25 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

A radical idea:
To make SHS and DHS more competitive/balanced and to improve the performance of trial mechs, have it work like this:
Regardless of whether engine sinks are single or double, each sink provides a +2 capacity bonus and +0.2 dissipation.

I know this isn't how things are in table top, DHS are suppose to be a big upgrade. I know it will make heat less of an issue on SHS mechs. But I think this is all better than what we have now, which is:
- SHS being only used for extreme niche builds and by new players that have no choice.
- DHS being an extreme upgrade that you just can't pass up on most mechs.
- Trial/Stock Mechs performing much worse than customized builds that actually take the real heat levels of weapons in MW:O into account.

If DHS are now not "good enough" to be worth 3 crits and 1 ton, one could raise their dissipation to 0.15 per sink - or raise it to 0.2 per sink, but lower the heat capacity bonus to 1 per DHS.

Overall the result should be that new players should have a much better experience with their first (trial and bought) mechs, and that there might end up being a meaningful choice between taking standard heat sinks or double heat sinks.

The suboptimal thing is that the confusing element in the heat sink system stays confusing - in-engine and out-of-engine heat sinks operate differently. I would prefer if they could be adapted to work identical at all times. Heck, I would also prefer if the heat system and the weapon damage and heat ratios and production rates would fit the table top system better, but it doesn't, and we've argued so long for it that I do not believe it ever will and it's almost pointless belabouring it anymore. (I will never give up entirely. Everyone needs his windmills.)

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 23 March 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[blinkin]

NO

i have an atlas with 4 ERPPC on the arms and 39 single heat sinks. this would effectively add another 8 heatsinks worth of dissipation and 78 extra heat capacity. <-this would make my atlas very thoroughly OP.

with this i would have 4.7 heat dissapation per SECOND, and also be allowed another ELEVEN shots beyond what it already does NOT counting the heat dissipation between shots.

i don't want to listen to more complaints on the forums about PPC stalkers.

[focuspark]

IMO engine intrinsic heat sinks should always be 1.5 EHS regardless of SHS or DHS, and only heat sinks in the engine should impact heat capacity (intrinsic + additional).

Additional SHS should be 1.0 EHS
Additional DHS should be 2.0 EHS

SHS and DHS should be mixable.

[Deathlike]

I had initially thought that buffing the engine HS to true DHS for both SHS+DHS options was a good idea... then I realized that DHS would not actually be beneficial over SHS.

While endo steel/FF would keep DHS in check, it doesn't actually keep SHS in check due to how DHS takes up a lot more crits.

See this behemoth of fail:
STK-3F

So, instead of the 17DHS hex-PPC Stalker (10 internal, 7 external), we get the 20SHS, hex-PPC Stalker (10 internal, 10 external).

7*1.4 = 8.4 "SHS"

So the external 10 SHS is better than the 8.4 DHS...

The SHS option suddenly becomes the better option in the aforementioned change (not by much, but it is there).

That is why when I wrote in my SHS "improvement/upgrade" thread that they need to be boosted, but not to 2.0 across the board.

If we boosted DHS to compensate... well, 7 additional DHS would be better than 10 additional DHS... but I'm sure that won't go over well.

Edited by Deathlike, 24 March 2013 - 12:04 AM.

[blinkin]

focuspark, on 23 March 2013 - 11:46 PM, said:

only heat sinks in the engine should impact heat capacity (intrinsic + additional).

this is a bit more hard core than i would have expected from you.

normally i am the one advocating this sort of brutal gameplay.

[MustrumRidcully]

blinkin, on 23 March 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

NO

i have an atlas with 4 ERPPC on the arms and 39 single heat sinks. this would effectively add another 8 heatsinks worth of dissipation and 78 extra heat capacity. <-this would make my atlas very thoroughly OP.

with this i would have 4.7 heat dissapation per SECOND, and also be allowed another ELEVEN shots beyond what it already does NOT counting the heat dissipation between shots.

i don't want to listen to more complaints on the forums about PPC stalkers.

I am not really convinced it would be OP. Show me something you could do with it that you couldn't do already. Heck, you wouldl first have to conince me that using SHS currently isn't already gimping your mech and using DHS, 3 ER PPCs and a neat little Gauss Rifle or AUto-Cannon wouldn't be much more effective.

But I am in general wary about the high heat capacity of mechs. I'd be in favor of lowering all capacity bonus to +1 per sink, regardless of engine standard or double, or standard or double sink outside of engine.

[Deathlike]

blinkin, on 24 March 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

this is a bit more hard core than i would have expected from you.

normally i am the one advocating this sort of brutal gameplay.

I am actually pretty amenable to the extra HS capacity of 275+ engines to be the same as the internal HS. It costs a lot of tonnage to even use them and assault mechs have that tonnage to spare. It could actually work.

[blinkin]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 March 2013 - 07:17 AM, said:

I am not really convinced it would be OP. Show me something you could do with it that you couldn't do already. Heck, you wouldl first have to conince me that using SHS currently isn't already gimping your mech and using DHS, 3 ER PPCs and a neat little Gauss Rifle or AUto-Cannon wouldn't be much more effective.

But I am in general wary about the high heat capacity of mechs. I'd be in favor of lowering all capacity bonus to +1 per sink, regardless of engine standard or double, or standard or double sink outside of engine.

outside of engine you can have a maximum of 14DHS on any mech. this is not including any equipment beyond a standard engine. 4 ERPPC reduce that down to 10DHS. so with the current rules of 2.0 engine and 1.4 external you have a total of 34 effective heatsinks. to compete with my SHS i would need a 325 STANDARD engine to store another 3 DHS. this would cost 30.5 tons. so 13 tons for heat sinks + 30.5 tons for engine + 10 tons for the atlas frame + 28 tons for the ERPPC adds up to 81.5 tons. i also have 1.5 tons for AMS because it is vital on an atlas. now we are at 83 tons this leaves 17 tons for armor when an average atlas has 19 tons. i would be forced to strip 64 points of armor.

yes i have done the math. it is almost never useful to put DHS on an atlas. currently my atlas has 0.00 slots left over and is exactly 100 tons. i have never had a complete atlas build that ever had any open slots. in fact one of the decent builds i have seen is actually 99 tons because you run out of critical space.

if critical space is your primary limiting factor then even 2.0DHS are a bad idea.

Edited by blinkin, 24 March 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[focuspark]

blinkin, on 24 March 2013 - 02:04 AM, said:

this is a bit more hard core than i would have expected from you.

normally i am the one advocating this sort of brutal gameplay.

Lol I generally focus on what I think will bring balance and fun to the game. Right now, energy weapons always seem to in out - meaning the heat / ammo trade off isn't working. Something needs to change, this seems the most logical.

Besides, the current setup is confusing. People not reading the forums do not realize they're not getting the what they think they're getting AND no being able to mix single and double heat sinks is a pretty lame limitation IMO.

[Deathlike]

focuspark, on 24 March 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

Lol I generally focus on what I think will bring balance and fun to the game. Right now, energy weapons always seem to in out - meaning the heat / ammo trade off isn't working. Something needs to change, this seems the most logical.

Besides, the current setup is confusing. People not reading the forums do not realize they're not getting the what they think they're getting AND no being able to mix single and double heat sinks is a pretty lame limitation IMO.

For the most part, mixing SHS and DHS was some sort of TT rule that has been around for many MW games, excluding MW4 (which, completely is its own mythical beast).

[blinkin]

Deathlike, on 24 March 2013 - 03:28 PM, said:

For the most part, mixing SHS and DHS was some sort of TT rule that has been around for many MW games, excluding MW4 (which, completely is its own mythical beast).

my opinions concerning mixing heatsinks carry a heavy dose of ambivalence. i think over all people will stick with a majority of one type and then use one or two of the other type to fill up spare tonnage or crit space. it likely would not change the game play in any major way. most mechs that are optomized with this change will gain one more safe volley within a 3 minute span of hardcore fighting.

i think it is a change that wouldn't really change anything and the developers should not concern themselves with it.

[MustrumRidcully]

blinkin, on 24 March 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

outside of engine you can have a maximum of 14DHS on any mech. this is not including any equipment beyond a standard engine. 4 ERPPC reduce that down to 10DHS. so with the current rules of 2.0 engine and 1.4 external you have a total of 34 effective heatsinks. to compete with my SHS i would need a 325 STANDARD engine to store another 3 DHS. this would cost 30.5 tons. so 13 tons for heat sinks + 30.5 tons for engine + 10 tons for the atlas frame + 28 tons for the ERPPC adds up to 81.5 tons. i also have 1.5 tons for AMS because it is vital on an atlas. now we are at 83 tons this leaves 17 tons for armor when an average atlas has 19 tons. i would be forced to strip 64 points of armor.

yes i have done the math. it is almost never useful to put DHS on an atlas. currently my atlas has 0.00 slots left over and is exactly 100 tons. i have never had a complete atlas build that ever had any open slots. in fact one of the decent builds i have seen is actually 99 tons because you run out of critical space.

if critical space is your primary limiting factor then even 2.0DHS are a bad idea.

The goal of the game is not to have the highest possible heat capacity and/or the highest possible heat dissipation. It's to kil lthe enemy before he kills you.

If the Atlas was an all-energy boat, trying to kill the enemy before he kills you might require maximizing the heat capacity and/or dissipation. But it can use ballistics and missiles, and it can use some of the most powerful inthe game. And for these weapons, you need a bit less in heat cap and dissipation and more in weight for the same or evne a higher damage output.

Instead, say a Quad ER PPC Atlas, build a Triple ER PPC Atlas with a Gauss Rifle. More alpha, you don't need the max heat capacity or heat dissipation, since you just lowered your heat load by 25 %. You can now store ammo and DHS, and maybe can fit a larger engine, more armour, or even other weapons.

And if you're not running an energy boat Atlas anyway, then you probably made a mistake by maxing out yoru heat sinks and are running too cool and could get more damage with less investment in heat sinks.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 April 2013 - 02:24 AM.

[Reno Blade]

I agree there is need for change to SHS, but I think to the other direction.

How about:

All Engine HS are 1.0
All External SHS are 1.0
All External DHS are 2.0
Extra Engine HS slotted keep the ratio (2.0 for DHS).

That way you would not get the huge "free" bonus for the 10 internal DHS (the biggest increase of the DHS upgrade), but have higher use for DHS if you get an high rated Engine (with slots).

The example here would be the super hot Atlas.
The mentioned SHS version with 39 SHS would look like that (XL on atlas, urgs... )
29t for SHS and 15.5t xl300 engine.
AS7-RS with SHS

and the DHS variant like that: (ignore the 3 free tons)
21 DHS = 35,4 Heatdissipation currently.
11t for DHS and 30.5t 325 engine.
AS7-RS with DHS

With the 1.0 internal, 2.0 slotted and 2.0 external DHS that would be:
10 (internal) + 6 (3x slotted) + 16 (8x external) = 32 Heatdissipation.

[Syllogy]

No.

You've been arguing to change heat and weapon balance since closed beta. The player base continues to disagree on most fronts.

The funny part is that you have made a history of trying to champion TT rules over the changes that PGI has made to MWO, but now you want to reduce the value of DHS by making SHS more competitive.

Edited by Syllogy, 09 April 2013 - 08:02 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 09 April 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

No.

You've been arguing to change heat and weapon balance since closed beta. The player base continues to disagree on most fronts.

The player base? You mean PGI by that, right?

[Capt Cole 117]

Can't we all at least agree that SHS are useless and deserve a buff?

MustrumRidcully, on 23 March 2013 - 02:24 PM, said:

A radical idea:

No, I made the same suggestion a week ago.

Edited by Capt Cole 117, 14 April 2013 - 03:15 PM.

[MasterErrant]

no sorry. DHs needs to be restord to being actual DHS. they are supposed to be better. shs have a place. some mechs don't need DHS and sometimes SHS make more sense with energy boats.

[Capt Cole 117]

MasterErrant, on 14 April 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

no sorry. DHs needs to be restord to being actual DHS. they are supposed to be better. shs have a place. some mechs don't need DHS and sometimes SHS make more sense with energy boats.

*mastererrant takes six ppcs to the CT*

*mastererrant has been destroyed!*

[Reno Blade]

A way to "improve" SHS compared to the DHS is to further use the slot saving compared to the weight saving of the DHS.
It could also add more "depth" to the mechlab.

The suggestion would be to give Heatsinks the ability to "dock" onto weapons to reduce their heat by a small amount (lets say 50% of the HS value).
This would need to be limited to the slot next to the weapon!

Imagine a PPC docked to a SHS and then another PPC docked to a second SHS, reducing the heat of the docket PPC by 0,5heat each.
With DHS you could get 0,7h reduction, but have space problems. (2x PPC and 2x DHS will be only on the side Torso most of the times, because of arm actuators)
If you take a Laser boat like the HBK-4P with lots of MLasers, you further see the effect of SHS docked to each weapon, because you can alternate the MLaser and SHS in the slots.
You would run out of space if you tried that with DHS.

[Syllogy]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 April 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

The player base? You mean PGI by that, right?

Nope, I mean by the poll that is at the top of this post.