14 replies to this topic

[Armored Yokai]

1,500,000 per upgrade and 1.4 for every double heat sink seems outragous
vote to say if they need a rework
state your opinions please and no margerg critisism please
(this is just a opinion for me and this is not for the poll give the 750,000 per upgrade for dhs and make it 1.7 or 2 instead of 1.4)

Edited by Cementblade, 09 November 2013 - 07:01 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

The devs claim that making all double heat sinks work at 2.0 would make it too easy to have heat-neutral builds. They claim to have tested this out.

What needs to happen is that heat sinks need to not increase the heat capacity. They need to affect heat dissipation only. That way single heat sinks can be 1.0 and double heat sinks can be 2.0 and they will be balanced. You would overheat easier due to the lower capacity, but you would also dissipate heat quicker.

[Zarlaren]

The dbl heat sink could be 1.65 instead of 1.4 and 2.0 may be too much now. But someday 2.0 may be the normal adverage when newer ones are added just not now.

[General Taskeen]

And then what about SHS?

Technically even in TT standards, a lot of SHS builds are 'heat neutral' when firing certain groups of weapons depending on the build. Some of those same builds exist in this game are quite opposite at effectively cooling down, which is a shame.

Heatsinks as a whole are not well thought out in this game, unfortunately.

As Durant mentioned in the above post, that's the main issue - heatsinks raising heat thresholds, which is a strange way to make them work in a real-time Mech Warrior game.

Edited by General Taskeen, 10 November 2013 - 12:03 PM.

[Strum Wealh]

How the Heat Sinks in MWO work, according to Bryan Ekman & David Bradley:
"Double heat sinks internal to the engine are set to increase the heat scale by 2 points and provide -0.2 heat/sec cooling. Double heat sinks that you add to your Mech increase the heat scale by 1.4 points and provide -0.14 heat/sec cooling. (For reference, single heat sinks increase the scale by 1 and cool -0.1 heat/sec. The heat scale starts at 30 and is then is increased based on the heat sinks in your Mech.)"

Personally, I would rather see much smaller effects on threshold for both HS types (in additional to changes to the dissipation rate of DHS).

• all SHS: -0.10 heat/second per HS, +0.50 to heat threshold per HS
  
• all DHS: -0.20 heat/second per HS, +0.25 to heat threshold per HS

Essentially, DHS would provide twice the dissipation, but only half of the (far smaller than is currently the case) increase in threshold when compared to SHS.

Additionally, base heat threshold for each 'Mech (without taking HS into account) could, IMO, be set to (30 + ((tonnage)/100)); the latter term is supposed to build on the idea that more-massive 'Mechs should have a somewhat higher inherent thermal mass value than less-massive 'Mechs.
As such, the base threshold for a 20-ton 'Mech (e.g. Flea, Locust, Dasher) would be 30.20, while the base threshold for a 65-ton 'Mech (e.g. Catapult, Loki) would be 30.65 and the base threshold for a 100-ton 'Mech (e.g. Atlas, Daishi) would be 31.00.

The number and type of HS would then modify both the base threshold (with the result being the 'Mech's actual/total heat threshold) and the overall dissipation rate.
Thus:

• a stock AWS-8Q (an 80-ton 'Mech with 28 SHS) would have a heat threshold of 44.80 (from (30 + (80/100) + (0.50 * 28))) and a dissipation rate of 2.8 heat/sec,
  
• a hypothetical DHS-equipped but otherwise unmodified AWS-8Q (an 80-ton 'Mech with 28 DHS) would have a heat threshold of 37.80 (from (30 + (80/100) + (0.25 * 28))) and a dissipation rate of 5.6 heat/sec,
  
• a stock AWS-9M (an 80-ton 'Mech with 20 DHS) would have a heat threshold of 35.80 (from (30 + (80/100) + (0.25 * 20))) and a dissipation rate of 4.0 heat/sec,
  
• a stock CN9-D (a 50-ton 'Mech with 10 SHS) would have would have a heat threshold of 35.50 (from (30 + (50/100) + (0.50 * 10))) and a dissipation rate of 1.0 heat/sec, and
  
• a hypothetical DHS-equipped but otherwise unmodified CN9-D (a 50-ton 'Mech with 10 DHS) would have would have a heat threshold of 33.00 (from (30 + (50/100) + (0.25 * 10))) and a dissipation rate of 2.0 heat/sec.

As illustrated (moreso by the AWSs than by the CN9s), this would (IMO) create a more tangible trade-off between using one HS type over another (especially when larger numbers of HS are equipped) - SHS would provide a greater boost to threshold (and could thus be of greater utility in preventing self-inflicted heat damage for those (usually "high-alpha") builds that are expected to produce large amounts of heat at once... like the stock AWS-8Q) at the cost of dissipation rate, while DHS provide a greater boost to dissipation rate at the cost of heat threshold (and could thus be of greater utility to those (usually "DPS-oriented") builds that are more-greatly affected by heat generation (and heat dissipation) over time than by sudden heat spikes... like a stock JM6-DD with its combination of AC/2s and UAC/5s).
In blunter terms (and assuming equal numbers of individual Heat Sinks are installed), it creates the tradeoff of "greater heat-tanking capability with slower cooling" (SHS) versus "lesser heat-tanking capability with faster cooling" (DHS).

Such a system would also, IMO, eliminate the need for the Heat Scaling system (aka "Ghost Heat"), and the implementation of my proposal (were it - or something substantially identical - to be implemented) would ideally occur simultaneously with the removal of the Heat Scaling system.

Thoughts?

[focuspark]

Simpler is to just not upgrade the engine's heat dissipation when upgrading the heat sinks.

SHS = 1.0 heat / 10 seconds. 1 ton. 1 crit.
DHS = 2.0 heat / 10 seconds. 1 ton. 3 crits

Without the boost from the engine being bumped up, they're completely balanced. AND you could even allow them to be fixed (to hell with canon and TT rules).

To make things "fair" to light 'mechs, engines should be boosted from 10 heat / 10 seconds to 15 heat / 10 seconds (half way between today's SHS and DHS values).

[Captain Stiffy]

Durant Carlyle, on 09 November 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

The devs claim that making all double heat sinks work at 2.0 would make it too easy to have heat-neutral builds. They claim to have tested this out.

What needs to happen is that heat sinks need to not increase the heat capacity. They need to affect heat dissipation only. That way single heat sinks can be 1.0 and double heat sinks can be 2.0 and they will be balanced. You would overheat easier due to the lower capacity, but you would also dissipate heat quicker.

I never understood this. This core part of the game is what keeps alpha striking to a minimum in TT. No matter what if you fire too much you're going to overheat but more heat sinks will give you an overall faster rate of fire - not allow you to launch everything over and over.

[focuspark]

Captain Stiffy, on 10 November 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

I never understood this. This core part of the game is what keeps alpha striking to a minimum in TT. No matter what if you fire too much you're going to overheat but more heat sinks will give you an overall faster rate of fire - not allow you to launch everything over and over.

It comes more down to the fact that heat becomes a non-issue. So, instead of adjusting weapon heat to accomodate the devs decided that "double" meant 1.4.

[Firewuff]

Durant Carlyle, on 09 November 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

The devs claim that making all double heat sinks work at 2.0 would make it too easy to have heat-neutral builds. They claim to have tested this out.

What needs to happen is that heat sinks need to not increase the heat capacity. They need to affect heat dissipation only. That way single heat sinks can be 1.0 and double heat sinks can be 2.0 and they will be balanced. You would overheat easier due to the lower capacity, but you would also dissipate heat quicker.

No supposedly about it. During the closed beta they tried 2.0 for all dhs and I had a hunchback 9p which was impossible to overheat. It was horrible as you could carry 4 erppc and not overheat. They are well balanced now. Even 1.6 is too high

[Durant Carlyle]

I was here for closed beta, unless you mean before the first week of August 2012. During my time there have been no external heat sinks at 2.0 heat dissipation, that I can recall at least.

I have never had a Jenner be even close to heat-neutral, even on the cold maps.

They would be much better balanced with a base heat capacity that didn't change, and double heat sinks working at double dissipation only. 'Mechs would overheat quicker than they do now, but those with double heat sinks would recover more quickly as well.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 11 November 2013 - 10:40 PM.

[Hardes13]

Actually the reactor HS are x2 . And thats realy stupid. for weight reductions you allways use more space, and thats not the case with the free Heatsinks.
Remove the upgrade doubleheatsink and let us build in doubleheatsinks like we want. even in a single/double hs mix.

Edited by Hardes13, 13 November 2013 - 05:25 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Hardes13, on 13 November 2013 - 05:24 AM, said:

Actually the reactor HS are x2 . And thats realy stupid.

This
Simple change the current rules: the first 10 heat sinks are 1.4 and the additional are 2.

That means all mechs until 20DHS will run hotter, mechs beyond 20 DHS get some cooling bonus.

Hurt light mechs and most ammunition dependend mechs - of course you can make heat sinks have 1.7 rating overall (again only mechs beyond 20 heat sinks will get a gain)

[Karl Streiger]

It seems that it is really that easy.
PGI said they are affraid that DHS are to powerfull with the full 2.0 rating.
But however they - introduced what was broken on TT DHS anyhow:

Take for example the AS7-K. The most simple change is STD engine for DHS.
It increases its durability and leaves room for 14 additional crits - without any trade off -> its cheaper and its more durable.

The ability to dissipate 20 heat for free is the best advantage of IS - DHS.

The choice to limit other heatsinks to 1.4 instead of 2 doesn't have much impact.
I think 24 DHS is the maximum an IS Mech can have -> so it has a lower thresshold of 7.2 and dissipate 0.72 heat slower in comparison with the full 2.0 rating. That could be ignored.

So it looks like i have to accuse somebody not to told 100% the truth behind the reason to leave engine heatsinks at a rating of 2 - and other heatsinks at 1.4 -> it only benefits light mechs and ballistic mechs -> but penalize heavy energy dependent builds -> that are already crippled by Ghost Heat

[werewolf75]

Is it me or does it seem the mech's overheat to easily?

[SniperCon]

werewolf75, on 16 November 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Is it me or does it seem the mech's overheat to easily?

I depends on who you ask, but in general people think mechs don't overheat easily enough.

Edited by SniperCon, 27 November 2013 - 01:47 PM.