281 replies to this topic

[Purlana]

wanderer, on 27 February 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Let's try this again.

SHS are supposed to be garbage.

They were substandard, low-tech cooling systems used in TANKS that only were put in a 'Mech because they couldn't make anything better. By 3030, they'd recovered enough to start slapping them into new 'Mechs. By 3050, virtually all new designs use DHS. By 3055, it's closer to 90% of modern designs- and SHS are viewed as a liability in the machines they were installed in.

They are not meant to be viable in a DHS world, DHS were their REPLACEMENTS, not their alternatives.

But everything should be equal!!

My mackie should be able to take down a Kraken! Go MACKIE!

Edited by Purlana, 27 February 2014 - 07:22 AM.

[SniperCon]

I tried. I failed. SHS vs DHS.

[Joseph Mallan]

Purlana, on 27 February 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

But everything should be equal!!

My mackie should be able to take down a Kraken! Go MACKIE!

If you get very very lucky... you can.

[wanderer]

Quote

My mackie should be able to take down a Kraken! Go MACKIE!

Funny you should mention that, but the Mackie continued service up until the Exodus- being...yes, you guessed it, upgraded with new tech the entire way....all the way up to the -9H.

So yeah, if you plugged in the right parts....

[Purlana]

Actually it probably would be easy if they don't fix the heat penalty. 10 Ultra AC/2s, LOL.....

[Kaeb Odellas]

Purlana, on 27 February 2014 - 06:45 AM, said:

Wait are we complaining about cost, and complaining that it has no drawbacks?

You can't complain about both at the same time, you need to pick one or the other.

Cost is not a drawback, because an upgrade's cost has no bearing on its effectiveness in game. If PGI released a million C-Bill consumable that auto-killed every enemy mech in the game, it would still be overpowered.

Try again.

wanderer, on 27 February 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Let's try this again.

SHS are supposed to be garbage.

They were substandard, low-tech cooling systems used in TANKS that only were put in a 'Mech because they couldn't make anything better. By 3030, they'd recovered enough to start slapping them into new 'Mechs. By 3050, virtually all new designs use DHS. By 3055, it's closer to 90% of modern designs- and SHS are viewed as a liability in the machines they were installed in.

They are not meant to be viable in a DHS world, DHS were their REPLACEMENTS, not their alternatives.

There are times where the game needs to stick to the tabletop rules, and there are times where the game needs to deviate, right? We can all agree on that.

I have provided good gameplay-related reasons as to why singles should be viable, and ideas on how to improve accomplish this goal. So far, the only counter-argument I've seen amounts to "Because Tabletop". So I ask you now, why do you believe PGI needs to stick to tabletop on this particular issue?

[Purlana]

Kaeb Odellas, on 27 February 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:

Cost is not a drawback, because an upgrade's cost has no bearing on its effectiveness in game. If PGI released a million C-Bill consumable that auto-killed every enemy mech in the game, it would still be overpowered.

It's still a drawback.Something can be OP and still have some drawbacks. The question you are asking is if the drawback is big enough.

Edited by Purlana, 27 February 2014 - 08:38 AM.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Purlana, on 27 February 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

It's still a drawback.Something can be OP and still have some drawbacks. The question you are asking is if the drawback is big enough.

The cost of DHS has no bearing on its effectiveness. At all. Doubles are still dramatically more effective than singles, and are almost always going to be used over singles. Period. The only thing cost does is delay your use of a particular mech until you can afford the DHS upgrade for it. You're not going to bring singles to a fight because you can't afford doubles.

If you multiplied the cost of DHS by 10, it would still be 100% worth bringing to a fight. The only thing higher cost would change is that you probably won't be buying too many mechs, since you have to grind for so much longer to upgrade the.

[Purlana]

Kaeb Odellas, on 27 February 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

The cost of DHS has no bearing on its effectiveness. At all. Doubles are still dramatically more effective than singles, and are almost always going to be used over singles. Period. The only thing cost does is delay your use of a particular mech until you can afford the DHS upgrade for it. You're not going to bring singles to a fight because you can't afford doubles.

If you multiplied the cost of DHS by 10, it would still be 100% worth bringing to a fight. The only thing higher cost would change is that you probably won't be buying too many mechs, since you have to grind for so much longer to upgrade the.

And if it's worth the cost and the cost is not a drawback, don't complain about the cost?

[Joseph Mallan]

Kaeb Odellas, on 27 February 2014 - 08:19 AM, said:

Cost is not a drawback, because an upgrade's cost has no bearing on its effectiveness in game. If PGI released a million C-Bill consumable that auto-killed every enemy mech in the game, it would still be overpowered.

Try again.



There are times where the game needs to stick to the tabletop rules, and there are times where the game needs to deviate, right? We can all agree on that.

I have provided good gameplay-related reasons as to why singles should be viable, and ideas on how to improve accomplish this goal. So far, the only counter-argument I've seen amounts to "Because Tabletop". So I ask you now, why do you believe PGI needs to stick to tabletop on this particular issue?

My argument is because Double. Not Because TT. No matter how you slice it a double sink is meant to be 2 times as effective. Its in the name!

[Kaeb Odellas]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 February 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

My argument is because Double. Not Because TT. No matter how you slice it a double sink is meant to be 2 times as effective. Its in the name!

You're willing to sacrifice sensible game design for the sake of pointless pedantry? That's an interesting position.

Okay, so here are the arguments against balanced heatsinks:

1. Because Tabletop.
2. Because "Double".

These are not good arguments.

Purlana, on 27 February 2014 - 08:47 AM, said:

And if it's worth the cost and the cost is not a drawback, don't complain about the cost?

I can afford the cost just fine, because I've been playing this game for a while and so I understand the systems. However, you and I can't keep this game running on our own. The game needs fresh blood, and it needs to retain these new players. Requiring 99% of mechs to upgrade to DHS with no indication of why or in-game documentation does not help user retention at all.

I can't even imagine what documentation for DHS would be. I suppose they could use the mechlab alert system to warn users against using SHS?

"WARNING: Mech is using single heatsinks. Mechs require double heatsinks to be effective."

Edited by Kaeb Odellas, 27 February 2014 - 09:06 AM.

[wanderer]

Quote

There are times where the game needs to stick to the tabletop rules, and there are times where the game needs to deviate, right? We can all agree on that.

I have provided good gameplay-related reasons as to why singles should be viable, and ideas on how to improve accomplish this goal. So far, the only counter-argument I've seen amounts to "Because Tabletop". So I ask you now, why do you believe PGI needs to stick to tabletop on this particular issue?

Because what you're saying is we need to polish a **** to make it gold, and it doesn't matter how much a **** gets shined. It's still a ****, was created to be a ****, and will stink like one regardless. The tech upgrade to the SHS will be coming along in 3058, the "compact" heat sink. Not only will they fit in small spaces, -two- of them will fit into a single critical space.

The standard SHS is the bottom tier of cooling systems, the DHS the "gold standard", and alternatives will be coming on down the line. There is no need to make the bottom better- the only reason we have SHS in the game is so stock 3025-era 'Mechs can be introduced along with the painfully rare occasional later design like the Huron Warrior.

Mashing together the obsolete with the cutting edge in the name of "balance" is absurd, much like putting a 1860's era Gatling into a game and giving it the stats of a GAU-8.

[Joseph Mallan]

Kaeb Odellas, on 27 February 2014 - 08:57 AM, said:

You're willing to sacrifice sensible game design for the sake of pointless pedantry? That's an interesting position.

Okay, so here are the arguments against balanced heatsinks:

1. Because Tabletop.
2. Because "Double".

These are not good arguments.



I can afford the cost just fine, because I've been playing this game for a while and so I understand the systems. However, you and I can't keep this game running on our own. The game needs fresh blood, and it needs to retain these new players. Requiring 99% of mechs to upgrade to DHS with no indication of why or in-game documentation does not help user retention at all.

I can't even imagine what documentation for DHS would be. I suppose they could use the mechlab alert system to warn users against using SHS?

"WARNING: Mech is using single heatsinks. Mechs require double heatsinks to be effective."

Hey if Single sinks worked like they do on TT there would not be a problem. 13 single sinks on TT kept 4 Medium lasers firing non stop while the Mech walked. 21 Sinks here and after a few salvos of 4 Medium lasers my Atlas over heats. Fix that and single sinks will not be a problem.

[Mcgral18]

Joseph Mallan, on 27 February 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

My argument is because Double. Not Because TT. No matter how you slice it a double sink is meant to be 2 times as effective. Its in the name!

Well, you'd need 6x dissipation to almost get to TT dissipation, so they're still rather poor. Let alone at 1.4.

I'd take TT SHS over MWO DHS since they are a tad more effective. Rather sad.

[cSand]

IceSerpent, on 26 February 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

Not to every other weapon, but it should be superior to AC10 - tech level 2 weapon that can fire both slug and buckshot vs. tech level 1 weapon that only fires slugs. Cost is not the cause, it's a result of weapon being better.



Because PGI made it worse than AC10, but kept pricing from TT where LBX-10 is indeed better.

As someone who's religiously used LBX through thousands of matches since closed beta...

it's not worse. period.

[Bobzilla]

The best answer why they shouldn't be ballanced, is it's not an item that can be used to different degrees depending on the situation, it is only an upgrade, not equipment. It would be the equivilant of balancing a pilot skill to not having that skill. It, by design of an upgrade, is ment to be all around better. There is no reason to not unlock a speed boost, there is no reason to not upgrade to DHS.

Is it fair that you have to spend a lot of cbills for a vital upgrade? That is open to debate, but SHS balancing is not.

[FupDup]

Bobzilla, on 27 February 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

The best answer why they shouldn't be ballanced, is it's not an item that can be used to different degrees depending on the situation, it is only an upgrade, not equipment. It would be the equivilant of balancing a pilot skill to not having that skill. It, by design of an upgrade, is ment to be all around better. There is no reason to not unlock a speed boost, there is no reason to not upgrade to DHS.

Is it fair that you have to spend a lot of cbills for a vital upgrade? That is open to debate, but SHS balancing is not.

Spending XP on a pilot tree skill doesn't actually replace a piece of equipment. It simply enhances an existing piece of equipment (in this case, your mech's speed or whatever). The Heatsink debacle, on the other hand, is not simply adding a +x% attribute to each of the sinks you carry when you get enough XP. It is an entirely different piece of equipment that requires the removal of its predecessor in order to be mounted.

A mech without speed tweak is not a different inventory item than a mech with speed tweak. DHS, on the other hand, are a separate item of their own and occupy their own pixels in your inventory. Very different context here.

[Purlana]

FupDup, on 27 February 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Spending XP on a pilot tree skill doesn't actually replace a piece of equipment. It simply enhances an existing piece of equipment (in this case, your mech's speed or whatever). The Heatsink debacle, on the other hand, is not simply adding a +x% attribute to each of the sinks you carry when you get enough XP. It is an entirely different piece of equipment that requires the removal of its predecessor in order to be mounted.

A mech without speed tweak is not a different inventory item than a mech with speed tweak. DHS, on the other hand, are a separate item of their own and occupy their own pixels in your inventory. Very different context here.

Why is it different? Just because an inventory item is invloved...?

How about modules then?

Edited by Purlana, 27 February 2014 - 09:35 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Fup Why hasn't it been complained about like this in all the time MW and CBT have been played? I never heard this much Gimme in 30+ years of gaming!

[Bobzilla]

FupDup, on 27 February 2014 - 09:31 AM, said:

Spending XP on a pilot tree skill doesn't actually replace a piece of equipment. It simply enhances an existing piece of equipment (in this case, your mech's speed or whatever). The Heatsink debacle, on the other hand, is not simply adding a +x% attribute to each of the sinks you carry when you get enough XP. It is an entirely different piece of equipment that requires the removal of its predecessor in order to be mounted.

A mech without speed tweak is not a different inventory item than a mech with speed tweak. DHS, on the other hand, are a separate item of their own and occupy their own pixels in your inventory. Very different context here.

The main idea was the upgrade part, would it be more clear if I said module? There is no reason to balance a mech with mods vs mechs without mods as there is no reason to not equip a mods, which you spend cbills on.

Altho the DHS show in your inventory, the ability to use them is an upgrade. They are an upgrade, not a separte inventory item, you can't use SHS and DHS at the same time, as they are the same but one is upgraded. If you could use them both at the same time, they would be 'a separate item'.

Edited by Bobzilla, 27 February 2014 - 09:37 AM.