Jump to content

Heat Scale Vs Heat Threshold Adjustment


5 replies to this topic

#1 Allekatrase

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 357 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:44 PM

In Ask the Devs 45 Paul said:

Quote

Something that was brought up by the community was to decrease the maximum heat threshold while improving the efficiency of heat sinks. The problem with this is that it does very little to high damage alphas. Yes it increases the time between alphas but not the limitation of damage as what Heat Scale does.


Perhaps I'm stupid, but I fail to see how this is entirely accurate or a good explanation. Granted, I've been out of the game for quite a while and I'm not up on all the most current changes and meta. However, with increased heat from heat scaling according to Paul you can still fit the same builds as before if you can manage the heat which basically means you're going to use a larger percent of your maximum with an alpha. If you reduce the maximum threshold you have the same result. The two differences I see are first, assuming no change to heat sink efficiency, the lowered threshold cools faster because it's less actual heat and second that heat scaling can be customized between weapons to encourage or discourage specific uses of them.

There is no limitation on damage in either solution, though both of them would tend to discourage many of the most common high damage alpha configurations.

#2 ObsidianSpectre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:51 PM

It's not, as far as I can tell. Adjusting the heat threshold can accomplish anything that heat scaling can.

My best theory is that adjusting the threshold implies also adjusting the cooling rate if you want to do as much damage over a longer period of time as you do now, and that might cut into the sales of coolant flush when it only buys you 5 seconds of cooling instead of 8 (numbers made up).

#3 General Taskeen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,737 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 26 August 2013 - 03:52 PM

Because it worked in MW2/3/4/LL or some derivative of it, so therefore ghost heat and weird heatsinks in MWO, because...

Posted Image

#4 LegoPirate

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 339 posts
  • LocationSeattle

Posted 26 August 2013 - 04:01 PM

-5 internets for improper use of ancient aliens guy.

#5 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 26 August 2013 - 05:06 PM

View PostGeneral Taskeen, on 26 August 2013 - 03:52 PM, said:

Because it worked in MW2/3/4/LL or some derivative of it, so therefore ghost heat and weird heatsinks in MWO, because...

Actually, I'm pretty sure that MW4 had an absurdly high heat capacity and terribly slow dissipation if I remember correctly--to an even worse degree than MWO I think.

#6 Lightfoot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 6,612 posts
  • LocationOlympus Mons

Posted 26 August 2013 - 08:06 PM

View PostFupDup, on 26 August 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

Actually, I'm pretty sure that MW4 had an absurdly high heat capacity and terribly slow dissipation if I remember correctly--to an even worse degree than MWO I think.


Not really. MW4 allowed you to run 3-4 Clan ERPPCs if you added enough heatsinks and running 5 large lasers was easy enough. These configs caused high heat spikes, but the heatsinks bottomed the heat depending on how many you used. In MWO you can pile on 22 DHs 1.4s and it does almost nothing.

At the same time Ballistics escape any heat penalty unless it's added with Heat Scaling of group-fired weapons. And the Missiles are all nerfed to being a non-factor.

Now the Clans are coming to rescue us from DHS 1.4 since they can carry 30-36 DHS and those will cool down a mech. Thank goodness for Clan tech, it will wash most of the current nerfs down the drain because they won't work on Clan mechs.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users