33 replies to this topic

[SweetJackal]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 19 September 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yes.
Having 4 single heatsinks in your legs and standing in water gives you a boost of up to 100% depending how deep the water is.

Yay for Math! Lets measure Heat Efficiency against Crit Slots as DHS will always provide more per ton. Lets assume an engine that has 10 heatsinks built in as going larger benefits DHS much much more. And for the sake of things, lets ignore tonnage to give SHS a fighting chance.

(These examples are written under the assumption that the first 10 DHS give 2.0 Efficiency and each DHS past 10 gives 1.4 Efficiency and that being submersed in water only provides a 100% bonus to the heatsinks located in the legs themselves. If this is wrong, then ignore the following.)

16 Double Heatsinks provide 28.4 times the Heat Efficiency of 1 Single Heatsink while taking 18 crit slots outside of the engine. 28 Single Heatsinks take 18 crit slots outside of the engine. This is the breaking point where SHS and DHS have about equal Heat Efficiency for equal crit slots, going for a lower Heat Efficiency will have DHS provide more benefit for less Crits and Tonnage.

So in standard situations you need to have a mech build with more than 28 Single Heat Sinks to have SHS being a better choice, in terms of crit space, than DHS.

Alright, lets stack the deck in favor of SHS. You're in the highest level of water with a 100XL engine (just to reduce the number of crit slots available) and only 4 heatsinks are provided for free. Yes, you are paying 12 crit slots for 4 heatsinks, this isn't practical but a mathematical exercise. Bear with me.

You are required to field 10 Heatsinks to launch the mech. So getting the required 6 out of engine in DHS will cost 18 crit slots and provide a total of 20 times the efficiency of 1 SHS. Being that having 4 SHS in the legs gives a bonus efficiency of 4 SHS we only need 16 SHS, 12 of them being out of engine and costing 12 crit slots. So, this build shows that SHS can be the better option for Heat Efficiency, saving 6 crit slots for equal performance when the deck is stacked unrealistically against them.

The Lake Build example still costs 6 more tons for SHS. The Breaking Point build example still costs 12 more tons for SHS.

SHS are only the better choice if you are needing to save crit slots in mechs with either an extremely high number of heatsinks or with a very small engine that will always be in water (and have a 2 SHS scale advantage outside of water.)

SHS aren't viable in 9 out of 10 builds that field an engine holding 10 heatsinks. Except in extreme circumstances DHS remains a flat out upgrade.

[Lefty Lucy]

I was spectating a guy running a stock spider with 2 ML and 10 SHS. On Terra Therma he was basically completely non-functional. It's ridiculous.

High cap/low dissipation has been broken for the entire life of this game.

[Banditman]

There are a very few, and very edge case mechs where SHS can be ever so slightly better than DHS. But invariably, those cases are in very large mechs with only small and medium energy weapons. I definitely remember a couple AWS-8Q configurations that could benefit from SHS.

However, 99.9% of the time, in functional battlefield ready mechs, DHS is the answer.

[Gaan Cathal]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 19 September 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yes.
Having 4 single heatsinks in your legs and standing in water gives you a boost of up to 100% depending how deep the water is.

mwhighlander, on 19 September 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

We're aware of this mechanic, but even in that instance

(SHS Base 10) + 4 SHS in legs, doubled = 18H/10s, 4 tons
(DHS 10) + 0 DHS = 20H/10s, 0 tons.

So that point is moot.

That. Basically the mechanic you've detailed is redundant until Clan mechs come out and have to choose between mounting a DHS in each leg for extra cooling, or keeping ammo there as the most safe place to store it.

[Joseph Mallan]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 September 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

They teach ya heat management.


or is it anger management........


can never remember........

Is there a difference?

Seriously, we have to allow the timeline to catch up to the Tech. Most Mechs starting in the 3055 TRO have Doubles instead of singles IIRC.

[Fuggles]

Banditman, on 20 September 2013 - 06:15 AM, said:

There are a very few, and very edge case mechs where SHS can be ever so slightly better than DHS. But invariably, those cases are in very large mechs with only small and medium energy weapons. I definitely remember a couple AWS-8Q configurations that could benefit from SHS.

However, 99.9% of the time, in functional battlefield ready mechs, DHS is the answer.

The awsome 8q is the only mech that comes to mind, but that was before the engine buff allowing you to run a 300. Now I'm pretty sure with a 300, duals win out.

[HumptyWasPushed]

I use SHS on one mech, Commando 2d, xl200, 3 ssrm2's, 3 tons ammo, 1 ML, ecm, Ferro, and Endo. Requires 2 hs which have to be singles due to limited slots. Recently swapped weponss for srm 4 and 6 and a small laser with 3 tons of ammo.

[General Taskeen]

Lefty Lucy, on 19 September 2013 - 12:27 PM, said:

I was spectating a guy running a stock spider with 2 ML and 10 SHS. On Terra Therma he was basically completely non-functional. It's ridiculous.

High cap/low dissipation has been broken for the entire life of this game.

That's one of the first things I tried with the Spider. Stock build, the SHS that comes with it, and just 2 measily ML. On any map that isn't cold, SHS are basically useless and require your Mech to cool off for a good 40 seconds or more. On extreme hot maps, they are unuseable. I mean come on Devs, this can't be what you mean by "working as intended," because clearly the design choices makes no sense for heat sinks as a whole and simply ruins Stock Mechs that were "heat efficient."

I wasn't aware "turns" in TT with SHS took that long to cool a Mech off (in other words, it did not take that long)... PGI's heat sink system needs serious re-work.

[shintakie]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 19 September 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yes.
Having 4 single heatsinks in your legs and standing in water gives you a boost of up to 100% depending how deep the water is.

mwhighlander, on 19 September 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

We're aware of this mechanic, but even in that instance

(SHS Base 10) + 4 SHS in legs, doubled = 18H/10s, 4 tons
(DHS 10) + 0 DHS = 20H/10s, 0 tons.

So that point is moot.

SuckyJack, on 19 September 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Yay for Math! Lets measure Heat Efficiency against Crit Slots as DHS will always provide more per ton. Lets assume an engine that has 10 heatsinks built in as going larger benefits DHS much much more. And for the sake of things, lets ignore tonnage to give SHS a fighting chance.

(These examples are written under the assumption that the first 10 DHS give 2.0 Efficiency and each DHS past 10 gives 1.4 Efficiency and that being submersed in water only provides a 100% bonus to the heatsinks located in the legs themselves. If this is wrong, then ignore the following.)

16 Double Heatsinks provide 28.4 times the Heat Efficiency of 1 Single Heatsink while taking 18 crit slots outside of the engine. 28 Single Heatsinks take 18 crit slots outside of the engine. This is the breaking point where SHS and DHS have about equal Heat Efficiency for equal crit slots, going for a lower Heat Efficiency will have DHS provide more benefit for less Crits and Tonnage.

So in standard situations you need to have a mech build with more than 28 Single Heat Sinks to have SHS being a better choice, in terms of crit space, than DHS.

Alright, lets stack the deck in favor of SHS. You're in the highest level of water with a 100XL engine (just to reduce the number of crit slots available) and only 4 heatsinks are provided for free. Yes, you are paying 12 crit slots for 4 heatsinks, this isn't practical but a mathematical exercise. Bear with me.

You are required to field 10 Heatsinks to launch the mech. So getting the required 6 out of engine in DHS will cost 18 crit slots and provide a total of 20 times the efficiency of 1 SHS. Being that having 4 SHS in the legs gives a bonus efficiency of 4 SHS we only need 16 SHS, 12 of them being out of engine and costing 12 crit slots. So, this build shows that SHS can be the better option for Heat Efficiency, saving 6 crit slots for equal performance when the deck is stacked unrealistically against them.

The Lake Build example still costs 6 more tons for SHS. The Breaking Point build example still costs 12 more tons for SHS.

SHS are only the better choice if you are needing to save crit slots in mechs with either an extremely high number of heatsinks or with a very small engine that will always be in water (and have a 2 SHS scale advantage outside of water.)

SHS aren't viable in 9 out of 10 builds that field an engine holding 10 heatsinks. Except in extreme circumstances DHS remains a flat out upgrade.

I don't like to pick on CM's because they're only repeatin what the know at the time and aren't actually designers of the game. That bein said, I believe you just got mathed to oblivion Thomas.

On the plus side, you can bring this feedback to the devs! Originally DHS were nerfed to 1.4 because PGI was worried that only DHS would be competitive if they stayed at 2.0.

However! Now even in the most favorable circumstances for a SHS build, standin in water with the deck completely stacked against a DHS build, the DHS build still has better heat management for a less weight.

Now, I know the PGI method would be to nerf DHS even more. However! I would suggest some way to buff SHS so they're not utter trash compared to DHS. Give them some form of benefit to DHS that is actually tangible.

[qki]

BUDFORCE, on 17 September 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Is there a build anywhere that actually benefits from single heat sinks?

If not, are double heat sinks effectivly a stealth way of making each mech more expensive to extend the grind/encourage the purchase of MC?

The somewhat antiquated dual gauss cat couldn't care less about heatsinks.

Also, I seem to recall some atlas build with a massive amount of SHS, that wouldn't be possible with DHS in, but it's not mainstream.


There are a few mechs you can reliably run without upgrading to DHS, though over 90% of the time it's a good upgrade, and first on the "to do" list.

Doesn't mean that you absolutely can't play any mech that hasn't been upgraded with single heatsinks though.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Thomas Dziegielewski, on 19 September 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yes.
Having 4 single heatsinks in your legs and standing in water gives you a boost of up to 100% depending how deep the water is.

There is one other issue with this too. Not many maps have water and the ones that do, often are out in the open with no cover. Maybe Forrest Colony (by the ship and rocks) and River City (in the river) can be helpful, but try using water on Caustic (sitting out in a pond out in the open in the middle of no where LOL.).

Maybe we need a swamp level where the whole level is in water with trees and rocks. It might make this mechanic a bit more useful atleast on 1 board.

[TexAce]

CygnusX7, on 19 September 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

ON1-VA SHS Build

ON1-VA

Here, I made you much more survivable with just sacrificing 3kph. And it's cooler too.

[SweetJackal]

shintakie, on 20 September 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

I don't like to pick on CM's because they're only repeatin what the know at the time and aren't actually designers of the game. That bein said, I believe you just got mathed to oblivion Thomas.

On the plus side, you can bring this feedback to the devs! Originally DHS were nerfed to 1.4 because PGI was worried that only DHS would be competitive if they stayed at 2.0.

However! Now even in the most favorable circumstances for a SHS build, standin in water with the deck completely stacked against a DHS build, the DHS build still has better heat management for a less weight.

Now, I know the PGI method would be to nerf DHS even more. However! I would suggest some way to buff SHS so they're not utter trash compared to DHS. Give them some form of benefit to DHS that is actually tangible.

I don't like to pick on CMs either, they are our messengers for getting things from the Devs to Us and vice-versa more often than not. There are some companies that are shining examples of how that model can be broken and how it can benefit the game but those are outliners.

But really, you need to pick your battles. A CM shouldn't be defending the game using the company line. A CM should be engaging discussion, pruning our excessive rambles with kind words and collecting feedback for the Devs. So when I see a statement doled out by a representative of the developers I will drop the Math Hammer.

I would love to see a statement along the lines of "Balance is something that is always in flux. What problems do you see with SHS vs DHS? Is the Crit Cost not enough of a counterpoint?" Not saying the CM's aren't doing their job either, just that PGI currently has them leashed too much to be a help right now.

So I'll play devil's advocate. Without changing the current Heat System entirely, what can be done to make SHS more competitive?

Since I asked, I'll try to provide an answer. What if we used the logic of "SHS have less surface area so environmental differences shouldn't affect them as much as DHS" and reduced the impact both Hot and Cold maps had on SHS, retuning them as needed for their heat dissipation.

I believe this concept would allow environmental conditions to make SHS a better choice in less extreme circumstances. Meaning that SHS would be a more competitive option and actually functional on Hot Maps. Right now you need DHS to be functional on Hot Maps at all.

[shintakie]

Quote

Since I asked, I'll try to provide an answer. What if we used the logic of "SHS have less surface area so environmental differences shouldn't affect them as much as DHS" and reduced the impact both Hot and Cold maps had on SHS, retuning them as needed for their heat dissipation.

I believe this concept would allow environmental conditions to make SHS a better choice in less extreme circumstances. Meaning that SHS would be a more competitive option and actually functional on Hot Maps. Right now you need DHS to be functional on Hot Maps at all.

Interestingly, that'd actually make SHS worse on cold maps, but its a neat idea.

TexAss, on 20 September 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

ON1-VA

Here, I made you much more survivable with just sacrificing 3kph. And it's cooler too.

At first I was confused, then I noticed you put a Standard Engine in instead of an XL due to the savings in weight from not needin 10 more heat sinks.

Downside of that build! Its a Orion which has one of the most borked hit boxes in the game. There's really no reason not to use an XL engine since I've never seen an Orion lose any part of its body before the CT or RCT.

If you toss in an XL 340, you can fit on more Ammo, an extra DHS, AMS, a BAP for schniggles, and Artemis because why the heck not. All while givin up almost 0 survivability because the Orion is stupid and has a stupid hitbox.

Edited by shintakie, 20 September 2013 - 12:22 PM.