20 replies to this topic

[Blackfire1]

As we know. There is currently NO reasons NOT to have Double heat sinks in every mech.
Period. Why? Because there is no benefit for single heat sinks critical saving qualities.
I'm 100% fine with the engine heat sink double properly.

Infact I'm totally OK with 1.4 even. Even if they are freaking MASSIVE. They gave the engine magic also because otherwise you could out number the doubles with singles due to the size.

Here is something food for thought before we discuss.
http://www.penny-arc...de/counter-play

I was thinking, if we have Ghost Heat. . . Why not have ghost heat sinks.
Why not make it so the more single heat sinks you have grouped up in a section. The higher the heat bonus up to 1 extra heat sink.

Idea1:
Heat sinks 1/2/3/4 all grant +.10 a heat sink. Meaning a group of 4 would have the added be 4.4 heat sinks. (Yes, greater then 4.3 from x3 1.4 doubles.) ONLY if all 4 are located in the area and ONLY if they are all around. The Instant you lose a heat-sink to damage its "cooling efficiency" is lost just the bonus. This would make the space/weight ratio similar to Double heat sinks. MINUS of course the true doubles in the engine. This would grant extra space saving for endo AND FF is need be.

and/OR

Idea 2:
Why not add a buff to heat sinks that adds a slight. (.05%) heat reduction to the region they are attached to. Throw 3 singles in and arm and that weapon gets a 15% reduction in heat generation. This reduction would not interfere with ghost heat. Only give location reason behind Singles. This would also help lights

These are ONLY ideas. I'm not a math major. I do want Singles to be Viable and have tactical reason. The Double heat sinks would still give amazing incentive to run them simply for the engine. But giving singles reason even if small is still a win in my book.

Pro's:
Tactical locational options for stacking single heat sinks.
Opens up space for other upgrades BESIDES DHS/Endo.
Doesn't steel DHS's thunder.

Con's:
Good risk vs reward.
Able to be knocked out with crits thus losing all bonus for stacking because Single heat sinks have low HP.

Edited by Blackfire1, 21 November 2013 - 07:12 PM.

[Mahws]

Or, call me crazy, but just remove the magic in engine heatsink advantage.

Wham, bam. Doubles are no longer massively advantaged by getting an immediate 10 tonnes of free heatsinks, but are still a better choice for most builds. Single heatsink builds are now viable and some mechs (but not many) would actually be better with them.

Way simpler and probably all of ten minutes time to implement.

Edited by Mahws, 19 November 2013 - 11:01 PM.

[Blackfire1]

The magic double was to give mechs with small amounts of space the ability to use Double heat sinks.
I agree with it. However tactically there is no reason for singles. Look at it from the other side. Singles simply need more reason. They aren't meant to be on par with Doubles. But having choices is not a bad thing.

Also its the magic double that would keep this balanced.

http://www.penny-arc...de/counter-play

Edited by Blackfire1, 19 November 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Mahws]

Mechs with small amounts of space shouldn't want to use doubles. Mechs with small amounts of space would have had the ability to use double heatsinks regardless, they would have just had to make a decision whether they were worth it.

Endo-Steel: Space for weight
Ferro: Space for weight
Artemis: Space and tonnage for more effective firepower
Double heatsinks: Space and weight for nothing

The problem is that double heatsinks would be a better choice for most mechs without the magic ten engine sinks advantage. With it you need a massively convoluted system just to make singles even vaguely attractive.

I appreciate the idea of your system, but it's fixing a dead car battery by strapping a rocket to the roof. It may work, but it's still an overly complicated solution to a very simple problem.

[Blackfire1]

Its less about creating a complex system and more about adding to tactical possibility. Counterplay for Singles would be balanced because you could kill the possible MASSIVE advantage.

Remember they added 1 crit slot to double and lowered the full double to 1.4 non engine. Its simply impossible to stack Doubles like there in TT. IF they were to limit the engine to 1.4 the single heatsink could easily outnumber doubles no matter what. Making Doubles pointless.

I simply believe an added system to singles would give more tactical options. Nothing more nothing less.

I would also with all tense and purpose want to avoid NERFING. Simply because they've build systems round the current double heat sinks. Its easier to add then to remove.

Edited by Blackfire1, 20 November 2013 - 12:55 PM.

[Modo44]

Would it not be enough to remove the heat capacity buff that DHS provide over SHS? Pretty sure that could bring some super slow 20+ SHS assaults into the realm of useful.

[Durant Carlyle]

Doubles don't need to be balanced versus singles. They never have been balanced in tabletop, and they never have been balanced in any of the computer games. They are a straight-up upgrade like they should be.

... except for external heat sinks not being real doubles, of course.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 20 November 2013 - 10:47 PM.

[Blackfire1]

Durant Carlyle, on 20 November 2013 - 10:45 PM, said:

Doubles don't need to be balanced versus singles. They never have been balanced in tabletop, and they never have been balanced in any of the computer games. They are a straight-up upgrade like they should be.

... except for external heat sinks not being real doubles, of course.

Not trying to balance single to doubles. I've trying to give them more tactical viability. 100% situational. Like it should be.

[Mercer Skye]

I'd like to see a half way point between buffing singles and nerfing doubles. Wouldn't mind seeing ghost heat removed and a heat cap that can't be bumped up with heat sinks (iirc, the reason for ghost heat in the first place).

I applaud the effort, and it's a sound idea, I'm just not sure it would be the right one.

[Blackfire1]

Mercer Skye, on 21 November 2013 - 09:19 PM, said:

I'd like to see a half way point between buffing singles and nerfing doubles. Wouldn't mind seeing ghost heat removed and a heat cap that can't be bumped up with heat sinks (iirc, the reason for ghost heat in the first place).

I applaud the effort, and it's a sound idea, I'm just not sure it would be the right one.

Agreed. I only wish they weren't balancing weapons with Double heat sinks in mind. However it would be damn near impossible to Nerf Doubles simply because they would have to revert 7 months worth of patches and changes. One of the reasons I'd like to stay away for a nerf and just give a slight theoretical buff to single.

Ghost heat was to prevent boating. Which both succeeded and failed. It worked for quad PPC and 7 LL builds. But forced everyone to just focus on AC's.And you can't nerf them much because of the see-saw of dev balance between beam and ammo weapons.

Now. Unless they were to go slight world of tank and make it so unless you had a targeting computer you would not get pin point accuracy while moving. Then we could get rid of ghost heat.

[Blackfire1]

No more input? O_O

[XtremWarrior]

Mahws, on 19 November 2013 - 11:26 PM, said:

Mechs with small amounts of space shouldn't want to use doubles. Mechs with small amounts of space would have had the ability to use double heatsinks regardless, they would have just had to make a decision whether they were worth it.

Endo-Steel: Space for weight
Ferro: Space for weight
Artemis: Space and tonnage for more effective firepower
Double heatsinks: Space and weight for nothing

Just that.
Could anyone explain why you don't lose the 20 crit space required for upgrading your 10 engine's SHS into Double ones?
Of course, if it really was 20 crit slots, no one would ever do the upgrade, but let it have some crit space impact, maybe 10. Then, you really would have to think about it.

Dunno if that's the best idea but i definitely find it strange that there's no real couterpart for DHS and that EVERYONE use them. So far it's just a tax, which end up being another Huge advantage for people with in game money vs new/poor ones.
That's also part of what makes those trial Mechs worthless.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think the simplest thing to do would be to treat all in-engine sinks as doubles.
We already know how the game balance (or lack thereof) is with all engine sinks as doubles. We wouldn't take anythnig away from any mechs, we'd just add something to the subpar configurations - and what we add is the main difference between DHS and SHS.

Maybe this would make out-of-engine doubles too weak compared to standard sinks, than we'll need to tweak further.



Even if we were to finalyl make a major heat system revamp, this is an approach I'd suggest: All engine heat sinks are equally efficient, regardless of whether you can use DHS and SHS. Only then do you have a hope of balancing the two techs.
If you don't want to balance them, then DHS simply remain a 1.5 Million C-Bill tax as it's now.

[Karl Streiger]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 November 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

I think the simplest thing to do would be to treat all in-engine sinks as doubles.

All engine heatsinks? Or the first 10 heatsinks?
Or eighter the first 10 heatsinks or the possible engine heatsinks - what ever happens earlier.

As an alternative what about - a floating heat dissipation value for engines.

For example a 300 dissipate 1.8 heat
a 305 dissipate 1.83 heat
a 200 dissipate 1.2 heat

No additional mounting of free heat sinks in the engine necessary or even possible. It would also buff not efficience engines like the 320 or 330...
Yes it will brake some pen&paper RecordSheet fluff - but sometimes a step over the ledge just means you are able to fly.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 25 November 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

All engine heatsinks? Or the first 10 heatsinks?
Or eighter the first 10 heatsinks or the possible engine heatsinks - what ever happens earlier.

Basically as it's now for DHS. It'snot like I like it that below 250 rated engines are crippled by the heat system, though, so if we can fix that, I am up for it.

Quote

Yes it will brake some pen&paper RecordSheet fluff - but sometimes a step over the ledge just means you are able to fly.

I wouldn't count on that happening, however, so I prefer to suggest stuff within the confines of what PGI has been willing to do. (Except when I break out and say "screw this heat system, this is what I think you need to do", but this is one where I try to be moderate.)

It's kinda strange how strictly PGI adheres to some table top numbers, but no the aspects of the table top that these numbers are based on...

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 25 November 2013 - 05:40 AM.

[XtremWarrior]

This really is a tricky thing. I like the idea of the engine's HS being the same wether you took the upgrade or not.

My thought would have been to keep em single even after the upgrade but DBH become double for real.
That would reduce max heat level of every Mech in global, so the problem becomes that ghost heat would also need to be reduced or removed. And we all know how ghost heat is a sensitive subject...

[SockSlayer]

Another feature suggested long ago...its 2022 now, I do think they could make standard heat sinks abit better on capacity. 0.85 to 0.9.

[KursedVixen]

Blackfire1, on 19 November 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

As we know. There is currently NO reasons NOT to have Double heat sinks in every mech.
Period. Why? Because there is no benefit for single heat sinks critical saving qualities.
I'm 100% fine with the engine heat sink double properly.

Infact I'm totally OK with 1.4 even. Even if they are freaking MASSIVE. They gave the engine magic also because otherwise you could out number the doubles with singles due to the size.

Here is something food for thought before we discuss.
http://www.penny-arc...de/counter-play

I was thinking, if we have Ghost Heat. . . Why not have ghost heat sinks.
Why not make it so the more single heat sinks you have grouped up in a section. The higher the heat bonus up to 1 extra heat sink.

Idea1:
Heat sinks 1/2/3/4 all grant +.10 a heat sink. Meaning a group of 4 would have the added be 4.4 heat sinks. (Yes, greater then 4.3 from x3 1.4 doubles.) ONLY if all 4 are located in the area and ONLY if they are all around. The Instant you lose a heat-sink to damage its "cooling efficiency" is lost just the bonus. This would make the space/weight ratio similar to Double heat sinks. MINUS of course the true doubles in the engine. This would grant extra space saving for endo AND FF is need be.

and/OR

Idea 2:
Why not add a buff to heat sinks that adds a slight. (.05%) heat reduction to the region they are attached to. Throw 3 singles in and arm and that weapon gets a 15% reduction in heat generation. This reduction would not interfere with ghost heat. Only give location reason behind Singles. This would also help lights

These are ONLY ideas. I'm not a math major. I do want Singles to be Viable and have tactical reason. The Double heat sinks would still give amazing incentive to run them simply for the engine. But giving singles reason even if small is still a win in my book.

Pro's:
Tactical locational options for stacking single heat sinks.
Opens up space for other upgrades BESIDES DHS/Endo.
Doesn't steel DHS's thunder.

Con's:
Good risk vs reward.
Able to be knocked out with crits thus losing all bonus for stacking because Single heat sinks have low HP.

pretty sure single heat sinks got a buff a lone time ago

[SockSlayer]

They did get one, I recall, though it could be a little more.

[KursedVixen]

by the time the Fafnir was produced double heat sinks were almost if not entirely extinct.