281 replies to this topic

[Spleenslitta]

I saw a thread that was about this subject but it was from November 2013. I didn't want to ressurect an old thread so i made my own.

As you know almost nobody uses single heatsinks. How about giving the single heatsinks a higher heat limit before you shut down?
How much of a higher heatlimit? How about 30-40%? The doubles have 40% better cooling so it seems logical.

I know this isn't according to the TT rules but as it is right now single heatsinks are....well dang near useless.

Here is a link to the other thread discussing the same problem- http://mwomercs.com/...heat-sink-buff/

I also think this was a good suggestion made by Mahws.

Mahws, on 19 November 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

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.

[Varent]

Double Heat sinks are a direct upgrade.

They dont need to be balanced with single heat sinks.


This is akin to literally taking two handguns, and giving one an extended clip. They are not balanced and not supposed to be.

If you want the upgrade pay for it.

[FupDup]

Varent, on 26 February 2014 - 01:29 PM, said:

Double Heat sinks are a direct upgrade.

They dont need to be balanced with single heat sinks.


This is akin to literally taking two handguns, and giving one an extended clip. They are not balanced and not supposed to be.

If you want the upgrade pay for it.

So what you're saying is, the LB 10-X should be superior to every single other weapon and piece of equipment in the game, because it costs more imaginary monopoly money than the others?

[Varent]

FupDup, on 26 February 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

So what you're saying is, the LB 10-X should be superior to every single other weapon and piece of equipment in the game, because it costs more imaginary monopoly money than the others?

actually, to bring that up I have no idea why the LBX is 800k.

It should be less then the ac-10

*shrug* Highly off subject though.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd say remove or reduce the gifted + 30 Heat Capacity we get. Reducing that down to 20 is a start so that we have a Heat Cap starting at 30 with the default requirement of 10 heat sinks, (Single or Double).

Then have any and all heatsinks only raise heat capacity by 1 point each, so the only difference between SHS and DHS is the crits slots needed and heat dissipation provided. Combined with a tweak to dissipation rates and we have more trade-offs between the two.



Otherwise, making Heat sinks only modify Heat Dissipation by the number you mount, and fix Heat Capacity to a Specific value (such as a hard cap of 30) is another change I'd like to investigate.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 26 February 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

So what you're saying is, the LB 10-X should be superior to every single other weapon and piece of equipment in the game, because it costs more imaginary monopoly money than the others?

I would like more monopoly money please. I need it to help my Medium Laser problem (I have at least a 100!)

I'm not adverse to adding more heat capacity to SHS... because it won't help its overall deficiency... but it couldn't hurt the new player.

[Sandpit]

So SHS should be more effective negating the cost of upgrading to DHS?

That's counter-productive in my opinion

[Purlana]

Single Heatsinks are supposed to become useless....

Edited by Purlana, 26 February 2014 - 01:42 PM.

[wintersborn]

I just made a post about Heat Sinks because I did not find the answer by searching the forums.

I found out that there is no reason to use SHS vs DHS for heat. The link you provided has a interesting idea about grouped sinks etc. giving a reason to use them.

I am still trying to find out if there is any difference in the hit points per crit. slot.

For example a DHS takes up 3 crit slots but is still 1 ton vs SHS of 1 crit. and 1 ton. Now if the Heat Sink HP was per ton then Single heat sinks would be better for crit. padding.

At least this would have a trade off and could be used for brawlers or ? I mean 3 tons must take more damage than 1 ton right ?

Options are always better to me than must do's/have's.

[DEMAX51]

wintersborn, on 26 February 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

I just made a post about Heat Sinks because I did not find the answer by searching the forums.

I found out that there is no reason to use SHS vs DHS for heat. The link you provided has a interesting idea about grouped sinks etc. giving a reason to use them.

I am still trying to find out if there is any difference in the hit points per crit. slot.

For example a DHS takes up 3 crit slots but is still 1 ton vs SHS of 1 crit. and 1 ton. Now if the Heat Sink HP was per ton then Single heat sinks would be better for crit. padding.

At least this would have a trade off and could be used for brawlers or ? I mean 3 tons must take more damage than 1 ton right ?

Options are always better to me than must do's/have's.

Both of them have 10 HP.

[FupDup]

wintersborn, on 26 February 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

Options are always better to me than must do's/have's.

Oh stop that silly nonsense. Clearly it is the destined order of the universe for video games to funnel players into narrow and pre-set paths with no deviation whatsoever. The fewer choices players have, the better! We need every single person to play the game the exact same way, every single match, forevermore. Anything else is heresy and punishable by death. Amirite?

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 26 February 2014 - 01:48 PM, said:

Oh stop that silly nonsense. Clearly it is the destined order of the universe for video games to funnel players into narrow and pre-set paths with no deviation whatsoever. The fewer choices players have, the better! We need every single person to play the game the exact same way, every single match, forevermore. Anything else is heresy and punishable by death. Amirite?

META... META ALL THE TIME!

If you don't meta, I'll punish your Elo NAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

[wanderer]

FupDup, on 26 February 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

So what you're saying is, the LB 10-X should be superior to every single other weapon and piece of equipment in the game, because it costs more imaginary monopoly money than the others?

Actually, this is part of setting MWO at the equivalent of the space between WWI and WWII.

Most of what MWO put in early were "WWI" designs. Lower tech weapons, SHS, no endo/ferro/XL engines. Pre-3039-era designs. The top-tech stuff is "WWII" gear- which is just seriously getting out there after 3039 and into the Clan Invasion.

This is like trying to say that a WWI tank should be an even match for a WWII tank. DHS become the standard over the next few years of game time as "WWI" older 'Mechs get wrecked by the score and the Houses went into a crash-mode production program for "WWII" upteched new designs and refits on what older designs remained.

Battletech has obsolescence in technology. We happen to be "historically" right at that point, and it'll happen again as LB-X and Ultra AC's become more widespread and in all calibers with the standard AC. Roll with it.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 26 February 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

META... META ALL THE TIME!

If you don't meta, I'll punish your Elo NAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

If you don't meta, you will be kicked off the peaks of mount tryhard down to the steering wheel underhive.

[IceSerpent]

FupDup, on 26 February 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

So what you're saying is, the LB 10-X should be superior to every single other weapon and piece of equipment in the game, because it costs more imaginary monopoly money than the others?

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.

Varent, on 26 February 2014 - 01:33 PM, said:

actually, to bring that up I have no idea why the LBX is 800k.

It should be less then the ac-10

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

[Deathsani]

Direct upgrades serve no purpose in a game that is supposed to set players on equal footing. You can't base balance on the economy when there is an option to just buy mechs and then sell them for cbills.

Spending in game money on things should make them different not better. Save the "tier" garbage for MMORPG's.

Edited by Deathsani, 26 February 2014 - 01:56 PM.

[wanderer]

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.

This. The weapon is literally half-complete, since it only has it's alternate fire mode. LB's are quite capable of lobbing normal AC ammo in Battletech, but PGI can't into alt-fire modes for anything, apparently.

[Purlana]

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

Direct upgrades serve no purpose in a game that is supposed to set players on equal footing. You can't base balance on the economy when there is an option to just buy mechs and then sell them for cbills.

Spending in game money on things should make them different not better. Save the "tier" garbage for MMORPG's.

Ummm who said we are supposed to start on a equal footing?

Remember the old trial mechs? Yeah I had to pilot those hunks of junk.....

[FupDup]

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

Actually, this is part of setting MWO at the equivalent of the space between WWI and WWII.

Most of what MWO put in early were "WWI" designs. Lower tech weapons, SHS, no endo/ferro/XL engines. Pre-3039-era designs. The top-tech stuff is "WWII" gear- which is just seriously getting out there after 3039 and into the Clan Invasion.

This is like trying to say that a WWI tank should be an even match for a WWII tank. DHS become the standard over the next few years of game time as "WWI" older 'Mechs get wrecked by the score and the Houses went into a crash-mode production program for "WWII" upteched new designs and refits on what older designs remained.

Battletech has obsolescence in technology. We happen to be "historically" right at that point, and it'll happen again as LB-X and Ultra AC's become more widespread and in all calibers with the standard AC. Roll with it.

Were WWI and WWII PvP computer games to be played for personal enjoyment? If my memory isn't completely terrible, I recall both of those being real-life events with nations trying to destroy each other, and not a video game designed to be as fun as possible.

[Varent]

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

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

sad panda