61 replies to this topic

[General Taskeen]

StalaggtIKE, on 26 March 2013 - 07:36 AM, said:

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?

Because I'm guessing and throwing numbers around, combining mwo and tt aspects for ideas.

Any boost to SHS is better than .1

SHS has to be effective from a Trial stand point, first and foremost. I'm getting tired of annhilating heat monster shut down Trial Mechs.

[StalaggtIKE]

General Taskeen, on 26 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Any boost to SHS is better than .1

That's not the case if you also buff all DHS to 2.0. You've simply shifted the scale. However, DHS will still be far superior to the SHS. Thus the same problem as before. I think it be best to work with the current numbers we have, one's that can even be tested (notice the chart in my original post).

[General Taskeen]

StalaggtIKE, on 26 March 2013 - 07:57 AM, said:

That's not the case if you also buff all DHS to 2.0. You've simply shifted the scale. However, DHS will still be far superior to the SHS. Thus the same problem as before. I think it be best to work with the current numbers we have, one's that can even be tested (notice the chart in my original post).

DHS would be superior heat disappation, but SHS would not be a heat monster item on stock builds or Trials. With Basic or Elite upgrades, the 1.4/1.2 SHS would get even better, but without upgrades it would disappate heat similar as DHS does outside an engine with current numbers. With a fixed heat threshold, big alpha's are shut down regardless. It shifts the scale in favor of SHS becoming non-heat monsters, and Trials rejoicing.

Edited by General Taskeen, 26 March 2013 - 08:32 AM.

[IrrelevantFish]

StalaggtIKE, on 25 March 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Is it anything I am overlooking?

You most certainly are! For starters, your system doesn't nerf DHS so much as it encourages mechs to have more external heatsinks. Some of the nasty side-effects:

• ballistics get nerfed
  
• missiles get nerfed
  
• engines over 250 get nerfed
  
• loadouts with more than 20 DHS are actually buffed!

Additionally, you are failing to recognize the true impact of the changes because you chose the worst test cases possible and you're analyzing them by taking the difference in heat efficiency. YOU NEED TO ANALYZE THE RATIOS! (explanation at end of post) If you do that, your figures look a lot different.

• JR7-F: -13%
  
• HBK-4P: -3%
  
• AS7-RS (4xLL, 24DHS): +6%
  
• ANYTHING WITH INTERNAL DHS ONLY: -30%

So I voted no because even though I dearly love my laser-based RS builds, I don't love them enough to see the death of the JR7-D, CTF-4X, and Jagermech.




P.S. -- For those who care about math:
To calculate heat efficiency:

HE = (dissipation rate) / (production rate)

• Two mechs, X and Y, have the same dissipation rate (1hps) but different production rates (X = 1hps, Y = 10hps).
  
• Using the equation above, HE(X) = 100% and HE(Y) = 10%.
  
• A heatsink nerf reduces the dissipation rate of both X and Y by 50% to 0.5hps
  
• Now HE(X) = 50% and HE(Y) = 5%.
  
• Thus, the change in HE(X) = -50%, and HE(Y) = -5% even though they were nerfed the same amount.

So don't do that! The way to compare heat dissipation rates is this:

%change = 1 - ( new HE / old HE )

Edited by IrrelevantFish, 26 March 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[focuspark]

Capt Cole 117, on 25 March 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

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

LOL - dream on.

+1 to the suggestion. To make light mech a little more viable, would be nice to have the engine intrinsic always 1.4 regardless of SHS or DHS. Then you could even mix SHS and DHS because it wouldn't be an "upgrade".

[Lukoi Banacek]

StalaggtIKE, on 25 March 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

...

What you're actually advocating for is a change to the trial mech system/introduction system for new players. There's still no reason to make SHS more valid or more viable than they are already. It's meant to be a simple, straightforward upgrade.

That it impacts new players is secondary. The issues surrounding retention of new players should be addressed specifically and holistically and not at the expense of changing the values surrounding the core game mechanics necessarily.

I think PGI is already going that route with the "Build a trial" program and may institute better builds for trial mechs in the future in order to retain new players.

[StalaggtIKE]

IrrelevantFish, on 26 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

You most certainly are! For starters, your system doesn't nerf DHS so much as it encourages mechs to have more external heatsinks.

That's the point. I am not trying to "nerf" DHS as they are a payed for upgrade. I am instead trying to ensure people invest in the heatsinks if they upgrade, by encouraging more external heatsinks. Why? Because DHS's con is the 3 crit. Relying on engine DHS circumvent this con. Eliminating this "workaround" makes DHS utilized properly.

Quote

Some of the nasty side-effects:

• ballistics get nerfed
  
• missiles get nerfed
  
• engines over 250 get nerfed
  
• loadouts with more than 20 DHS are actually buffed!

I don't understand. How exactly are ballistics, missiles or engines over 250 nerfed? I was not aware 20 DHS was such a common phenomenon. I would imagine they would deserve a buff if they're able to cram that many DHS into a mech. Please share these 20+DHS builds.

Quote

Additionally, you are failing to recognize the true impact of the changes because you chose the worst test cases possible and you're analyzing them by taking the difference in heat efficiency. YOU NEED TO ANALYZE THE RATIOS! (explanation at end of post) If you do that, your figures look a lot different.

• JR7-F: -13%
  
• HBK-4P: -3%
  
• AS7-RS (4xLL, 24DHS): +6%
  
• ANYTHING WITH INTERNAL DHS ONLY: -30%

I merely calculated the heat efficiency through the use of the mechlab to get the total for each individual mech with the varying heat dissipation rates and displayed the results. I did not calculate the heat efficiency by hand, I had a proven tool do it for me. No additional calculations are necessary.

Quote

P.S. -- For those who care about math:
To calculate heat efficiency:

HE = (dissipation rate) / (production rate)

• Two mechs, X and Y, have the same dissipation rate (1hps) but different production rates (X = 1hps, Y = 10hps).
  
• Using the equation above, HE(X) = 100% and HE(Y) = 10%.
  
• A heatsink nerf reduces the dissipation rate of both X and Y by 50% to 0.5hps
  
• Now HE(X) = 50% and HE(Y) = 5%.
  
• Thus, the change in HE(X) = -50%, and HE(Y) = -5% even though they were nerfed the same amount.

So don't do that! The way to compare heat dissipation rates is this:

%change = 1 - ( new HE / old HE )

Can you further elaborate. Why is this calculation necessary?

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 26 March 2013 - 09:48 AM.

[StalaggtIKE]

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

What you're actually advocating for is a change to the trial mech system/introduction system for new players. There's still no reason to make SHS more valid or more viable than they are already. It's meant to be a simple, straightforward upgrade.

That it impacts new players is secondary. The issues surrounding retention of new players should be addressed specifically and holistically and not at the expense of changing the values surrounding the core game mechanics necessarily.

I think PGI is already going that route with the "Build a trial" program and may institute better builds for trial mechs in the future in order to retain new players.

Keep in mind this suggestion does not touch SHS nor change any values. It only swaps the DHS internal and external engine values around. Originally this was to address new player retention however it dawned on me that this suggestion has the potential to address several other issues:

Quote

• 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.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 26 March 2013 - 09:41 AM.

[Peiper]

IrrelevantFish, on 26 March 2013 - 08:53 AM, said:

So I voted no because even though I dearly love my laser-based RS builds, I don't love them enough to see the death of the JR7-D, CTF-4X, and Jagermech.

So, you might like the suggestion of 1.7 heat dissipation across the board for DHSinks.

Also, consider the Jaggermech and Cataphract you mention - presuming you're referring to the high heat build-up of small-bore AC and ultra AC's. In tabletop, an AC/2 would do only 2 points of damage for all it's 6 tons. For a similar range, a Gauss Rifle does 15 points of damage in the same turn for only 15 tons. In MWO, the rates of fire for the lower bore cannons are GREATLY sped up to make them viable in a real time simulator game and the only way to compensate for such a high rate and potential high damage per second is to increase the heat along with the potential damage. My 4x with 4 AC2s runs way too hot to really play, but then again, when I do shoot and hit I'm doing some really serious DPS. So, you'd have to knock off one of your three UAC/5s to make a heat efficient Jaggermech. Well, consider how many lasers a jenner, awesome, stalker, or hunchback has to forfeit to stay heat efficient! My Jenner has 65% of the armor of a centurion, moves 50KPH faster, can jump, and has the same firepower. My centurion runs cooler, but it's much harder to hit a 150kph jenner than a 95kph Centurion, making the jenner more survivable, and easier to tuck away somewhere to cool off where a Centurion has to run cool or die standing still cuz it's not going to get away from a jenner - or even an atlas - to cool off.

General Taskeen, on 26 March 2013 - 07:41 AM, said:

Any boost to SHS is better than .1

SHS has to be effective from a Trial stand point, first and foremost. I'm getting tired of annhilating heat monster shut down Trial Mechs.

This is why we need to have a historical/stock playing mode and a modified/fantasy playing mode which we have now. http://mwomercs.com/...22#entry1992922 This idea would allow for new players, and players who are grinding up some of the more awful mech variants to have a good chance at affecting the game's outcome in a positive way (rather than being a team detriment.) I don't advocate the changing the value of single heat sinks.

focuspark, on 26 March 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

+1 to the suggestion. To make light mech a little more viable, would be nice to have the engine intrinsic always 1.4 regardless of SHS or DHS. Then you could even mix SHS and DHS because it wouldn't be an "upgrade".

I disagree with making single and double heat sinks the same value inside the engine. Otherwise, it wouldn't even be an upgrade to change to double heat sinks. The real tradeoff is often in the space it takes to take additional heat sinks outside the engine as far as weapon balance. And I agree, most stock mechs are heat hogs in MWO, but that's why we should have historical/stock mode drops and modified/fantasy drops. Both here and in Tabletop, modified/frankenmechs always outgunned the stock/canon builds.

[focuspark]

Peiper, on 26 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

I disagree with making single and double heat sinks the same value inside the engine. Otherwise, it wouldn't even be an upgrade to change to double heat sinks. The real tradeoff is often in the space it takes to take additional heat sinks outside the engine as far as weapon balance. And I agree, most stock mechs are heat hogs in MWO, but that's why we should have historical/stock mode drops and modified/fantasy drops. Both here and in Tabletop, modified/frankenmechs always outgunned the stock/canon builds.

Ah-ha! Exactly! I do not believe DHS should be an "upgrade" from SHS. DHS should dissipate twice the heat for the same weight and three times the volume of SHS. So long as DHS upgrade the engine intrinsic heat sinks SHS are completely inferior because mech gets 10 DHS at no extra volume cost - and that's completely unbalanced.

[Corvus Antaka]

something is definitely wrong, and its mostly cause of engine hs vs exterior ones.

a founders jenner is way better than a hunchback 4SP, because of the jumpjets, the nearly identical heat efficiency and firepower AND the fact the jenner goes way faster and is smaller.

this 1 example sorta exemplifies the current hs problem.

my main issue is that all my mechs hold no more than 12 DHS but about 2-3, because beyond the engine HS there is little to be gained from more that more firepower and coolant flushes are much more worthwhile for.

with cool flush its really easy to pump the damage because the heatcap is so high. by the time it gets hot again, everyones dead anyway.

[Maurdakar]

Mechanically your proposal will make engine size (tonnage) less important. With external DHS being the true 2.0 dissapators of heat, crit slots become much more valuable. Crit slot already needed for large weps/ammo upgrades.
Consider also that all mechs have equivalent crit space.

However there is one weapon type which doesn't need much space, and is very reliant on good heat dissipation. Your proposal will buff lasers, and energy weapons, making them much more attractive to field from an engineering viewpoint. Retroactively nerfing Missiles and especially ballistics.

Lasers already benefit from unlimited ammo and pinpoint accuracy.

[StalaggtIKE]

Maurdakar, on 26 March 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Mechanically your proposal will make engine size (tonnage) less important. With external DHS being the true 2.0 dissapators of heat, crit slots become much more valuable. Crit slot already needed for large weps/ammo upgrades.
Consider also that all mechs have equivalent crit space.

Not quite. Larger engines have slots for additional heatsinks, which would function as true DHS. Thus larger engines will grant the pilot the ability to further keep his mech cool. Making crit slots more valuable is intended. This helps minimize boating.

Quote

However there is one weapon type which doesn't need much space, and is very reliant on good heat dissipation. Your proposal will buff lasers, and energy weapons, making them much more attractive to field from an engineering viewpoint. Retroactively nerfing Missiles and especially ballistics.

Lasers already benefit from unlimited ammo and pinpoint accuracy.

Well being that lasers are the hottest weapons, what's to say this is necessarily a bad thing. Perhaps this will result in larger mechs carrying larger lasers instead of only relying on the mlaser. Keep in mind crit slots realestate. Yes they can stock up on true DHS, but at what cost? Will they skimp out on armor or speed? Now there involves decision. There is now a "cost" at stocking up on DHS.

Edited by StalaggtIKE, 26 March 2013 - 04:12 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Peiper, on 26 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

This is why we need to have a historical/stock playing mode and a modified/fantasy playing mode which we have now. http://mwomercs.com/...22#entry1992922 This idea would allow for new players, and players who are grinding up some of the more awful mech variants to have a good chance at affecting the game's outcome in a positive way (rather than being a team detriment.) I don't advocate the changing the value of single heat sinks.

Only problem I have with this is, I fear it would spilt up the community. We already have ELO that does so to a degree, next they're adding the regional servers.

[Peiper]

StalaggtIKE, on 26 March 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

Only problem I have with this is, I fear it would spilt up the community. We already have ELO that does so to a degree, next they're adding the regional servers.

I disagree. They would be play MODES, rather than separate servers. So all the players would still be playing together, only they would have a choice about whether to play in one mode or the other. The games would all be the same, only the mechs would be different. I think it would provide a greater variety of play styles and tactics, because you'd have to develop to completely different sets of tactics/styles for each mode.

I didn't mean to hijack your thread though. Sorry about that.

[Zyllos]

I had to vote no.

As IrrelevantFish said, this just hurts those with only internal heatsinks and helps those that can equip many heatsinks.

Piper's suggestion by balancing DHS values across all equip locations is the only logical way forward in balancing DHS with other DHS builds (larger vs. smaller engines, small number vs. larger number of heatsinks).

But to balance DHS with SHS actually takes more work beyond just modifying how DHS/SHS work. You have to also change the entire heat introduction system to balance this out.

Personally, for starters, I would change how heat is introduced into a mech when firing a weapon. Heat should be introduced across the cooldown of the weapon being fired instead of the on/off time. So a PPC would produce 2.67 heat per second for 3.0s instead of 8.0 heat instantly. This allows heatsinks to control the heat generated off a weapon instead of the weapon completely overpowering heatsinks due to producing too much heat in the allotment of time which is then later dissipated.

Edited by Zyllos, 26 March 2013 - 04:35 PM.

[StalaggtIKE]

Peiper, on 26 March 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

I disagree. They would be play MODES, rather than separate servers. So all the players would still be playing together, only they would have a choice about whether to play in one mode or the other. The games would all be the same, only the mechs would be different. I think it would provide a greater variety of play styles and tactics, because you'd have to develop to completely different sets of tactics/styles for each mode.

I didn't mean to hijack your thread though. Sorry about that.

Oh, no I'm talking about the dev's plan to add regional servers to mitigate the high pings people are getting around the world. The drawback being that you will have your profile tied to only one. Since I am in the US I will play on the US regional server, while my friend in Germany would play on the EU regional server. Once this is implemented we will no longer be able to play together. I just imagine new modes, as you proposed, would further split the community.

[StalaggtIKE]

Zyllos, on 26 March 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

I had to vote no.

As IrrelevantFish said, this just hurts those with only internal heatsinks and helps those that can equip many heatsinks.

Shouldn't those with more heatsinks receive a larger benefit? I don't see how this is a problem.

Quote

Piper's suggestion by balancing DHS values across all equip locations is the only logical way forward in balancing DHS with other DHS builds (larger vs. smaller engines, small number vs. larger number of heatsinks).

Smaller engines come with the benefit of spare tonnage for more weapons, armor and ammo. Do you feel that they should receive the benefit of better heat dissipation as well? If anything they have an equal opportunity to stuff DHS as long as they can spare the crit slots. This same thing applies to mechs with larger engines, whom have less spare tonnage.

Quote

But to balance DHS with SHS actually takes more work beyond just modifying how DHS/SHS work. You have to also change the entire heat introduction system to balance this out.

Personally, for starters, I would change how heat is introduced into a mech when firing a weapon. Heat should be introduced across the cooldown of the weapon being fired instead of the on/off time. So a PPC would produce 2.67 heat per second for 3.0s instead of 8.0 heat instantly. This allows heatsinks to control the heat generated off a weapon instead of the weapon completely overpowering heatsinks due to producing too much heat in the allotment of time which is then later dissipated.

I can see how this could work. However, what's the likelihood of a whole new heat mechanic being created? A simpler fix is more likely. One that allows for SHS to become more viable, while maintaining value to the DHS upgrade. I believe my suggestion achieves these goals.

[IrrelevantFish]

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

I merely calculated the heat efficiency through the use of the mechlab to get the total for each individual mech with the varying heat dissipation rates and displayed the results.

Can you further elaborate. Why is this calculation necessary?

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.

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

I am instead trying to ensure people invest in the heatsinks if they upgrade, by encouraging more external heatsinks. Why? Because DHS's con is the 3 crit. Relying on engine DHS circumvent this con. Eliminating this "workaround" makes DHS utilized properly.

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.

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

How exactly are ballistics, missiles or engines over 250 nerfed?

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.

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

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

I was not aware 20 DHS was such a common phenomenon. I would imagine they would deserve a buff if they're able to cram that many DHS into a mech. Please share these 20+DHS builds.

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.

[IrrelevantFish]

Peiper, on 26 March 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

So, you might like the suggestion of 1.7 heat dissipation across the board for DHSinks.

Nope. Mechs run hot enough already.

Besides, I'm still wondering why no one in this thread has mentioned what is by far the best solution I've heard yet: reduce DHS per-heatsink heat capacity to 1.0, same as SHS. Do that and you will:

• improve trial mech performance vs. DHS-equipped customs
  
• give SHS a reason to exist (offers a higher max heat ceiling)
  
• reduce boating (current 6xPPC Stalkers will overheat in a single alpha)

Job done.