43 replies to this topic

[Caboose30]

So, for those that don't know "Double" Heat Sinks take up three times as much space and dissipate 1.4x as much heat as Single Heat Sinks. What I want to know is 1.) how many people agree with this and 2.) think it's fair.

[Homeless Bill]

The last thing I want to see right before launch is them ******* around with heat sinks. It's odd, but even in their nerfed state, they're still better than SHS on every build with the exception of one or two oddball builds. I see no reason to make them even better.

I'd rather they concentrated on making SHS not totally useless.

[Iron War]

What about Threshold and Heatsinks. At the moment Engine DHS threshold holds 2.0 and non-engine DHS hold 1.4 while SHS hold 1.0. This commpounded with SHS dissipation makes them just bad.

What would happen it we would switch the threshold of DHS to 1.0 and SHS to 2.0 accross the board?

Make SHS able to hold high alpha heat fired in a short peroid of time but they will need to retreat and cool down. While DHS are unable to hold high alpha heat they are able to cool faster. Plus this might make the number of HS u have matter. At the moment it seems most people run their 10 engine HS and that is all.

[1Sascha]

I do agree it's kinda odd to have *double* HS which take up *triple* the amount of space while only being 1.4 times more effective. So, in basic functionality, you're taking a 200% penalty and only get a 40% benefit. *And* you do sacrifice more with doubles. Cost is a minor issue IMO, but losing the ability to put HS into your legs for improved cooling in water, isn't.

And you also lose a lot of flexibility with DHS once you start adding Endosteel and/or Ferro-Fibrous.

And since certain Mechs can carry nothing *but* heat intensive weapons, one has to wonder how to make these things work, even with doubles installed. I mean: What's the point of my Stalker being able to carry 4 or 5 ER Large Lasers or PPCs, if firing even two or three of them together will result in almost immediate shutdown? ... even with 20+ DHS installed.

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to be able to put 5 PPCS onto a Mech and fire away endlessly without overheating. But with the new heat-penalty in effect, you're really loosing a lot of flexibility in your builds with energy-heavy chassis'. I don't want to be running around with the obvious "two of everything"-loadouts all the time.

S.

Edited by 1Sascha, 13 August 2013 - 11:40 PM.

[Typhoon Storm 2142]

I would vote, but all your options suck. I'd vote 1.3x, but couldn't find it. And apparently "abstain" isn't a choice on your last question, so this poll is officially useless.

[Karl Streiger]

Typhoon Storm 2142, on 14 August 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

I would vote, but all your options suck. I'd vote 1.3x, but couldn't find it. And apparently "abstain" isn't a choice on your last question, so this poll is officially useless.

1.3 interesting?
Is there a other reason but trolling to use 1.3? Or do you wish that the OP would have 1.25 if you got your 1.3?


BTT:
as you should know - the threshhold in TT is the same as in MWO: number of dissipation of your heatsinks.

For example 16 DHS give you a threshhold of 32 in TT enough to handle 2 ER-PPCs all the time.
In MWO you have a higher RoF resulting in higher HPS 1.5 vs 3.25 while the heat dissipation of TTs double heatsink are 0.2s and in MWO well depends on the number of heatsinks - its 0.2 when you have 10 dhs only and its becoming less with each additional heatsinkg - for example its 0.17 per second when you have 20 DHS on your Mech.

Yes I'm throwing lots of numbers into the pot, but it is necessary - to understand the basics.
the heatvalues of weapons are based on a 10sec cycle and they produce those heat in 10sec (could mean 1 shot could mean 100 shots)
there are some s7 rules with a alternating RoF for each weapon (similar to MWO)
but they have increased heat by factor 4 and the dissipation is a well increased by factor 4

so a ERPPC in S7 does 60 heat and the shs dissipate 0.4 heat per second - the threshhold keeps the same
so firing a single ER-PPCs in s7 over exceeding the threshhold of the 16 dhs ...the remaining 28 heat you can find on the heat scale and heat penaltys occur)


I really think a more living heat scale is really necessary to turn make heat controll a skill that really can decide battles.

So I really would like to see a test were all weapon heat is increased by factor 2.
the disipation is as well increased by factor 2. with an 70% bonus for DHS.
The threshhold should be dependend on the number of heatsinks not those dissipation. (number divided by 2)

So for example a 28 SHS Awesome
will have a dissipation of 5.6 heat per second and a threshhold of 44 (30+14)

each PPC deals 18 heat - so an alpha strike will shutdown the mech instantly.
While firing one each 3sec will hardly overheat the mech.

[Hotthedd]

They should dissipate 2x as much heat as SHS. The problem is that the heat CAP should not be raised, or if it "had" to be, they should not raise the cap 2x as much.

[Lord of All]

Engine HS should all dissipate 1 (explain how somehow engines suddenly obtain 20 extra crit slots when you upgrade to dhs!!!) and DHS should go back to 2 and SHS stay at 1 and be done with it.

Your poll is lacking and skewed while missing the entire heat issue. Doing anything you propose will not fix the problem it will only create another bandaid before launch.

BTW Heat is explicitly tied to convergence.

[Zarlaren]

They should do 2x but weigh more or take up more space.

[Hotthedd]

Zarla, on 14 August 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

They should do 2x but weigh more or take up more space.

They DO take up more space. They take 3 times more space, to be exact.

[Lord of All]

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

They DO take up more space. They take 3 times more space, to be exact.

not in engines they don't.

[Awesome Master]

JuiceCaboose, on 13 August 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

So, for those that don't know "Double" Heat Sinks take up three times as much space and dissipate 1.4x as much heat as Single Heat Sinks. What I want to know is 1.) how many people agree with this and 2.) think it's fair.

1) I agree with this
2) Yes Ithink it's fair

1Sascha, on 13 August 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

I do agree it's kinda odd to have *double* HS which take up *triple* the amount of space while only being 1.4 times more effective. So, in basic functionality, you're taking a 200% penalty and only get a 40% benefit. *And* you do sacrifice more with doubles. Cost is a minor issue IMO, but losing the ability to put HS into your legs for improved cooling in water, isn't.

And you also lose a lot of flexibility with DHS once you start adding Endosteel and/or Ferro-Fibrous.

And since certain Mechs can carry nothing *but* heat intensive weapons, one has to wonder how to make these things work, even with doubles installed. I mean: What's the point of my Stalker being able to carry 4 or 5 ER Large Lasers or PPCs, if firing even two or three of them together will result in almost immediate shutdown? ... even with 20+ DHS installed.

Don't get me wrong: I don't want to be able to put 5 PPCS onto a Mech and fire away endlessly without overheating. But with the new heat-penalty in effect, you're really loosing a lot of flexibility in your builds with energy-heavy chassis'. I don't want to be running around with the obvious "two of everything"-loadouts all the time.

S.

I agree and disagree with you:

The new heat penalty does remove quite a bit of variation and ability to customise mechs,

but you ceartainly do not overheat with 2-3 ER PPC shots, either you don't know or you're just massively exaggerating (I've run an atlas with 2 ER PPC's recently and i do not over heat with 2 shots, (I've seen a treb use 2 ER PPC's and not overheat with one shot) 3PPC's doesn't produce a shutdown but a lot of heat.

Using DHS, Endo and Ferro-Fib would only be recommended to commandoes or spiders(maybe), Ferro-Fibrous is never worth using, and You can fit plently of DHS with weapons onto something with Endo. IMO if 85+ Tonnage only DHS is worth using.

Remember DHS has a x2 effect in the engine.That greatly benefits most mechs (Lights, heavies and assaults) and the medium mechs (Such as a hunchback with doesn't have a big engine) wont have that many weapons so you can fit in a couple of DHS into that aswell.

So making DHS have a x2 ffect throught would make it rather OP, you would be able to endlessly fire the 6 PPC's in chain or something along those lines.

Here's an example:

I have an atlas with 18DHS 12 in the engine and 6 outside. That would be

12 x 2 = 24
6 x 1.4 = 8.4

24 + 8.4 = 32.4

But what you want is:

12 x 2 = 24
6 x 2 - 12

24 + 12 = 36

That would be an increase of 3.6 Heat/10 second

But then lets compare this to another mech a mech with a smaller engine:
Hunchback 18 DHS 10 in the engine and 8 outside:

10 x 2 = 20
8 x 1.4 = 11.2

20 + 11.2 = 31.2

But this is what you want:

12 x 2 = 24
6 x 2 - 12

24 + 12 = 36

This would be a 3.8 heat/10 second

This is like a 10-15% increase in heat dissipation. In terms of the battle field this is a lot It could be the difference between sustaining a large laser or some PPC's and a group or weapons,

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

They should dissipate 2x as much heat as SHS. The problem is that the heat CAP should not be raised, or if it "had" to be, they should not raise the cap 2x as much.

I don't even know if your trolling or not. Not raising the heat cap would basically ruin the game, It would make it into a battle of who can get out of shutdown quicker or be in a case of not being able to alpha strike because that would set you in some sort of permanent shutdown. It would probably ruin MWO as everyone would only be able to sustain fire with a couple of weapons.

Homeless Bill, on 13 August 2013 - 04:21 PM, said:

I'd rather they concentrated on making SHS not totally useless.

I'd say maybe increase heat benefit in the engine by 1.3/4 maybe? so they start off with 13 or 14 heat /10secs instead of the 10 heat / 10secs

[Hotthedd]

Lord of All, on 14 August 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

not in engines they don't.

Well HOW would they take up more space in engines. Heck, in TT you could not customize the # of HS in your engine. They had 10, plus one more for every 25 rating over 250. Period. And it was reflected in the weight of the engine.

[Hotthedd]

Awesome Master, on 14 August 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

I don't even know if your trolling or not. Not raising the heat cap would basically ruin the game, It would make it into a battle of who can get out of shutdown quicker or be in a case of not being able to alpha strike because that would set you in some sort of permanent shutdown. It would probably ruin MWO as everyone would only be able to sustain fire with a couple of weapons.

Having a set heat cap would not ruin the game for anyone other than the one-hit wonders. Actively managing your heat ADDS a layer of skill and complexity to the game. If that addition "ruins" the game for some people, they can adapt and overcome. Alpha strike Warrior Online would most likely end, (but that would be a good thing).

[Firewuff]

they ran 2.0 and I think 1.6 for a while for all DHS and you could shot continiously with high heat weapons. Heat management became a non-issue so it REALLY sucked. moving back in that direction would be a BAD idea.

[Lord of All]

Hotthedd, on 14 August 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Well HOW would they take up more space in engines. Heck, in TT you could not customize the # of HS in your engine. They had 10, plus one more for every 25 rating over 250. Period. And it was reflected in the weight of the engine.

Your point? Or were you agreeing?

[Hotthedd]

Lord of All, on 15 August 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

Your point? Or were you agreeing?

Not so much of a point, but a question. Engine Heat sinks are part of the engine, period. How would you make double heat sinks in the engine take up more space than single heat sinks? They are part of the engine itself.

[Hardes13]

I would like to see the base cost for the Double heatsink upgrade being reduced in cost or at no cost( just put in doubles as you like), only standard heatsinks in the reactor and double heat reduction for them when they are put into the mech. 8-12 double heatsinks at no additional space requirement is not ok.

[MrZakalwe]

Up them to 2.0- make engine heatsinks class as singles, adjust heat accordingly.

Sorted.

[Miken]

Another suggestion: STD engine = SHS, XL engine = DHS