61 replies to this topic

[StalaggtIKE]

Why do you recommend a change?
Well originally I saw absolutely no reason to change the current dynamic. SHS did not need to have any validity, as DHS was supposed to be superior. Every topic that suggested such annoyed me. In fact I was upset when DHS were changed from "true 2.0" heat dissipation. Well a thread about new player retention got me thinking about the inferiority of trial mechs. Compared to premades they will forever be inferior because of heat management, thus a horrible dps. The sole purpose of even considering trial mech viability is new player retention. We must keep new players coming and playing if we want MWO to continue to succeed.

How do heat sinks currently function within MWO?

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.

As you can see external SHS dissipate heat at a 0.10 level with a threshold of 1. While external DHS dissipates at 0.14 with a threshold of 1.4. Great! Now, internal to the engine, SHS functions exactly the same. However, DHS instead dissipate heat at a 0.2. That means a XL300 engine comes with 10 "true 2.0" DHS built-in. No wonder premade builds are considerably superior to trial mechs. This is more or less a free benefit that allows the builder to circumvent DHS one flaw, the 3 crit slot capacity.

Suggestion #1
To fix this I propose the following:

• Internal engine DHS dissipate at 0.14 (0.2 -> 0.14)
  
• External DHS dissipates at 0.2 with a threshold of 2.0 (0.14 -> 0.2/ 1.4 -> 2.0)

Basically the functionality of the internal and external DHS will be flipped around. What this will result in is:

• pilots must invest in additional DHS in order to truly reap benefits
  
• trial mechs will become more viable on the field
  
• larger engines can benefit by allowing for additional installation of DHS (at 2.0 level)

As a result, the default heat threshold may need to be increased across the board. This is because weapons can fire considerably faster from TT, thus resulting in hotter output. The disparity between SHS and DHS is not as great thus allowing trial mechs the ability to better compete against premades. The pilot gain benefits from DHS once investing in additional heatsinks, thus the DHS upgrade still gain benefits.

Edit: This is what I got messing around in the mechlab:

I was surprised how the STK-3F turned out, the same. Everything else had slight changes:

• -5% for Jenner
  
• -1% for Hunchback
  
• -5% for Catapult

The good thing is, the disparity between SHS and DHS heat dissipation is smaller. This makes SHS more viable, thus making the trial mechs more viable. My math is notorious for being a bit off at times.


Suggestion #2
Here's an idea I've seen discussed. Have heat threshold directly correlate to heatsink total, disregarding if it's SHS or DHS. Note: The current heat dissipation will remain the same as currently in-game.

I don't currently have any supporting data. However, the theory is:

• SHS are smaller thus more can be packed in a mech, which potentially result in higher heat thresholds
  
• DHS are larger, taking up 3 crits a piece, thus less flexibility to stuff them in mech without aid of engine heatsink slots. The good thing is they would maintain their edge in heat dissipation.

So, this means an Atlas with 10 DHS may dissipate his heat faster, however the Hunchback carrying 16 SHS would have a higher heat threshold before shutting down.



Suggestion #3
Simply a combination of suggestions 1 and 2.


Well, what do you think? Is it anything I am overlooking?

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 28 March 2013 - 07:06 AM.
Yes or No! No "but..." in the poll options allowed

[Capt Cole 117]

Mechs with DHS are well balenced, don't nerf engine DHS, buff SHS.

[Deathlike]

This will majorly nerf light and medium mechs, regardless of the intent. Plus, it also buffs the hex-PPC Stalker. Nothing good will necessarily come of that.

[StalaggtIKE]

Deathlike, on 25 March 2013 - 02:09 PM, said:

This will majorly nerf light and medium mechs, regardless of the intent.

I do not see how this would disproportionately effect lights and medium vs any other class. Do you have any numbers to back this up?

Quote

Plus, it also buffs the hex-PPC Stalker. Nothing good will necessarily come of that.

For the hex-PPC, I do not believe there is a way to add more than 8 DHS thus resulting in no buff. If anything, this would be a nerf because it would lose out of the "free" 10x 2.0 DHS. With my suggestion it would only get 8x 2.0 DHS. If I am wrong please post a build. I appreciate your feedback.

[Peiper]

I've posted this same suggestion, and I support it. Those who say light/medium mechs are going to be gimped because they don't have 2.0 heat sinks in the engine, well:
1. they don't have the same number of weapons (or shouldn't, hardpoints are still screwy IMO).
2. they will still get the equivalent of 14 SHS in the engine with the DHS upgrade.

Being a jenner pilot, I would mourn the loss of the 2.0 heat sinks. But my other two mechs, the Atlas RS, and Awesome 9M, would finally reap the benefits of having every free slot taken up with heat sinks. BUT, I'm purposely using all available tonnage for said heat sinks.
________________________________________________________________

In further thought regarding light/medium nerfs, they could do a compromise instead. Double heat sinks, all of them, can work at 1.7 heat dissipation.

In Classic Battletech, the drawback to having double heat sinks installed in a mech was cost. We don't have to replace our mechs every time they get blown out from under us, but if we did, we'd think twice about using XLs, DHS, and other expensive advanced tech.

I've tried to push for the creation of a stock league, though without lobbies, it's not getting much interest. No one wants to miss-sync-drop into a match with stock mechs vs. fantasy mechs, and alt-F4ing out of every missed sync drop... anyway, in the LCAF forums, where I'm developing this, I've gone through and altered most of the stock mechs to make them more playable by adding double heat sinks, a little extra armor to the lighter mechs, and a little extra ammo for all the LRMs/AC's/Gauss. (NOTE: I've left the already advanced versions alone like the AWS-9M, Cent-D, Treb-3c, etc...) And yes, DHS make a huge difference in most every mech, and StallagtIKE's ideas definately have merit when it comes to balance. I still support his ideas, with the idea that it should be both tested his way, and with the 1.7 DHS compromise as well.

Edited by Peiper, 25 March 2013 - 04:26 PM.

[Deathlike]

I'm wrong on my initial analysis.

When you swap the values between external and internal DHS dissipation rates, it would effectively cause a "heat dissipation depression". Pretty much, we would have to do a lot of across the board rebuilds of already hot builds.

As a result, the hex-PPC stalker would be worse than a glass cannon... it would be a statue. The other thing that would cause is the reuse of lower heat generating weapons, like the small laser...

I couldn't tell you how much more it would affect, but let's say the 6 med laser Jenner-K or Cicada-2A would not be viable.

The revised system would only be better than the current system if you equipped a mech with more than 20 DHS.

I still need an "Abstain" option. I don't honestly know if it's a good or bad thing overall.

Edited by Deathlike, 25 March 2013 - 04:22 PM.

[General Taskeen]

SHS to 1.2-1.4 for INT/EXT + 1 Heat Threshold
DHS to 2.0 for INT/EXT + 2 Heat Threshold

Solved.

[Nankam]

This suggestion would cause everything to run way hotter. It would also seriously gimp light and medium mechs as they don't have the tonnage for many additional external heat sinks.

Basically the current system ensures that heavier mechs don't get a massive heat dissipation benefit over lighter ones, where as this proposed system would result in the exact opposite. Heavier mechs would have a similar heat buildup to what they currently experience, while light and medium mechs would see a siginifacnt increase in heat buildup.

[Deathlike]

Nankam, on 25 March 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

This suggestion would cause everything to run way hotter. It would also seriously gimp light and medium mechs as they don't have the tonnage for many additional external heat sinks.

The more likely result is that light mechs will actually start using more small lasers, as that's what they are there for. It wouldn't change their role that much. Then again, small pulse lasers completely would require tweakage (as they are not worth their weight in tonnage and heat per second).

[StalaggtIKE]

This is what I got messing around in the mechlab:

I was surprised how the STK-3F turned out, the same. Everything else had slight changes:

• -5% for Jenner
  
• -1% for Hunchback
  
• -5% for Catapult

The good thing is, the disparity between SHS and DHS heat dissipation is smaller. This makes SHS more viable, thus making the trial mechs more viable. My math is notorious for being a bit off at times.

I would like to see some more numbers. Anyone wants to contribute?

Edit: Oh, I used mwo.smurfy-net to get my values. Great site if you haven't used it before.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 25 March 2013 - 06:10 PM.

[Peiper]

Nankam, on 25 March 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

Basically the current system ensures that heavier mechs don't get a massive heat dissipation benefit over lighter ones, where as this proposed system would result in the exact opposite. Heavier mechs would have a similar heat buildup to what they currently experience, while light and medium mechs would see a siginifacnt increase in heat buildup.

Just as it should be. There are compromises in every mech. In CBT, most light mechs aren't as heavily armed as we make them, and if they were, they had very little armor and awful heat curves. As a mech gained in weight, it slowed down, but could either become more heat efficient or have more weapons. By the time you got to the assault class, they still either ran really hot, or they were undergunned in order to dissipate the heat. For example, the Awesome 8Q, which has 3 PPC's and a small laser (33 damage) and is heat efficient (by TT standards) as compared to the Stalker 3F, which could put out up to 80 possible damage in an alpha strike at only 5 tons more. However, the stalker - with 20 standard heat sinks - would generate 44 total heat.

For reference: heat scale is 0-30 undissipated heat maximum. 30 is an auto shut down, and you'd have to avoid an ammo explosion on 8+ (2d6 roll).

Here's the math.
Awesome, 80 tons, 3PPCs (ignoring small laser), 28 heat sinks.
30 damage, 30 heat, +2 on the overheat scale. Could alpha strike round after round and go up only 2 on the scale each round. It would take 7 alpha strikes before you had to hit the shutdown override the first time on a 4+ and you wouldn't have to worry about any ammo explosions.

Stalker, 85 tons, 2LRM10s, 2SRM6's, 4MLaser, 2LLasers, 20 heat sinks.
80 possible damage, 44 heat, +22 on the heat scale on the first alpha strike. Upon the very first alpha strike, you'd have to avoid an alpha strike on a 4+ (2d6 roll), have your mechs speed reduced by 40kph, have a +3 negative modifier to shooting, avoid a shutdown (shutdown override) on an 8+.

So, conclusion. Classic Battletech has balances built in to avoid boating, or even alpha striking a great variety of weapons. The OP's idea would help prevent boating by moving the 'better' double heat sinks outside of the base/internal 10.


_____________________________________________

PPC Stalker vs. standard Awesome. This is the stalker I'm using. http://mwo.smurfy-ne...193e73dfabf3ded

Okay, so this stalker can do either 60 or 90 points of damage on an alpha (depending on ERPPC or PPC).
It moves at 36.7 kph at a run, and produces either 30 or 60 heat on an alpha (assuming the 15 double heat sinks are at the TT value of 2 heat, and the PPC's are at tabletop heat of 10 or 15 each respectively.)

The awesome can fire it's 3 PPCs and generate 2 total heat on the heat scale.
The stalker can fire it's 6 PPC's and generate 30 heat (or 60) on the scale and automatically shut down for 1 (or 2 rounds). The stalker could alternatively fire only 3 of it's PPC's and stay cool. I looked in my old BT compendium, but could not find any rules about damage to the pilot from heat other than ammo explosions and/or from life support failure. However, a mechwarrior becomes less effective the hotter his mech gets, in the form of his mech becoming slower and more importantly having significant modifiers to his targetting. The human body can only take so much heat, and doesn't cool off as fast as a battlemech.

Now, I THINK they may take this into account in MWO with pilots dying from staying above heat for so long, but I may be wrong on that. (I play Awesomes, not PPC boat stalkers... lol)

Anyway, the conclusion is:

Making Double Heat Sinks the way the OP describes will not necessarily give some sort of great advantage to PPC stalkers as suggested by another in this thread, and logically, alpha striking a PPC stalker should KILL the pilot for his own stupidity. Back on point: I'd like to see PGI test out double heat sinks at 1.7 heat dissipation for a week or two, AND try the OP's suggestion of reversing the heat dissipation disparity so that the first 10 DHS, provide 1.4 heat loss and 2.0 beyond those base 10.

Predicted result: mech builds would become more balanced, and there would be a much more calculable trade-off between choosing whether to take single or double heat sinks.

Edited by Peiper, 25 March 2013 - 06:45 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Just to add on what Peiper posted above:
Lights can take advantage of ferro-fibrous, something none of the larger mechs can do effectively. What this does is allow them to carry larger weapons as well as the "free" DHS from a large XL engine. Thus granting them similar firepower to that of mediums. Mediums suffer greatly because of this, rapidly becoming less represented on the battlefield.Though not originally anticipated, this proposed change could bring some balance here as well.

Edit: @Peiper: Just a heads up, to add that many PPC and heatsinks to the Stalker, I had to shave a lot of armor. I would never use such an abomination, but some people have success with it. More power to them Or give it a smaller engine.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 25 March 2013 - 07:06 PM.

[Bobzilla]

I don't think it so much as nerfs the light as much as it makes them work like every other class. Lights can't pack much firepower, but they also don't have to worry much about heat with internal DHS compaired to other classes. Their advantage should be their speed, not a DHS glitch.

Plus DHS take 3 slots, more DHS=less weapons.

[StalaggtIKE]

Bobzilla, on 25 March 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

I don't think it so much as nerfs the light as much as it makes them work like every other class. Lights can't pack much firepower, but they also don't have to worry much about heat with internal DHS compaired to other classes. Their advantage should be their speed, not a DHS glitch.

Plus DHS take 3 slots, more DHS=less weapons.

Correct! It confines them to their role of speed over damage. This eliminates the overlap that mediums have been suffering.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 25 March 2013 - 08:22 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

more useless polls that are useless because theyre the "loud minority". It only matters what the "silent majority" wants

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 25 March 2013 - 08:24 PM.

[Xerxys]

No because I had to go through the grueling combat with SHS and I had to do it well before the Cadet bonus. I had to do it a second time, again, well before the cadet bonus. Trial mechs suck as much because of ****** weapons as lack of heat issues. The time in a trial mech is minimal now because of the 4million+ c-bills the cadet bonus gives them. With that they can buy their first assault mech with all the bells and whistles. IMO double heat sinks need to live up to their names regardless of where they're located. Fix the broken *** heat system and DHS would not be overpowering in any way. It's the stupid increased heat capacity that annoys me. Broken!

Edited by Xerxys, 26 March 2013 - 05:32 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 25 March 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

more useless polls that are useless because theyre the "loud minority". It only matters what the "silent majority" wants

The loud minority are complaining individually about the following:

• light class dominance
  
• Medium class inferiority
  
• trial mech inferiority
  
• boating

The suggested change could mitigate all of these issues.



Light class dominance - Lights currently can pack on FF, endo and DHS without sacrificing on weapons, speed or armor. This is because the "free" engine DHS usually provides enough heat dissipation. With the proposed change they would need to invest in extra DHS to gain the benefit of true 2.0 heat dissipation, thus sacrificing in either firepower, speed or armor. Instead of just a couple more points of armor.

Medium class inferiority - Having lights play by the same upgrade rules as everyone else, indirectly improves Mediums. lights will no longer be able to carry the same amount of weapons and armor as them. The Mediums 10+ extra tonnage actually means something now.

Trial mech inferiority - Trial mechs comes with SHS, while premades are routinely upgraded to DHS. A lot of times "free" engine DHS are useful enough to keep most premades heat leveled enough, while trial mechs require additional heatsinks. This results in lower dps. The suggested change means pilots will not longer be able to circumvent DHS's con, 3 crits, for true 2.0 heat dissipation.

Boating - This new change requires a pilot to allocate crit space if he plans on benefiting from true 2.0 DHS. This leaves less room for boating while not directly nerfing individual weapons or mechs. This means diverse builds will not suffer from weakened weapon.

The vocal minority can become a vocal majority if we focus on one solution. As the saying goes, this has the potential to kill several birds with one stone.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 26 March 2013 - 07:28 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Xerxys, on 26 March 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

No because I had to go through the grueling combat with SHS and I had to do it well before the Cadet bonus. I had to do it a second time, again, well before the cadet bonus. Trial mechs suck as much because of ****** weapons as lack of heat issues. The time in a trial mech is minimal now because of the 4million+ c-bills the cadet bonus gives them. With that they can buy their first assault mech with all the bells and whistles. IMO double heat sinks need to live up to their names regardless of where they're located. Fix the broken *** heat system and DHS would not be overpowering in any way. It's the stupid increased heat capacity that annoys me. Broken!

So did I. What's your point?

[General Taskeen]

1.2-1.4 SHS INT/EXT
2.0 DHS INT/EXT

30 Heat Threshold (Autoshutdown), 40 Max (Stay in this zone and your Mech Melts).

Done.

Alternatively, change Heat Threshold to a more realistic approach from MW:LL:



0-30 is translated as 750 Celcius. Maximum is 999 Celcius. Displays core, exterior, and ambient temperature. The Threshold where automatic shutdown occurs is clearly marked. When automatic shutdown is over ridden and the longer you stay above the red line, the faster your armor melts. If armor melts away in a location, internals start to get damaged, usually heatsinks are destroyed first, and then everything else.

[StalaggtIKE]

General Taskeen, on 26 March 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

1.2-1.4 SHS INT/EXT
2.0 DHS INT/EXT

30 Heat Threshold (Autoshutdown), 40 Max (Stay in this zone and your Mech Melts).

Done.

Alternatively, change Heat Threshold to a more realistic approach from MW:LL:



0-30 is translated as 750 Celcius. Maximum is 999 Celcius. Displays core, exterior, and ambient temperature. The Threshold where automatic shutdown occurs is clearly marked. When automatic shutdown is over ridden and the longer you stay above the red line, the faster your armor melts. If armor melts away in a location, internals start to get damaged, usually heatsinks are destroyed first, and then everything else.

How did you come up with these numbers? What's to say that this wouldn't be a repeat of what we have now, just with new numbers. In other words how are you sure this would even work?