34 replies to this topic

[Warge]

As long as there is no R&R balancing tool there should be something done to balance heat sinks.

I think adding weight to DHSs could be a solution:

• SHS = 1 ton
  
• DHS = 1.25 or 1.5 tons (also applied to engine heat sinks similar as Artemis adds weight to SRMs/LRMs)

Thoughts?

[LegoPirate]

that would make SHS take less space and be more effective per ton. that would be beyond silly.

[ICEFANG13]

I think adjusting weight or crits should only be done as a last resort, as it destroys a lot of stock loadouts if you do it like that.

[Warge]

LegoPirate, on 13 September 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

that would make SHS take less space and be more effective per ton.

That's the payment for double rate heat dissipation.

LegoPirate, on 13 September 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

that would be beyond silly.

So useless SHSs right now is clever. Right?

ICEFANG13, on 13 September 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think adjusting weight or crits should only be done as a last resort, as it destroys a lot of stock loadouts if you do it like that.

Stock loadouts... it's lesser evil than useless SHSs.

[Hellcat420]

no. advanced technology is better than outdated technology. the whole point of dhs from day one was that they are better than single heatsinks, that is why they were created in teh first place.

[Warge]

Hellcat420, on 13 September 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

no. advanced technology is better than outdated technology. the whole point of dhs from day one was that they are better than single heatsinks, that is why they were created in teh first place.

MWO is no more "closer to TT" game.

[Hellcat420]

Warge, on 13 September 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

MWO is no more "closer to TT" game.

who cares. in the battletech universe technology is never static, it either advances or is lost(fall of the starleague for example). it doesnt matter if its tabletop, or novels, or videogames. that is how battletech has always worked. and f.y.i. your idea being dumb has nothing to do with tabletop.

Edited by Hellcat420, 13 September 2013 - 06:26 PM.

[Warge]

Hellcat420, on 13 September 2013 - 06:23 PM, said:

that is how battletech has always worked.

MWO is not BT-game. And PGI never planed to do so.
So I just propose idea for MWO-use only.

[sokitumi]

1) Don't DHS only = 1.4 sinks anyway... (2.0 on engine mounted)

2) Putting aside silly TT arguments.. There is already a detracting side effect of taking up 3 slots for 1.4 of the dissipation, open slots becomes an issue very often in most builds.

3) 99.9995% chance that your suggestion would be ignored even if it was awesome.

Edited by sokitumi, 13 September 2013 - 06:34 PM.

[Hellcat420]

a little battletech heatsink history so you can understand why standard heatsinks should never be equal to double heatsinks.

standard heatsinks created-2022 A.D.
first battlemech created- 2439 A.D.
double heatsinks created-2567 A.D.

double heatsinks are better because they had the advantage of 500 years of technological advancement, aka better materials and better engineering. on a side note, heatsinks in battletech are not actually heatsinks, they are heatpumps.

[focuspark]

Simple. Make engines dissipate 15 heat regardless of SHS or DHS.

DHS dissipate twice the heat of SHS at thrice the critical space.

They're both good again.

The unbalancing part has always been the magic boost the engine gets.

[CheeseThief]

I would rather singles work at 1.4 in the engine and leg heatsinks work a triple strength while underwater.

A mech with 14 DHS with 10 in the engine would disipate 25.6 h/s, a mech with 14 SHS, 10 in the engine and 4 in the legs would disipate 18 on land and 26 while in water.


Buff the trial and stock mechs rather than nerfing all my fancy customs.

Edited by CheeseThief, 13 September 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[Mitheledh]

The way I see it, there's really no need to balance SHSs and DHSs with each other. The reason? DHSs are what you call an upgrade. Upgrades are inherently superior to the previous version, otherwise they wouldn't really be an upgrade anymore. So it's fine as it is.

[General Taskeen]

SHS could keep a Mech Heat Neutral in BT, fyi. But not in Heat Monster land of PGI's heat sink circus.

[PenitentTangent]

One key tradeoff that will be placed back in when CW and rearm-and-repair are introduced/reintroduced;

double heatsinks are much more expensive to replace.

[scJazz]

ICEFANG13, on 13 September 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

I think adjusting weight or crits should only be done as a last resort, as it destroys a lot of stock loadouts if you do it like that.

PGI has pretty firmly committed to the idea that any Canon Mech Record Sheet is buildable in MWO. Warge your idea is a non-starter.

Not to say that something shouldn't perhaps be done. Just that your idea isn't it.

[Foxfire]

SHS's are better if you have a lot of tonnage and low critical slots. DHS are better for those with a lot of crit slots but not as much tonnage.

It is a trade off that should be used as befits your loadout.

[Simbacca]

Warge, on 13 September 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

As long as there is no R&R balancing tool there should be something done to balance heat sinks.

I think adding weight to DHSs could be a solution:

• SHS = 1 ton
  
• DHS = 1.25 or 1.5 tons (also applied to engine heat sinks similar as Artemis adds weight to SRMs/LRMs)

Thoughts?

I disagree. For most mechs (some already are DHS equipped) the player already has to pay 1.5 million C-Bills just to mount DHS. From a cost per heatsink perspective, the DHS is fantastically expensive - and so should the rewards of equipping it.

[ICEFANG13]

Foxfire, on 14 September 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

SHS's are better if you have a lot of tonnage and low critical slots. DHS are better for those with a lot of crit slots but not as much tonnage.

It is a trade off that should be used as befits your loadout.

This is not true you know? Only the Atlas can make use of SHS if it has a lower weapon loadout and the smallest engine size, which grants it about a 10% increase in cooling. With engines granting torso twist and general agility as well as speed, going from ~60->30 for a 10% increase, and decreasing the weapons isn't truly worth it. With the engine HS, there is no trade off, lets compare (no nonsense 250 engine, although most mechs use more).

At 0 slots and tons.
DHS: 20
SHS: 10

At equal dissipation (slots/tons).
DHS: 20 (0/0)
SHS: 20 (10/10)

At the point where a high amount slots are equal (SHS strength).
DHS: 31.2 (8/24)
SHS: 34 (24/24)

At the point where a high amount of weight is equal (DHS strength).
Impossible, SHS will always weigh more than what they dissipate, there is no convergence.

At 57 slots, the highest possible (this would be possible on a Stalker, most tonnage, no engine).
DHS: 46.6 (19/57)
SHS: 67 (57/57) (leaves 19.5 for armor and weapons, of course no slots)

Adjusted for weight Atlas engine.
DHS: 42.4 (16/48+350engine=52.5/42) (37.5 tons for weapons and armor, 11 slots).
SHS: 61 (61/61+350 engine=97.5/63) (2.5 tons for weapons and armor, 0 slots).

The Atlas is the best chance for SHS, and its still just not worth it.

Edited by ICEFANG13, 14 September 2013 - 06:41 AM.

[Wolfways]

Warge, on 13 September 2013 - 06:27 PM, said:

MWO is not BT-game. And PGI never planed to do so.
So I just propose idea for MWO-use only.

MWO is based on BT, and PGI stated early on that they were going to try to stay as close to BT as possible (That was their stance at the time).

DHS should always be an upgrade over SHS. The reason nobody uses SHS is not because they are bad but because the heat system in MWO is bad. Some mechs should run cool, even with SHS.