Jump to content

New! Dhs Vs Shs: Two Possible Solutions [Suggestion]


61 replies to this topic

Poll: DHS vs SHS (27 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you support suggestion#1?

  1. Yes. I support the suggestion. (7 votes [25.93%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.93%

  2. No. SHS/DHS function fine the way they are. (9 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  3. Yes, but... (2 votes [7.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.41%

  4. No, because... (6 votes [22.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.22%

  5. Undecided. (3 votes [11.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.11%

Do you support suggestion#2?

  1. Yes. I support the suggestion. (4 votes [57.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.14%

  2. No. SHS/DHS function fine the way they are. (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  3. Yes, but... (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

  4. No, because... (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. Undecided. (1 votes [14.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.29%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 StalaggtIKE

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Raider
  • The Raider
  • 2,304 posts
  • LocationGeorgia, USA

Posted 29 March 2013 - 11:19 AM

@Zyllos:It seems to me the majority of people that select smaller engines are those that have low maximum engine ratings, such as the Commando, ie those without a choice. There are a few exceptions, the Boomcat comes to mind. I guess the question becomes is it worth having a small engine in the first place? I'd say not, but then again I don't really dabble in sub par builds and/or cheese builds.
A dissipation rate of 0.17 across the board is not something I've considered. If what you say is true, it sounds like it could work.
IIRC the devs tried those numbers and for whatever reason didn't like them. I don't know what they found or didn't like. Would you happen to have some numbers for your suggestion?

#62 IrrelevantFish

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 208 posts

Posted 31 March 2013 - 02:06 AM

View PostStalaggtIKE, on 28 March 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

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.

We appear to be suffering from miscommunication. Let me try one more time, using nothing but the "Dissipation" stat in Smurfy. You can find it on the very bottom of the left side of the "Weaponlab" tab, and it is determined solely by heatsink configuration. Comparing three configs with 10 internal DHS. you get the following (first value is the current system, second is your system):
  • 0 EXTERNAL: 2.0 heat/sec vs. 1.4 heat/sec
  • 5 EXTERNAL: 2.7 heat/sec vs. 2.4 heat/sec
  • 10 EXTERNAL: 4.0 heat/sec vs. 4.0 heat/sec
To put the change in perspective, here's the percentage drop in Dissipation for each of the three configs and the number of tons of external DHS they'd have to add to make up for it:
  • 0 EXTERNAL: -30%, 3 DHS
  • 5 EXTERNAL: -11%, 1.5 DHS
  • 10 EXTERNAL: 0%, 0 DHS
So tell me this: what do you think that will do to game balance? I know one thing for sure: there wouldn't be many light mechs or ballistics left in my mechbay.


Quote

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.

You are absolutely right about this, but in my opinion, equalizing DHS/SHS heat capacity and having one of the four trials be player-designed are adequate solutions. More than that would be unfair to experienced players.





6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users