61 replies to this topic

[Bobzilla]

Bottom line is, if your spending weight and slots on DHS they should provide a better bonus. There are few builds that would put more than 10 DHS externally anyways, and most of those builds aren't really optimal.

[StalaggtIKE]

IrrelevantFish, on 27 March 2013 - 07:58 AM, said:

Comparing heat efficiencies under the two systems by subtracting them will tell you the extent of the change, but not its significance. Saying that a build will "only be 5% less heat efficient" is like saying that someone's annual salary will "only be $5 less." If that someone is a neurosurgeon making $300,000 a year, then they probably won't even notice, but if that someone is an African subsistence farmer making $30 a year, the difference is "only" starving to death.

Similarly, dropping from 50% to 45% heat efficiency is not as significant as dropping from 25% to 20%, because in the former case, you lose 10% of your sustained DPS, but in the latter, you lose 20%. If you don't believe me, try it on Smurfy.

A 25% heat efficient build, like a poorly built laser boat? Yes, his heat management was already bad. I see no reason to balance around these kind of builds. It's the trial mechs that should be the control group.

Quote

Why does it matter if it's used "properly"? It just needs to work well, and your system won't. It won't improve trial mech viability, because it neither buffs SHS nor nerfs DHS in general. All it does is screw with the balance of one DHS build with another.

True, that's the beauty of it. It's not making DHS worst or SHS better. It's just swapping the current mechanic around. There are 3 parts to the "cost" of DHS:
Initial upgrade fee of 1,500,000
cost of 12,000 per heatsink
3 critical slots per heatsink
The current mechanic allows one to circumvent the full cost associated with DHS. All one must do is pay for the upgrade and buy an engine that is rated 250 or higher for 10 free DHS at full 2.0 capacity. At least one could be expected to fully pay for them if he wants to recieve the full benefit.

Quote

Nerfing internal DHS nerfs low-heat builds that rely on engine heatsinks. and that nerfs low-heat weapons. To demonstrate the significance of that nerf, let's compare what happens to some of my favorite loadouts if we go from the current system to yours. (Note: each comparative pair is identical in tonnage, engine, armor, and jumpjets.)
JM6-S (3xUAC5, 10 DHS): 67% to 47% heat efficiency, 9.14 to 6.41 sustained DPS.
CPLT-K2 (4xLL, 20 DHS): no change.
Congratulations. You have nerfed dakka-mechs into extinction. RIP.
JR7-D (4xML, 2xSRM4, 10 DHS): 36% to 25% heat efficiency, 2.95 to 2.05 sustained DPS
JR7-F (6xML, 14 DHS): 43% to 40% heat efficiency, 3.23 to 3.00 sustained DPS
Congratulations. You have also nerfed the JR7-D into extinction. RIP.

These builds are benefiting from an exploit. I am fully aware on how this works, several of my mechs benefit in this way. My goal is to eliminate this exploit. Let's face it it's unfair for trial mechs and mechs that truly need better heat dissipation such as the Awesome.

Quote

As for the engine thing, the issue is both more complicated and less significant than I'd originally thought, and not worth explaining.

Exactly it's non-related.

Quote

No, they're not common, and I can only think of two off the top of my head (AS7-RS w/ 350Std and 4xLL or 4xLPL), but they're my favoritest, bestest builds ever. Maybe with that buff I could beat my record of six kills in one match.

Perhaps, but then you're only dishing out a 40 alpha at the most in an Atlas. You're carrying a low payload while stocking up on heatsinks, a considerable risk for a slow Assault mech. Some great matches do not make it a great build. Even my Raven can pop off a 30 alpha continuously without fear of overheating, with the free DHS in the engine alone.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 28 March 2013 - 06:04 AM.

[Sable Dove]

Swapping them doesn't really make sense. It should be if you have lots of tonnage, but not much space, SHS works best, and if you have limited tonnage, but lots of space, DHS works best.
If you make internal heatsinks all the same (2.0 would be best, or DHS would become less effective in the engine), regardless of the external heat sinks, then you can balance it as just that. DHS would likely return to true 2.0 DHS, and SHS would be more useful for certain builds (more than the current 3 or so that do better with SHS).

The solution is extremely simple.

Edited by Sable Dove, 27 March 2013 - 04:04 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Sable Dove, on 27 March 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

It should be if you have lots of tonnage, but not much space, SHS works best, and if you have limited tonnage, but lots of space, DHS works best.

I agree. This is exactly what this solution does. It makes external DHS worth 2.0 heating capacity. Which benefits people that have enough slots for the true DHS. While the free internal ones that utilizes no slots are worth only 1.4.

[Sable Dove]

StalaggtIKE, on 27 March 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

I agree. This is exactly what this solution does. It makes external DHS worth 2.0 heating capacity. Which benefits people that have enough slots for the true DHS. While the free internal ones that utilizes no slots are worth only 1.4.

True, but your suggestion also nerfs engines that are rated 275 and above, as now DHS put in the engine would be less effective, and it only narrows the gap between DHS and SHS; DHS is still better in general.

If you make internal heat sinks all 2.0, then SHS are brought even with DHS (assuming they're put back to 2.0), and there's not such a clear choice; DHS would no longer be an upgrade by default because even with your suggestion DHS is initially 40% better than SHS at very little to no cost, as all mechs must have 10 heatsinks; most of which are in the engine.

[StalaggtIKE]

Sable Dove, on 27 March 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

True, but your suggestion also nerfs engines that are rated 275 and above, as now DHS put in the engine would be less effective, and it only narrows the gap between DHS and SHS; DHS is still better in general.

No. Heatsinks put into the engine would also be 2.0. This is simply a reversal of the current DHS system currently in place. Larger engines are heavier and pay for this through tonnage. I see no reason to make the few heatsink slots to not get 2.0 heat dissipation.

Quote

If you make internal heat sinks all 2.0, then SHS are brought even with DHS (assuming they're put back to 2.0), and there's not such a clear choice; DHS would no longer be an upgrade by default because even with your suggestion DHS is initially 40% better than SHS at very little to no cost, as all mechs must have 10 heatsinks; most of which are in the engine.

We just wont agree here. I feel that this takes too much away from DHS. After all they are an upgrade, with the disadvantage of taking up 3 crit slots. I feel it's a fair trade to force the player to pay for the 3 crit slots per heatsink for 2.0 heat dissipation.

[Sable Dove]

StalaggtIKE, on 27 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

No. Heatsinks put into the engine would also be 2.0. This is simply a reversal of the current DHS system currently in place. Larger engines are heavier and pay for this through tonnage. I see no reason to make the few heatsink slots to not get 2.0 heat dissipation.

If it's a direct reversal, then the in-engine DHS are all the same. The 11th is just as effective as the 10th, so it's not a simple reversal; it's a reversal up to the 10th heat sink, then the 11th and beyond suddenly become more effective.

StalaggtIKE, on 27 March 2013 - 04:57 PM, said:

We just wont agree here. I feel that this takes too much away from DHS. After all they are an upgrade, with the disadvantage of taking up 3 crit slots. I feel it's a fair trade to force the player to pay for the 3 crit slots per heatsink for 2.0 heat dissipation.

DHS isn't supposed to be a direct upgrade though; it's supposed to be an alternate. Same with the structural/armour 'upgrades'. They're not supposed to be pretty much mandatory; they should be better with some builds, and worse with others, not better with basically every build. Also, I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here; I think 3 slots for 2.0 dissipation is fair too. I think the fact that DHS is an automatic upgrade to in-engine heat sinks is not fair though; it makes DHS superior in virtually all situations.

[StalaggtIKE]

Sable Dove, on 27 March 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

If it's a direct reversal, then the in-engine DHS are all the same. The 11th is just as effective as the 10th, so it's not a simple reversal; it's a reversal up to the 10th heat sink, then the 11th and beyond suddenly become more effective.

No. That is not how DHS works. They work as the dev says below:

Thomas Dziegielewski said:

HEATSINKS SINGLE VS DOUBLE
EXTERNAL

Single : 0.1 heat dissipation per heatsink per second. Heatbase -1.0 per heatsink.
Double : 0.14 heat dissipation per heatsink per second. Heatbase -1.4 per heatsink.

INTERNAL - each engine has a set amount of internal heatsinks depending on its strength.

Single : 0.1 heat dissipation per heatsink per second.
Double : 0.2 heat dissipation per heatsink per second.

Currently, a std 225 engine comes with 9 heatsinks. Once the pilot upgrades to DHS, these 9 dissipate at a 2.0, or 2x the level of SHS. All additional heatsinks function at 1.4. A std 320 engine comes with 10 heatsinks with a slot for 2 additional. The DHS upgrades change the 10 into 2.0 level, however adding heatsinks to the 2 slots do not give them this benefit. They only dissipate at 1.4.

My suggestion would have the 9 in the 225 engine and the 10 in the 320 engine dissipating at only 1.4. All additional heatsinks would dissipate at 2.0. Even the two added to the 320 slots would function at a 2.0 dissipation. I feel it's fair given the tonnage of the heavier engine.

Quote

DHS isn't supposed to be a direct upgrade though; it's supposed to be an alternate. Same with the structural/armour 'upgrades'. They're not supposed to be pretty much mandatory; they should be better with some builds, and worse with others, not better with basically every build. Also, I'm not sure what we're disagreeing on here; I think 3 slots for 2.0 dissipation is fair too. I think the fact that DHS is an automatic upgrade to in-engine heat sinks is not fair though; it makes DHS superior in virtually all situations.

The underlined part in you statement is were we disagree. DHS are an upgrade; I sure payed for them. If they're nothing but an alternative then, I should be getting them free. That's not to say SHS can't have any worth. They take up only 1 crit slot, can be put in head, legs and CT. Since they can be put in the legs, they benefit from being submerged in water.

Thomas Dziegielewski said:

WATER, AMBIENT TEMPERATURE AND HEATSINKS

There are advantages/disadvantages to be had in putting heatsinks in certain components on a mech, especially pertaining to water and other cooling features.

+ The deeper in water a component containing heatsinks is, the more bonus cooling those heatsinks will do. Having two heatsinks in your right leg and your right leg being 75% submerged in cooling water will give those two heatsinks a 75% cooling boost.

- Steam will emanate from components containing heatsinks if they are being cooled by water or if the ambient temperature is cooling your mech in any way. You will start to see this effect when the mech is at least at a 30% heat level.

Although hard to see it will allow enemies to target components that contain a majority of your heatsinks.

Source: BREAKDOWN

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 27 March 2013 - 06:14 PM.

[Xerxys]

StalaggtIKE, on 26 March 2013 - 06:01 AM, said:

So did I. What's your point?

My point is that new players don't have to go through 1/4 of the play time to be able to afford a good mech with a DHS upgrade afterwards. 1.5M c-bills doesn't take but a handful of rounds to save up now anyways if they decide to blow their wad on the mech alone, so just starting out with DHS or trying to make standard heat sinks in any way competitive with with DHS takes away from the whole upgrade thing that goes along with spending a bunch of money to get them.

[Peiper]

StalaggtIKE, on 27 March 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

No. That is not how DHS works. They work as the dev says below:

Currently, a std 225 engine comes with 9 heatsinks. Once the pilot upgrades to DHS, these 9 dissipate at a 2.0, or 2x the level of SHS. All additional heatsinks function at 1.4. A std 320 engine comes with 10 heatsinks with a slot for 2 additional. The DHS upgrades change the 10 into 2.0 level, however adding heatsinks to the 2 slots do not give them this benefit. They only dissipate at 1.4.

My suggestion would have the 9 in the 225 engine and the 10 in the 320 engine dissipating at only 1.4. All additional heatsinks would dissipate at 2.0. Even the two added to the 320 slots would function at a 2.0 dissipation. I feel it's fair given the tonnage of the heavier engine.

Source: BREAKDOWN

I disagree with this. Only the original 10 (required ten) would act as 1.4 heat sinks. The rest (#11 and up) would act as true 2.0 double heat sinks. You're paying extra tonnage for them, you should get the benefit, whether they are in the engine or not. I presumed you were saying this when I agreed with your original suggestion. You HAVE to take 10 heat sinks in any mech no matter the mech size. You don't have to take more, you choose to, so you should get the full benefit, even if some can fit in what I can only guess is a truly massive engine to hold additional heat sinks. Changing my vote to "yes, but."

[StalaggtIKE]

Xerxys, on 27 March 2013 - 08:53 PM, said:

My point is that new players don't have to go through 1/4 of the play time to be able to afford a good mech with a DHS upgrade afterwards. 1.5M c-bills doesn't take but a handful of rounds to save up now anyways if they decide to blow their wad on the mech alone, so just starting out with DHS or trying to make standard heat sinks in any way competitive with with DHS takes away from the whole upgrade thing that goes along with spending a bunch of money to get them.

One word, retention. I'm all for a challenge, but this is a F2P game. If the initial impression is too "difficult" for new players, they'e going to get frustrated and leave. This is detrimental to the survival of MWO. I don't feel the game should be balanced around the lowest denominator, however the lowest should be considered.

Peiper, on 27 March 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:

I disagree with this. Only the original 10 (required ten) would act as 1.4 heat sinks. The rest (#11 and up) would act as true 2.0 double heat sinks. You're paying extra tonnage for them, you should get the benefit, whether they are in the engine or not. I presumed you were saying this when I agreed with your original suggestion. You HAVE to take 10 heat sinks in any mech no matter the mech size. You don't have to take more, you choose to, so you should get the full benefit, even if some can fit in what I can only guess is a truly massive engine to hold additional heat sinks. Changing my vote to "yes, but."

What about smaller engines? Your solution would have users of small engines such as the std 175, which comes with only 7 heatsinks, to buy a 4th heatsink before receiving the true 2.0 DHS. Being forced to carry 10 is already enough of a burden. Personally, I rather see the current mandatory 10 heatsink stipulation removed.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 28 March 2013 - 05:58 AM.

[Peiper]

StalaggtIKE, on 28 March 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

What about smaller engines? Your solution would have smaller engines such as the std 175, which comes with only 7 heatsinks, to buy a 4th heatsink before receiving the true 2.0 DHS. Being forced to carry 10 is already enough of a burden. Personally, I rather see the current mandatory 10 heatsink stipulation removed.

Classic Battletech rules make it so you have 10 heat sinks no matter what, and that has to do with game balance. Messing with the balance usually means bad news. My solution says yes, you'd have to buy an 11th heat sink to have any that act as true 2.0 heat sinks, where the basic 10 would be 1.4 heat sinks. You DON'T have to buy an 11th heat sink, but if you do, you get the benefit. I thought the purpose of your idea was to reward people for boating double heat sinks in order to offset the fact that most mechs can just convert to doubles and get a great benefit with no drawback. Even with 1.4 instead of true doubles in the engine, it's still an upgrade for those who want a little more heat dissipation. It's just not as good as if they invested more tonnage and space to fit even more double heat sinks. This is also why I would like to see 1.7 heat sinks tested across the board along with the 1.4 internal 10, and 2.0 for those with 11 or more DHS.

Edited by Peiper, 28 March 2013 - 05:20 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Peiper, on 28 March 2013 - 05:19 AM, said:

Classic Battletech rules make it so you have 10 heat sinks no matter what, and that has to do with game balance. Messing with the balance usually means bad news. My solution says yes, you'd have to buy an 11th heat sink to have any that act as true 2.0 heat sinks, where the basic 10 would be 1.4 heat sinks. You DON'T have to buy an 11th heat sink, but if you do, you get the benefit. I thought the purpose of your idea was to reward people for boating double heat sinks in order to offset the fact that most mechs can just convert to doubles and get a great benefit with no drawback. Even with 1.4 instead of true doubles in the engine, it's still an upgrade for those who want a little more heat dissipation. It's just not as good as if they invested more tonnage and space to fit even more double heat sinks. This is also why I would like to see 1.7 heat sinks tested across the board along with the 1.4 internal 10, and 2.0 for those with 11 or more DHS.

Oh, I did not know that. Being the sucker I am for canon rules, I retract my previous statment.

[IrrelevantFish]

StalaggtIKE, on 28 March 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Let's face it it's unfair for trial mechs and mechs that truly need better heat dissipation such as the Awesome.

StalaggtIKE, on 28 March 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

True, that's the beauty of it. It's not making DHS worst or SHS better. It's just swapping the current mechanic around.

What you're saying is that the problem with trial mechs is that DHS are too powerful versus SHS, and your system fixes it by not changing the balance between them. I think that fits the definition of "cognitive dissonance."

So let's resolve it. Ask yourself this:

• Have you made trial mechs heat problems any better?
  
• What kind of custom mechs are currently most effective?
  
• How will your system affect those mechs?
  
• How will those effects make those mechs less capable of overpowering trials?

If I may, the answers are, respectively:

• No. Your system doesn't touch SHS.
  
• Opinion appears to favor energy-boating heavies and assaults, but even if not outright superior, they're at least extremely competitive.
  
• According to both of our calculations, energy boats will be minimally affected.
  
• They won't. They'll just make it so overheated trials are more likely to be cockpitted by PPCs than AC20s.

So go back and look at your numbers again. All you've really done is make it so the fewer heatsinks a mech has, the harder your nerf-bat hits them.

StalaggtIKE, on 28 March 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

These builds are benefiting from an exploit. I am fully aware on how this works, several of my mechs benefit in this way. My goal is to eliminate this exploit.

For starters, it doesn't meet the definition of an exploit, which is a coding/design flaw that players can use to gain unfair/overwhelming advantage (example: using LRMs between the last patch and hotfix) or allow/encourage behavior that impinges on others' ability to enjoy the game (example: AFK farming).

So does using a JR7-D or a dakka-mech give you an unfair advantage over those running JR7-Fs and energy-boats, or do they somehow ruin everyone else's fun? Not unless 50% of the player-base likes to be taken advantage of and everyone I talk to on Teamspeak is atypical.

So if mechs using it aren't OP and they don't cause everyone to disconnect if fired in syncopated triplets at precisely 83bpm , what's the problem with it? So far as I can tell, your real concern is one you've frequently implied but never stated, and is evident in these two excerpts:

StalaggtIKE, on 28 March 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

Being the sucker I am for canon rules, I retract my previous statment.

StalaggtIKE, on 26 March 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

Eliminating this "workaround" makes DHS utilized properly.

Or in other words: "The current system offends me because it's not like TT."

This argument crops up with depressing frequency in spite of its utter silliness. The proper word describing MWO's relationsnip to TT is "adaptation," a word whose primary definition is "adjustment to environmental conditions." Considering the vast divide between a turn-based board-game and a real-time video game, I think it near-miraculous that any of the "Mechwarrior" games (MWO included) have managed to stay so faithful to TT rules without being steaming piles of manure only the most fanatical of fanboys could stomach playing.

Don't get me wrong, I love TT and I think fidelity to its ruleset should be PGI's default position, but I vastly prefer rules that are "improper" and non-canonical over those that destroy game balance.

Now, do I think that the current DHS/SHS setup is fair and balanced? No, but it's a hell of a lot more balanced than yours.

EDIT: Didn't notice you'd added in the matched-capacity idea I had mentioned previously (suggestion #2). That I support. It's a fantastic idea I wish I'd come up with myself.

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 28 March 2013 - 09:46 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

IrrelevantFish, on 28 March 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

What you're saying is that the problem with trial mechs is that DHS are too powerful versus SHS, and your system fixes it by not changing the balance between them. I think that fits the definition of "cognitive dissonance."

Relativity. SHS does not have to be changed, because DHS were changed to work better with them. You are right I have conflicted ideologies, with a desire to somehow meld them. It's called a compromise. How can:

• SHS be made competative with DHS?
  
• DHS be worth their cost?

Quote

Or in other words: "The current system offends me because it's not like TT."

Not really the case. The whole idea sparked from new player retention. In fact TT never came up, until after digressing off topic.

Quote

Now, do I think that the current DHS/SHS setup is fair and balanced? No, but it's a hell of a lot more balanced than yours.

Other than your extraneous calculations and otherworldly analogies, I have not seen anything that proves that the current system is better than the proposed one.

Quote

EDIT: Didn't notice you'd added in the matched-capacity idea I had mentioned previously (suggestion #2). That I support. It's a fantastic idea I wish I'd come up with myself.

Would you feel better if I put your name next to suggestion#2?

Edit: I do not wish to claim suggestion#1 to be my own either. I'm sure I've seen it or something like it on another post. Perhaps a post drew me to the idea, I honestly don't remember. I just wanted to put it down and see how others feel about it. I take no ownership of a few ideas that have probably been rehashed several times since closed BETA. This notion of ownership of ideas, may be the reason the devs refuse to use some of our input.

New player retention is an issue to me and I recognized the huge disparity between trial mechs vs premades. I concluded that heat is a large part of the issue. I just want to find a reasonable solution.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 28 March 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Zyllos]

This was the reason why I said swapping DHS 0.14/0.2 from Outside/Inside to Inside/Outside only benefits those with smaller engines and those who run many heatsinks outside the engine is because it actually does only benefit those builds. Smaller engines are forced to equip 10 - Engine Rating / 25 heatsinks, which just got buffed. And obviously for those who run many heatsinks.

The current system penalizes the small engines and many heatsinks due to having to equip reduced powered DHS outside the engine.

The reason why the same heatsinks value everywhere is the balancing way to do it is because with the current heatsink system and weapon heat values to RoF, many builds are receiving huge benefits for running a large engine and no additional heatsinks (thus more tonnage) and automatically receives the 0.2 dissipation rates. But the Commando, which must run sub-250 rating engines, has their dissipation rates dropped to ranges of 1.76 to 1.88 dissipation rates for the same number of heatsinks. This also hurts the viability of high heat builds that needs many heatsinks because most of those DHS are at the 1.4 rate.

But, if you made DHS 0.17, it buffs the smaller rating engines, like the 125 and 100, and penalizes the engine ratings sizes over those. What this does is normalizes those builds which run only the base 10 heatsinks to have more tonnage for larger engines because they have 2.0 dissipation rates. If they were reduced to 1.7 dissipation, for the same weapon loadouts, they would have to reduce the engine size, thus slow them down a little, to fit 1 or 2 more heatsinks to get the same dissipation rates.

It also helps those large energy builds that have many DHS outside the engines. Sense most large mechs are running 250 rating engines, they automatically get 2.0 dissipation, but all the other DHS only add 0.14, thus hurts dissipation. But if DHS now add 0.17, these larger heatsink loadouts would have 0.03 * # of heatsinks dissipation better. Thus, with the same weapon loadouts, they would have higher dissipation rates. Or they could convert one or two DHSs to get the same dissipation for a bit larger engine, armor, or whatever they needed.

From my Excel charts, 0.17 DHS deviates the least from the current system of 0.2/0.14 DHS Inside/Outside while balancing smaller engines and large heatsink number builds when compared with minimum number of heatsink builds. Take my AWS-8Q. It runs 21 DHS, which is close to the maximum number of DHS possible to run with standard actuators. With the change from .14/.2 to .17 all over, it's dissipation rate goes to 3.57 dissipation, from 3.54. This makes DHS balanced around the 20/21 DHS mark. All those with at least 250 rating engines with less than 20/21 would have dissipation rates reduced. Those mechs which run very small rating engines would receive a slight buff. Those mechs which run a sub-250 rating engine with many heatsinks have to look by an individual basis to see the changes, but most likely it will not be significantly different.

Edited by Zyllos, 28 March 2013 - 02:24 PM.

[WardenWolf]

Both of these ideas are on the right track, particularly idea #2, as it gives a balance back to single heatsinks (you could stack more of them, provided the space, giving you a bigger heat capacity in trade for possibly less heat dissipation).

However, I would rather they just expand all DHS to full 2x effectiveness (instead of swapping, as in your suggestion #1) and then either implement suggestion #2 or take it further and limit heat caps even more. Maybe drop the base of 30 and just make it 2 x the number of heatsinks you have (of either size)? Or make it the base 30 without any addition at all... or somewhere inbetween, but definitely lower than it is now. I don't think people should be able to shoot off six PPCs at a time without consequences, it doesn't feel right. It wouldn't be doable in TT, even if you had a tremendous amount of heatsinks (20 total double HS would leave you at 20 heat at the end of a round if you fired six PPCs, and you'd have to roll to avoid bad stuff happening).

[Narcissistic Martyr]

I am going to start with the premise that all the equipment in the game should have a point and while some equipment will be better than others under certain situations nothing should be just plain better. This means there needs to be an opportunity cost for using DHS that is serious enough that SHS will be better a not insubstantial amount of the time.

Your solutions do not address the fundamental flaw with DHS which is that there is still no real opportunity cost (cbills don't count frankly) by switching to DHS for most builds.

Let's examine suggestion 1. With your changes, the break even points in critical slots required to achieve a certain cooling value on a 250 rated engine is at 22 cooling at which point the SHS build has committed 8 more tons to cooling than the DHS build. Now add in the bonus DHS from a bigger engine and you're getting to the point where almost no mech can spare the tonnage for SHS. So basically while it make trial mechs slightly less worse it does nothing to actually balance DHS.

Suggestion 2 does better in that it actually has an opportunity cost, however by and large with the exception of high heat alpha builds one is still better off with DHS since endurance matters more than heat capacity for most builds.

The best suggestions I've seen that have substantial opportunity costs are all engine HS are SHS and that engine DHS should cost a critical slot each so that you lose 10 critical slots to get the free DHS cooling. Of the two only the first one would have a chance of being implemented but if it were there would an immediate trade off between critical slots and free tonnage which would effectively balance DHS with SHS.

[Peiper]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 28 March 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Your solutions do not address the fundamental flaw with DHS which is that there is still no real opportunity cost (cbills don't count frankly) by switching to DHS for most builds.

And this is where Classic Battletech clashes with MWO. The game doesn't have a way to take into account the costs of mechs. If Battle Value was introduced as a primary measure when matchmaking, and repair/rearm was re-introduced you'd see people really weighing the cost of using Lostech (like double heat sinks and XL engines) in mechs. One of the reasons the Awesome 8Q was so awesome in the tabletop was that it was a cheap, heavily armored, long range assault mech. Compare that to the 9M, with ERPPC's, and XL, and Double heat sinks. Yeah, it was a much better mech, but....

The cost of an Awesome 8Q in CBT is 6.6 million C-Bills. The cost of a 9M is 18 million C-Bills. Now, if we had an economy similar to the way it works in CBT, people wouldn't be taking 9M's out every time - not with the sort of attrition we go through in our games. So, when we talk about figuring out whether we should tinker with Double Heat Sinks, its really small potatoes compared to the lack of using battle values and a more realistic/canon economy in the game.

I really, really wish the devs would, when in doubt, fall back on Battletech for their ideas and figuring out how to balance things out. Sometimes it seems like they are stuck on trying to get one or two little systems to work than flush out some of the much greater balance issues in the game like how to balance out dropweights and battle-values into the matchmaking. Fortunately lobbies are coming and we won't have to rely upon PGI to try to set us up with a balanced game. The community can regulate itself. I'm looking forward to stock mech leagues.

[StalaggtIKE]

Narcissistic Martyr, on 28 March 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

The best suggestions I've seen that have substantial opportunity costs are all engine HS are SHS and that engine DHS should cost a critical slot each so that you lose 10 critical slots to get the free DHS cooling. Of the two only the first one would have a chance of being implemented but if it were there would an immediate trade off between critical slots and free tonnage which would effectively balance DHS with SHS.

I am not understanding. Can you break this down further?