check it out). However, it wasn't make or break with it. All it did was make my Stalker move faster than it did before, which was optional in a sniping build ment to engage at long ranges.

That's great, but it's still just an "I want to use inferior equipment" argument. We can add in 10 ton PPCs that do half the damage, but I don't think anyone would find that conducive to good gameplay.

As suggested in my first post, why don't we do something interesting instead - http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/

So that the player is not choosing between inferior and superior, but rather two different playstyles that both offer benefits and drawbacks, even at the highest levels of play.

Why go for flat upgrades when we can go for interesting choices instead?

[Deathlike]

I thought about arguments about crits with respect to SHS.

I would agree that SHS would allow you absorb more damage so you don't lose weapons and heatsinks at a fast rate.

However, you are generally more likely to lose the entire section before crits become a true factor. DHS are good enough as a buffer so the favorable crits argument is kinda moot.

The only time you should be scared of losing stuff from exposed crits vs SHS would be from an MG... but let's be serious here.. it's a MG!

Edited by Deathlike, 26 March 2013 - 05:26 PM.

[Atheus]

Deathlike, on 26 March 2013 - 05:26 PM, said:

I thought about arguments about crits with respect to SHS.

I would agree that SHS would allow you absorb more damage so you don't lose weapons and heatsinks at a fast rate.

However, you are generally more likely to lose the entire section before crits become a true factor. DHS are good enough as a buffer so the favorable crits argument is kinda moot.

The only time you should be scared of losing stuff from exposed crits vs SHS would be from an MG... but let's be serious here.. it's a MG!

Some people build mechs with AMS to mitigate the threat of LRM's. Other, more special people build their mechs with SHS to mitigate the threat of machine guns?

Edit: Found a picture of one.

Edited by Atheus, 26 March 2013 - 05:48 PM.

[Tesunie]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

That's great, but it's still just an "I want to use inferior equipment" argument. We can add in 10 ton PPCs that do half the damage, but I don't think anyone would find that conducive to good gameplay.

As suggested in my first post, why don't we do something interesting instead - http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/

So that the player is not choosing between inferior and superior, but rather two different playstyles that both offer benefits and drawbacks, even at the highest levels of play.

Why go for flat upgrades when we can go for interesting choices instead?

Hum. Gee. If I wanted to break all the lore behind the game, sure. I'd dump the option of SHS in favor of DHS every time. However, I personally wished I would see XL, DHS, Endo, FF to all be rare items on the battlefield like how they are in lore. They are bits and pieces of barely understood tech called lost tech for a reason. Only really rich or lucky people have this kind of tech in the book and lore, so why do every one of us have it? Because it's more fun to have it available than to not. It provides options and flavors. You call my mech subpar? Fight me on the field of battle. My mech, even with older "less efficient" equipment is by no means not competitive. However, even if I get completely wrecked when R&R was in, I'd still be taking less of a loss than you would be with those DHS. This was the good part about R&R, it kept expensive tech where it should be by lore, less often on the field of battle, unless you are really good.

Then again, I'm talking to the same person who made this post: http://mwomercs.com/...94#entry2126094
All I see in that thread is someone who thinks he's "all that" and is a "high experience, top tier player". You don't think small of yourself, do you?

Not to be rude, but SHS are effective and do work in a lot of designs. They work perfectly fine. I could rip DHS out of my Stalkers and they would run fine. Maybe a little slower, or a little hotter (more likely slower), but they would run fine. If you want, I'll give you a before and after build of a 4 PPC Stalker I've made. Before DHS I had a smaller engine in it. After? A larger and faster Stalker, but nothing else really changed. It wasn't a breaking benefit to the mech that I just HAD to have. However, my Jagermech with 2 AC20s definitely saw improvement with the DHS, but I ran it for a while without, even with the heat. My Hunchback also ran fine (with 5 Med Lasers and 2 LRM5s) with SHS. However, DHS also improve that design and made it run cooler so it can shoot longer.

Does DHS provide better performance than SHS? Yes. It should. It's considered LOSTECH! We shouldn't even really have it if we where common mechwarriors actually existing in that universe. However, this is a game. I understand that. But, as the label says, it's a simulator that is trying to simulate mech combat of Battletech. This means, the tech, any tech even old tech, is being represented in the game. It's to provide more fun and diverse game play.

Am I arguing that DHS are better than SHS? Nope. However, there are times when SHS might be just as effective in a design and save you the 1,500,000 C-bills (or more). A Gauss mech? No need for DHS. SHS would be fine if I ever set up a dual Gauss Rifle mech (Jager?), as they produce very little heat. Why waste my C-bills on the DHS then? Explain to me why I would then?

So far, you aren't really working at changing my opinion that SHS are still useful. If you wish to win a debate, I suggest you work at trying to change people's opinion in a debate. So far, with the topic of removing SHS, you aren't convincing many of us that they should be removed. Now if you said DHS are much better than SHS and that is a reason Trial Mechs run so hot, I think everyone would agree with you. But trial mechs are lore based, cannon mechs. They shouldn't have to get changed to match a custom mech. A custom mech, even in the BT universe could normally do much better against a stock mech with no los tech. A lot of the power in custom mechs in the BT universe was no one knew they were customized, till they started to out preform the stock versions. (Yen-lo-wang won many matches because people thought he had an AC10, and found out the hard way it was an AC20 instead.)

To sum up:
- You are overly confident with what I perceive (whether I am right or wrong) and have a very large EGO.
- You are correct that DHS out preform SHS, as they should.
- Not all builds need DHS to preform well. Some builds don't even need DHS at all and it's a waste of C-bills for them.
- SHS are a part of lore, and should be one of the most common pieces of technology in the Inner Sphere as of this time line. Even after, in the far future of BT, it still remains as a cheap and common cooling system.
- You are not convincing me to change my Stalker loadout, as I feel that you are underestimating it's performance. I hope you continue to do so if I meet you on the fields of battle, so I can melt you to slag for not thinking me a proper threat (like many already have).
- You still haven't convinced me it would be in the games best interest to remove SHS and replace it all with DHS. It wouldn't just be bad for the game (remove options and flexibility, as well as run most any lore fanatic away from the game), it would be bad for lore basing as well.
- I hope they place R&R back in, making it once more worth playing the cheaper stuff, as it is common in the IS for a reason, it's cheap! Mediums are the work horses of the army, not because they are the best class, but because they are cheap to make and maintain. Assaults were rare because they are expensive to make, maintain and repair.
- Lore is important to a lot of the fan base and players in the game. Removing SHS breaks all lore, and I would suspect that many hard core fans would up and leave the game if they preformed your action.
- SHS work great as crit buffers as well, and preform this better than DHS as far as my knowledge extends.
- To my knowledge, I believe SHS can also boost your heat threshold higher than DHS. From what I recall, heat threshold increases a set amount per heat sink. With DHS, you have less individual heat sinks compared to SHS. I could be incorrect on this point.

[Mackman]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

To sum up:
- You are overly confident with what I perceive (whether I am right or wrong) and have a very large EGO.
- You are correct that DHS out preform SHS, as they should.
- Not all builds need DHS to preform well. Some builds don't even need DHS at all and it's a waste of C-bills for them.
- SHS are a part of lore, and should be one of the most common pieces of technology in the Inner Sphere as of this time line. Even after, in the far future of BT, it still remains as a cheap and common cooling system.
- You are not convincing me to change my Stalker loadout, as I feel that you are underestimating it's performance. I hope you continue to do so if I meet you on the fields of battle, so I can melt you to slag for not thinking me a proper threat (like many already have).
- You still haven't convinced me it would be in the games best interest to remove SHS and replace it all with DHS. It wouldn't just be bad for the game (remove options and flexibility, as well as run most any lore fanatic away from the game), it would be bad for lore basing as well.
- I hope they place R&R back in, making it once more worth playing the cheaper stuff, as it is common in the IS for a reason, it's cheap! Mediums are the work horses of the army, not because they are the best class, but because they are cheap to make and maintain. Assaults were rare because they are expensive to make, maintain and repair.
- Lore is important to a lot of the fan base and players in the game. Removing SHS breaks all lore, and I would suspect that many hard core fans would up and leave the game if they preformed your action.
- SHS work great as crit buffers as well, and preform this better than DHS as far as my knowledge extends.
- To my knowledge, I believe SHS can also boost your heat threshold higher than DHS. From what I recall, heat threshold increases a set amount per heat sink. With DHS, you have less individual heat sinks compared to SHS. I could be incorrect on this point.

-The argument is not about whether mechs with SHS can perform "good enough." The argument is whether they are ever a better choice than DHS. The answer is, "No, unless you are a streak commando." Lots of builds have been proposed in this thread, and that is the only exception found so far.

-That is indicative of poor balance. Why should there be something in the game which has literally no upside (except for the streak commando)? Why does your argument revolve around "Yeah, but they aren't that much worse than doubles...". Also, as to your point about increasing the heat threshold, I'm pretty sure that's related to heat dissipation as a whole, not individual heat sinks, meaning doubles are still better.

-Therefore, SHS should be either removed or reworked, so as to provide more of a choice.

-Arguing in light of a possible R&R is absolutely hilarious, as it was a broken system that they Dev's removed and explicitly stated that they wouldn't put it back in the game.

[Xando Parapasu]

Shumabot, on 26 March 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

I'm not sure I trust the games designers to assign BV values in a way that creates balanced matches. That would be an exceptionally subjective mechanic. The BV on an XL300 in an awesome should be wayyyyyyyy lower than the BV of an XL300 in a catapault for instance. Point valuing based off competitive efficacy in a game like this would be a herculean task given current systems implementation. it would also require exceptional foresight into what the impacts of future content would be and the system would require an overhaul in every meta shift and with every content addition. I don't even think I could get it right without months of trial and error and I'm a supergenius from the future.

The problem I have with Battle Value as a long time TT Player and former Commando (demo rep) is that it can be manipulated grossly. As much as most don't like the MM I loath BV. So your being tentative is a good thing.

[Wildstreak]

Don't know why this is being discussed still, this thread does it so much better.

[Atheus]

As an interesting side-issue - if "lore" is your fetish, and realism, and economies, etc. — what is wrong with whoever the merchants are who are selling "stock" mechs in this game? The entire population of mech pilots are running DHS because it's essential to be competitive (minus newbies and a few key ignorants who opted for endo-steel on their assault mech instead of DHS). Being that let's say... 95% of players are running DHS, why the heck are they even selling mechs that have SHS? Wouldn't their product be much more marketable if they were built with the actual specifics of MWO's weapons and heat system in mind?

Basically, if the idea of a working economy with various market pressures and scarcity is your argument for keeping SHS, you can stop arguing. The supply of DHS is infinite, and the price is fixed. The market does not react to supply or demand in any way, and the mechs available for sale are not even from the MWO universe in the first place. If they were, they would have much better efficiency from the start, whether or not they had DHS. The Mechs for sale come from a universe where weapons only fire once per 10 seconds, and are designed around that fact. There you go. Lore already ruined - time to make a new lore.

Edited by Atheus, 26 March 2013 - 06:41 PM.

[Alilua]

I think a major issue is that mechs have too many critical slots available. Not enough balancing has gone into limiting them.

[Tesunie]

Mackman, on 26 March 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

-The argument is not about whether mechs with SHS can perform "good enough." The argument is whether they are ever a better choice than DHS. The answer is, "No, unless you are a streak commando." Lots of builds have been proposed in this thread, and that is the only exception found so far.

-That is indicative of poor balance. Why should there be something in the game which has literally no upside (except for the streak commando)? Why does your argument revolve around "Yeah, but they aren't that much worse than doubles...". Also, as to your point about increasing the heat threshold, I'm pretty sure that's related to heat dissipation as a whole, not individual heat sinks, meaning doubles are still better.

-Therefore, SHS should be either removed or reworked, so as to provide more of a choice.

-Arguing in light of a possible R&R is absolutely hilarious, as it was a broken system that they Dev's removed and explicitly stated that they wouldn't put it back in the game.

R&R might make a reappearance with CW, for all we know. They also said no such thing as coolant flush could come out too. I'm just saying R&R was a rational reason to have SHS and not run an XL or other los tech.

And, I think a point most of you are missing, as a game playing point of view, explain to me how SHS are breaking the game? How are they so bad that they need to be removed from the game?

The Streakmando was the only mech variant that didn't need DHS? Where it was actually detrimental?
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...e725b1e7135f2db
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...3a6ae2247f97b90
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b84c771a5b0473f
Just to quick up a few. How would DHS improve these builds?

I think that more variants can work well enough with SHS, so why force people to use the more expensive DHS? Tacking that onto the purchase cost of the mech? Making it so I have less criticals to work with as suddenly my heat sinks require 3 slots?

I'm not saying that DHS aren't better. They really are. But SHS can have a place in the game, even if it's to let you get a mech just that much sooner and start customizing it and gaining exp in the chassis. Some mechs don't even need DHS to work. And others of us are trying to form a little league where we are going to run nothing but cannon mech designs, if we can get it working that is. So, SHS do have a place in the game, and they do no harm by being in the game. Thus, I move that SHS should stay right where they are, as they do no harm there.

Honestly, this is like asking for Standard engines to be removed from the game. Any build you make with a Standard engine, I can improve with a much lighter and faster XL engine, and look at all the tonnage you saved with the XL engine. Now you can fit more weapons or DHS into the mech, making it just that much better. Yet, I laugh at people who put XLs in Stalkers,, as I pop a side just to reduce incoming fire on me and they die. But, who cares about that, XL engines are the only way to go. Right?

Basically, I'm saying that some of us might have reasons not to run DHS (or XL engines). Removing them from the game would be more detrimental than helpful for a lot of us. I'd rather save the C-bills when buying a new mech, as I might be trying it out to see if I like the mech enough to master it. (Did that with a Cat K2, and didn't like it. If it was even more expensive because it had DHS, I wouldn't have even tried the mech out.) Not to mention, if I'm learning to field a mech when it's harder to use by heat, then when I do get the DHS in, I'll already be use to a hotter running mech meaning I'll have learned better heat control when I do get better heat dissipation. It's like learning to run in a fast mech, and when you go into a slow mech, you find yourself more accurate because you got use to having to aim at faster speeds.

[Protection]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Hum. Gee. If I wanted to break all the lore behind the game, sure. I'd dump the option of SHS in favor of DHS every time. However, I personally wished I would see XL, DHS, Endo, FF to all be rare items on the battlefield like how they are in lore. They are bits and pieces of barely understood tech called lost tech for a reason. Only really rich or lucky people have this kind of tech in the book and lore, so why do every one of us have it? Because it's more fun to have it available than to not. It provides options and flavors. You call my mech subpar? Fight me on the field of battle. My mech, even with older "less efficient" equipment is by no means not competitive. However, even if I get completely wrecked when R&R was in, I'd still be taking less of a loss than you would be with those DHS. This was the good part about R&R, it kept expensive tech where it should be by lore, less often on the field of battle, unless you are really good.

Then again, I'm talking to the same person who made this post: http://mwomercs.com/...94#entry2126094
All I see in that thread is someone who thinks he's "all that" and is a "high experience, top tier player". You don't think small of yourself, do you?

I'm offering help to the community to improve their bad builds. This thread opened my eyes to how poorly optimized many builds out there are running.

Also - yes, I am a high experience top tier player - that's not ego, that just not having false modesty. I was team captain of the team that won both the closed beta tournaments (RHOD and the Blackthorne's Dragoons Double Elimination), won seven in a row this year in league, and one of the better known names in the competitive MWO scene. That's not ego, that's just facts.

Quote

Not to be rude, but SHS are effective and do work in a lot of designs. They work perfectly fine. I could rip DHS out of my Stalkers and they would run fine. Maybe a little slower, or a little hotter (more likely slower), but they would run fine. If you want, I'll give you a before and after build of a 4 PPC Stalker I've made. Before DHS I had a smaller engine in it. After? A larger and faster Stalker, but nothing else really changed. It wasn't a breaking benefit to the mech that I just HAD to have. However, my Jagermech with 2 AC20s definitely saw improvement with the DHS, but I ran it for a while without, even with the heat. My Hunchback also ran fine (with 5 Med Lasers and 2 LRM5s) with SHS. However, DHS also improve that design and made it run cooler so it can shoot longer.

Again, please understand the argument being made. The problem is not whether or not that they work, it is that double heatsinks are pretty much always superior. Unless it is a slow light mech with a very small engine, or a ridiculious joke Atlas with 35+ single heatsinks there is no build in the game that isn't better off with double heatsinks.

Quote

Does DHS provide better performance than SHS? Yes. It should. It's considered LOSTECH! We shouldn't even really have it if we where common mechwarriors actually existing in that universe. However, this is a game. I understand that. But, as the label says, it's a simulator that is trying to simulate mech combat of Battletech. This means, the tech, any tech even old tech, is being represented in the game. It's to provide more fun and diverse game play.

This is the problem -- it is not more diverse to gameplay. For almost every single build - it is a pure 100% total performance upgrade in every single category. The overwhelming majority of builds run double heatsinks because they offer so much more benefit, and the ones that do not are either too poor to afford them yet (bad game design) or running a sub-par mech for the heck of it (fine, I guess, but that seems like a waste to justify bad equipment).

Quote

Am I arguing that DHS are better than SHS? Nope. However, there are times when SHS might be just as effective in a design and save you the 1,500,000 C-bills (or more). A Gauss mech? No need for DHS. SHS would be fine if I ever set up a dual Gauss Rifle mech (Jager?), as they produce very little heat. Why waste my C-bills on the DHS then? Explain to me why I would then?

If you have any laser as a kicker weapon. If you ever decide, down the road you might like to have a laser kicker weapon. If you ever want to do anything even remotely different that a pure gauss build with the chassis later - might as well have the DHS now since it does not detract from the Gauss build in any way anyhow.

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 03:54 PM, said:

As for my Stalker build in question: http://mwo.smurfy-ne...d0721f2c3140e34

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...af0a594679000cc

Here is your exact same Stalker, optimized with Double Heatsinks. No different weapons. No different loadout or weapon groups. It's just 100% better in every way. Two extra tons of ammo. Max armour, and more speed. It will "feel" exactly the same, except you will cool off faster, move quicker, and take hits better. It's improved performance without changing anything that directly effects how you play.

If you still want SHS - that's fine, but then you are only making a "I would like to run an inferior build argument." Again, I'm happy for you, but please take the time to understand the point of the thread.

Do I want SHS removed??? Not really, but I don't think you've taken the time to actually think about my original post (nor read my comments).


This is my complaint with the "I want an inferior build/equipment/loadout argument." We can add in 10 ton PPCs that do half the damage, but I don't think anyone would find that conducive to good gameplay.

As suggested in my first post, why don't we do something interesting instead - http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/

So that the player is not choosing between inferior and superior, but rather two different playstyles that both offer benefits and drawbacks, even at the highest levels of play.

Why go for flat upgrades when we can go for interesting choices instead?


And, yes, unless you are running a sub 250 engine Light mech -- if you have single heatsinks, I can pretty much guarantee I can make your exact same build and loadout improved to be more efficient without changing it's design.

[FupDup]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...b84c771a5b0473f.

Um...that Cicada's only weapon is an LB-10X, so why does it come with 2 tons of standard AC/10 ammo?


EDIT: Plus, the whole "crit seeking" thing isn't nearly enough to make that thing able to kill anything that isn't severely injured and/or carrying exposed ammo and you get a lucky crit.


All three builds can be upgraded to DHS for super-duper-insane heat efficiency (323% on Jag and Cat, 250% on Cic). It's not necessary, but the fact of the matter is that you get an extra crapload of heat dissipation for just a small C-Bill fee. The cost is negligible at best. It is not disadvantageous in any way, shape, or form except for initially taking a few extra spacebucks...which can be grinded out in less than an hour much of the time.

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 06:45 PM, said:

Honestly, this is like asking for Standard engines to be removed from the game. Any build you make with a Standard engine, I can improve with a much lighter and faster XL engine, and look at all the tonnage you saved with the XL engine. Now you can fit more weapons or DHS into the mech, making it just that much better. Yet, I laugh at people who put XLs in Stalkers,, as I pop a side just to reduce incoming fire on me and they die. But, who cares about that, XL engines are the only way to go. Right?

Basically, I'm saying that some of us might have reasons not to run DHS (or XL engines). Removing them from the game would be more detrimental than helpful for a lot of us. I'd rather save the C-bills when buying a new mech, as I might be trying it out to see if I like the mech enough to master it. (Did that with a Cat K2, and didn't like it. If it was even more expensive because it had DHS, I wouldn't have even tried the mech out.) Not to mention, if I'm learning to field a mech when it's harder to use by heat, then when I do get the DHS in, I'll already be use to a hotter running mech meaning I'll have learned better heat control when I do get better heat dissipation. It's like learning to run in a fast mech, and when you go into a slow mech, you find yourself more accurate because you got use to having to aim at faster speeds.

Bad comparison.

XL Engines offer the advantage of lighter weight at the disadvantages of decreased survivability and taking up crits in each side torso. DHS offer the advantage of better heat efficiency at the disadvantage of costing more spacebucks (the extra crits doesn't matter when the 10+ engine heatsinks don't take up any more crits than standard engine heat sinks!).


With XL Engines, the player has to make a strategic decision as to whether the extra weight savings will justify the crit spaces lost and the fact that they will die from losing a side torso. With DHS, the player has to make the "strategic" decision between whether they want to have higher heat efficiency or whether they want to have lower heat efficiency (on all but a few special builds like the Trollmando and a bunch of really bad builds).

Edited by FupDup, 26 March 2013 - 07:36 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

This thread might be better reproduced from-scratch in the Suggestions forums, albeit with a slightly different approach. Instead of the iron-fisted "Fix It or Get Rid Of It," I would suggest something that includes a list of suggested fixes directly in the OP. You'd also want to mention what changes you are hoping to impart on game balance as a function of each change you're proposing.

That would help keep things more civil and technical...

[Protection]

Prosperity Park, on 26 March 2013 - 07:39 PM, said:

This thread might be better reproduced from-scratch in the Suggestions forums, albeit with a slightly different approach. Instead of the iron-fisted "Fix It or Get Rid Of It," I would suggest something that includes a list of suggested fixes directly in the OP. You'd also want to mention what changes you are hoping to impart on game balance as a function of each change you're proposing.

That would help keep things more civil and technical...

You mean that barren place where no users travel and the developers do not know of?


Also - I feel that this somewhat uncivil threadnaught is being useful for demonstrating two much larger issues.

First, it's giving an important balance and game design issue much needed attention that it hasn't had since doubles were changed to 1.4s.

And second, it's waking people up to how under-optimized many of their loadouts have been, and hopefully leading them to better understand the game mechanics and the math of mech design. And the problems within.

Also - it's a threadnaught. Once a thread gets over twenty pages, it has an ability to remain buoyant and uncivil for long periods of time by sheer force of mass.

[Atheus]

Merchant, on 26 March 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

Don't know why this is being discussed still, this thread does it so much better.

Roger. Discussing it there as well, now

[Tesunie]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

I'm offering help to the community to improve their bad builds. This thread opened my eyes to how poorly optimized many builds out there are running.

Also - yes, I am a high experience top tier player - that's not ego, that just not having false modesty. I was team captain of the team that won both the closed beta tournaments (RHOD and the Blackthorne's Dragoons Double Elimination), won seven in a row this year in league, and one of the better known names in the competitive MWO scene. That's not ego, that's just facts.

It's ego when you make it sound like your way is the only way. Not saying that is how you are, but the way you say certain things it tends to be how people read you. Guess why one person challenged you with a "getobuild". You come off as arrogant, facts or not. I'm not saying you are a good player or not, to just say you are so great is just... off putting. It makes you sound arrogant when you toot your own horn.

I do think it's good to offer help to the community to try and improve people's builds. That isn't the problem. It's the way you introduce yourself that, as I said, sounds arrogant and full of yourself. I'm not even saying if your builds are good or not, just you give this impression of being better than everyone else is all.

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

Again, please understand the argument being made. The problem is not whether or not that they work, it is that double heatsinks are pretty much always superior. Unless it is a slow light mech with a very small engine, or a ridiculious joke Atlas with 35+ single heatsinks there is no build in the game that isn't better off with double heatsinks.

Didn't I just provided a few builds that where neutral to DHS? Not to mention, I'm not arguing the fact that DHS are better than SHS, but if someone wishes to use SHS, why not? I like using them when I can as I'm a lore kinda fan. But I'm not afraid to use DHS either if my mech needs it. If it runs cool enough without, then I wont use DHS.

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

This is the problem -- it is not more diverse to gameplay. For almost every single build - it is a pure 100% total performance upgrade in every single category. The overwhelming majority of builds run double heatsinks because they offer so much more benefit, and the ones that do not are either too poor to afford them yet (bad game design) or running a sub-par mech for the heck of it (fine, I guess, but that seems like a waste to justify bad equipment).

I think you have your percentages off. It's not 100% better... Though I wont argue that it does normally improve performance. I'll be posting a "subpar mech" states shortly, but...

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

If you have any laser as a kicker weapon. If you ever decide, down the road you might like to have a laser kicker weapon. If you ever want to do anything even remotely different that a pure gauss build with the chassis later - might as well have the DHS now since it does not detract from the Gauss build in any way anyhow.

So... I can't just save the C-bills on DHS, and instead save it for those Gauss rifles? Or the next mech so I can get elites? Or... maybe something else? Sometimes, if you don't ever intend to run a mech any other way, you don't need to waste the C-bills getting something you will never need. It's like buying an XL 600 engine, because you MIGHT need it later on in a mech that might actually be able to take the engine. (Yes, I'm over exaggerating.) If I don't need DHS, I might instead save those C-bills and buy an XL engine I might need more desperately. There are sometimes reasons to run things different ways, besides just normal preference and doing things differently. I designed my Stalker to be something a MW could run in the actual stories. It's not so far from the original that it's impossible to imagine being changed. I also don't find the need to upgrade to DHS with certain mechs at this time. Might I later? Maybe...

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...af0a594679000cc

Here is your exact same Stalker, optimized with Double Heatsinks. No different weapons. No different loadout or weapon groups. It's just 100% better in every way. Two extra tons of ammo. Max armour, and more speed. It will "feel" exactly the same, except you will cool off faster, move quicker, and take hits better. It's improved performance without changing anything that directly effects how you play.

REALLY!?!?! It's 100% BETTER!? In EVERY WAY!? Then... why don't I see 12 med lasers? Or 40 LRMs? Or a 600 standard engine? Or a cooling level that is twice as good? You do realize that it's probably about 10-20% better? In movement, and ammo probably, or in missile launcher size?

Let me see... cool off faster, with that smurfy 3% enhanced cooling? That's what, one extra alpha before I overheat, which I already don't really do? If even that?

Larger engine? You moved from a 300 Standard to a 310 standard. So... 2 KPH faster? That's... not a whole lot faster still.

Two more tons of ammo? You mean, the ammo I already don't normally go through, or if I do it's very rare? Do I really need 2 more tons of ammo to possibly explode inside my mech when I don't need that much ammo?

Max armor? So, the extra 22 points of armor on the legs only is breaking my build? The legs that normally don't even get hit, let alone blown off? People aim for my side torsos far more often than my legs.

And now, I have ammo stored in the legs, so if someone does get wise and leg me, I could get an ammo explosion, unlike with the arms which normally don't get hit, and blow off the ammo in the arm safely after they ripped off the side torso as it's an easier target? You give me the same weakness that most other people place into their builds. I'd rather not place my ammo in my legs for a legger to detonate on me. I rather do like it in the arms, which seems to be a really safe place for it.

As a final note, you also wasted about 0.81 tons. Take off a few points of armor on the legs and you basically wasted a whole ton of space. My design doesn't waste any tonnage, even if it's "subpar".

For the record, my "subpar" "inferior" mech states...

I would have had another screen shot of another score board where I was on top for my team, but the screen shot ended up being just a cockpit shot for some reason.

Stats: STALKER STK-3F Matches: 9 Wins: 7 Losses: 2 Ratio: 3.50 Kills: 14 Deaths: 4 Ratio: 3.50 Damage done: 3,105
Sorry it isn't a huge sample for you. I've been leveling my Dragon and Jagermechs instead lately (since the new system).

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

If you still want SHS - that's fine, but then you are only making a "I would like to run an inferior build argument." Again, I'm happy for you, but please take the time to understand the point of the thread.

Do I want SHS removed??? Not really, but I don't think you've taken the time to actually think about my original post (nor read my comments).

Inferiour? I scoff at you still. It's one of my best designs. Could it be better? Maybe. But I like it as it is, and it runs well enough to get the job done. Do I need more ammo? Not really. Could I use those LRM10 launchers? Maybe. Am I going to save C-bills for it when I could buy my next Jagermech or Centurion instead? Nope. I've got other things to grind for, and changing an already efficient design isn't on the priority list. Call me stubborn and old fashion if you wish.

Also, if you didn't want SHS to be removed, say so in the first post. Saying it sandwiched between 37 pages of comments is counter productive for people who are just joining in. I'm not going to read 37 pages to say if I agree with your proposal or not. I read the first page, saw a comment I wanted to make a remark to, and did so. I was challenged to "present a build that works with SHS". I did so. My build works. I do plenty of damage with the build, it's flexible, and it runs cool enough to not need DHS. Could DHS improve the build? That wasn't the challenge given. Sure, it could improve the build, a little bit. It's not going to improve it by 100% though. That's crazy talk. This build would probably be improved by about 10-20%. A small margin in the grand scheme of things.

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 06:46 PM, said:

This is my complaint with the "I want an inferior build/equipment/loadout argument." We can add in 10 ton PPCs that do half the damage, but I don't think anyone would find that conducive to good gameplay.

As suggested in my first post, why don't we do something interesting instead - http://mwomercs.com/...ps-trial-mechs/

So that the player is not choosing between inferior and superior, but rather two different playstyles that both offer benefits and drawbacks, even at the highest levels of play.

Why go for flat upgrades when we can go for interesting choices instead?


And, yes, unless you are running a sub 250 engine Light mech -- if you have single heatsinks, I can pretty much guarantee I can make your exact same build and loadout improved to be more efficient without changing it's design.

We don't have 10 ton, half damage PPCs in the game. If we did, what would be the advantage? Less heat? More range? If it has a counter balance, it could be useful. But, seen as I don't recall such a weapon existing in BT, I don't think it's going to randomly pop up.

I believe I stated that (and here is the proof: http://mwowiki.org/w...ouble_Heat_Sink http://mwowiki.org/w...ingle_Heat_Sink ) the more heat sinks you have, the larger your heat cap is. Therefore, single heat sinks in large quantities can and will improve the amount of heat needed before your mech shuts down, even if they cool it less effectively. It seems to add 1 to the cap for each heat sink, double or single. At least, as far as I can find out and know.

So, you can improve any load out I place in here? Really? Lets start with the one I already posted. And don't do phasudo improvements that are only minor. So far, your ego about being such a great player and mech builder is faltering. So far, I'm even more impressed to NOT change my Stalker, especially seen as I now know it has great cooling with single heat sinks, but also, due to my choice of single sinks, have a very high heat threshold. 2KPH faster? Trash. Better armor on legs? Trash. Better cooling? Not really that big of a difference. Try again? You are more than welcomed to.

FupDup, on 26 March 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Um...that Cicada's only weapon is an LB-10X, so why does it come with 2 tons of standard AC/10 ammo?


EDIT: Plus, the whole "crit seeking" thing isn't nearly enough to make that thing able to kill anything that isn't severely injured and/or carrying exposed ammo and you get a lucky crit.


All three builds can be upgraded to DHS for super-duper-insane heat efficiency (323% on Jag and Cat, 250% on Cic). It's not necessary, but the fact of the matter is that you get an extra crapload of heat dissipation for just a small C-Bill fee. The cost is negligible at best. It is not disadvantageous in any way, shape, or form except for initially taking a few extra spacebucks...which can be grinded out in less than an hour much of the time.

Oops. Clicked the wrong ammo , but the tonnage is the same, so I think it works out for this example.

And, as far as the LBx goes, I've heard that this build is really good, in the right hands. It can do lots of good damage while being fast and annoying. It's not there as a crit seeker, but to be better aimed while running quickly on the move. (I've dabbled in it a little, and did decent with it, but rather liked a different build myself.)

And, just because it increases the cooling rate to insanity doesn't mean it's needed. Thus, it's not needed on those mech designs and not really worth the waste of C-bills just to upgrade them to DHS because "they are more efficient". If you don't need them, then why bother?

And 1,500,000 is not a small amount when you are saving up for a 6-8,000,000 c-bill mech. That's a huge chunk of the cost you are dumping into a mech that doesn't need it. In some cases, that's a quarter of what you might need for a new mech. (Unless my sleep deprived brain is messing up the numbers and adding in too many 0s on a number...)

[Protection]

100% better meant better in every respect without a trade-off or drawback.

Inferior means not as well optimized.

Look, I get it, you like SHS for the sake of SHS, but your build could be replicated more efficiently with DHS.

This isn't interesting gameplay, this is static to me. I want a more interesting purpose for SHS. I feel that there should be a reason to see more variety among high level competitive mechs, and that changing how SHS work would be better.

This game doesn't care that DHS were rare or expensive. Almost every single player has them on almost every single one of their mechs. They are more common than dirt. Stock mechs barely exist, but AC/20 Catapults and Streak Ravens are front liners. The game should do more to vary gameplay with interesting choices, not leave us with just a boring "solve the heat math equation to optimize the build" system.

[Zero Neutral]

I personally like upgrading to DHS on my mechs because it gives me another level of customization.

Players who spend c-bills on their mechs should have better efficiencies at whatever it is they have upgraded, imo.

[Atheus]

Tesunie, on 26 March 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

-snip-

Another better stalker for you, since you're not happy with the first one (though in reality you should just do this or this). You drop some armor you'll likely rarely use, drop a ton of ammo you'll also probably rarely use, and drop 2 medium lasers for 2 large lasers which you definitely will use constantly. Generally the DHS rebuilds have strived not to change any weapons around, but this is one case where you have to get a little creative to figure out what you're going to do with that extra weight. I wouldn't personally run this mech right now, since LRM's are pathetic at the moment, but if you're a guy who likes lasers and LRMs, this is, in my humble opinion, a far stronger and more versatile mech to be piloting. You may put the large lasers in your arms or whatever, but the bottom line is you'll alpha harder, and shoot further like this.

It's a little moot, though. You're basing your resistance on the cost of DHS. That's not what this discussion is really about. Surely cost exists in the game as a consideration for those who are just playing moderately and constantly buying mechs, but that doesn't negate the argument that DHS are always better equipment for the purpose of dissipating heat. Your quirky ballistic only mechs are mechs I would personally never use. If you like them, well, great, but the heat sinks in them will dissipate more heat if they were doubles, giving you the option as a builder to not be cornered into using only ballistics just to avoid overheating issues. If DHS become the de facto standard, I don't agree that mechs should just be 1.5 million more expensive, but I also feel the massive fee for upgrading/downgrading heat sinks is a scam. The most I would agree to is an extra 500k on the cost of a mech with DHS, which I think anyone could be happy with if they all came with DHS, but if I had my druthers I'd just say go by the cost of the individual DHS, which is what... 6k each over the cost of SHS? Well, whatever.

The thrust of the thread is that SHS just plain suck when compared to DHS - and when it comes to stock and trial mech configurations, they suck very hard. That won't change unless someone changes something about this game - be it how stock mechs are designed, how SHS work, how DHS work, or any number of contributing factors. Until that happens, though, new players will continue to experience the game through the lens of how enjoyable it is in the worst equipment available put into a ridiculously bad configuration.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if they leave SHS in the game as a sort of antique. Just redesign all the stock mechs to use DHS, and stop pretending this is tabletop. People could still downgrade to SHS and experience the joys of piloting an inferior mech - sort of like driving an antique car, but for those not looking for a nostalgia trip, they won't get stuck behind the wheel of a Model T in a race against Audi R15's.

Edited by Atheus, 26 March 2013 - 11:51 PM.

[Sifright]

Protection, on 26 March 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

100% better meant better in every respect without a trade-off or drawback.

Inferior means not as well optimized.

Look, I get it, you like SHS for the sake of SHS, but your build could be replicated more efficiently with DHS.

This isn't interesting gameplay, this is static to me. I want a more interesting purpose for SHS. I feel that there should be a reason to see more variety among high level competitive mechs, and that changing how SHS work would be better.

This game doesn't care that DHS were rare or expensive. Almost every single player has them on almost every single one of their mechs. They are more common than dirt. Stock mechs barely exist, but AC/20 Catapults and Streak Ravens are front liners. The game should do more to vary gameplay with interesting choices, not leave us with just a boring "solve the heat math equation to optimize the build" system.

I like how his entire argument boils down to.. "W-w-w-well okay! I might be building my mech really really badly b-b-b-b-but I still win matches and stuff!!"

Hahahaha, the resistance people have to using better mech builds and playing in their special awful snow flakes is hilarious.

also... what a tsuntsun.