25 replies to this topic

[MaddMaxx]

Reno Blade, on 15 April 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

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.

That method makes the SHS vastly superior. A SHS gets a straight 50% reduction per slot. A DHS gets only a 23% reduction per slot used. Seems an unlikely balance measure to me.

As to the OP. I had to vote No, but I also do agree that the over-all Heat threshold should be looked at. Heat currently isn't, but should be, THE main "balancing" component.

If you wish to have a massive Alpha potential, fine. Here is the accompanying "Brutal Heat Curve" or BHC that comes with it.

[Reno Blade]

MaddMaxx, on 15 April 2013 - 07:21 AM, said:

That method makes the SHS vastly superior. A SHS gets a straight 50% reduction per slot. A DHS gets only a 23% reduction per slot used. Seems an unlikely balance measure to me.

The numbers are examples ofc.
Having a flat amount per Heatsink might be a problem for stuff like the AC2 (1 heat).
Having better "bonus" for SHS than DHS is the point.

You get 10 "free" HS from the engine alone to make SHS worthless.
Even on a Awesome 8Q, you could take like 33 SHS (with Endosteel) or take 19 DHS (9 in the standard 240 engine) and be more efficient with the DHS.

[MustrumRidcully]

Capt Cole 117, on 14 April 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

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



No, I made the same suggestion a week ago.

That just makes you also a radical

[General Taskeen]

Whatever the case a change NEEDS to occur that affects the balance and keeps BOTH SHS and DHS in-line. SHS is niche, and I don't care if they sucked in 'canon.' There has been numerous think tanking on this very issue and not so much as a word from the Devs.

DHS was used on the silly Dragon-5( C ), covering up the issue of SHS. So what's the option for Trial Mechs, create ALL community Mechs with DHS? NO. If they are going to put stock formats into the game, then they should have been balanced first. How HEAT and heat sinks work need to be re-evaluated.

Edited by General Taskeen, 18 April 2013 - 06:22 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 15 April 2013 - 07:02 AM, said:

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

This isn't hardly my own personal favourite idea, however. It's a compromise approach I actually don't like myself either.

If you want to see something I care about, this would be the thread: http://mwomercs.com/...creates-choices

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 April 2013 - 08:12 AM.

[DreyfussFrost]

Reno Blade, on 09 April 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

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).

Exactly this, except heat sinks slotted into the engine should count as SHS no matter what they are (since slotted heat sinks don't count toward criticals, making DHS a "free" upgrade. Basically, any heat sinks in the engine should count as SHS, external DHS have double heat dissipation and capacity per ton in exchange for 2 critical slots. Extremely simple, and there would be no advantage to putting DHS in a mech with no external heat sinks.