22 replies to this topic

[evil713]

For those that don't know, double heat sinks are nerfed. They provide a 40% bonus where classically they would provide 100%.

This was because of gameplay and competitiveness and balance and maybe a few other things.

But this was done before Ghost Heat was implemented.

Now that we are all settled in with the Ghost Heat mechanic, I propose making double heat sinks more powerful, increasing there usefulness in multi-same weapon mechs such as the Hunchback 4P and the Nova Prime.

I understand for balance purposes it may not be up to full power doubles, but some increase might be warranted.

[FupDup]

Inb4 people say "b-b-b-b-but pilot tree makes them more than 2.0," which doesn't apply at all to larger numbers of DHS crammed in (I think the cutoff point was 18 or so?).

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

With efficiencies, 1.4 DHS apparently outperform true DHS by a wide margin, until they begin to approach the limits of IS ability even to carry enough DHS.

That said, quirks do a good job of bringing heat generation/dissipation closer to where it should be, though they require fixed build archetypes for a given variant in order to maximize utility and impact.

[Mothykins]

How about we make SHS actually worth even contemplating first?

[Brody319]

Cavale, on 06 December 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

How about we make SHS actually worth even contemplating first?

Bump Single heat sinks to 1.4 effectiveness and make DHS 2 where they should be.

[evil713]

The whole point of double heat sinks is to be twice as good as a single heat sink for some level of economy, in this case same tonnage.

Single heat sink must be the metric standard everything else stands on, it needs to be "1".

[Victor Morson]

Said it before, will say it again: DHS should be a full 2.0, but shouldn't double any free heatsinks.

The only reason true DHS is so damn overpowered is because you get roughly 10hs for zero downside brought up to 20.

That's literally the only problem. If you had to invest tonnage & space to get any effect out of DHS, it'd be far, far more questionable.

Edited by Victor Morson, 06 December 2014 - 09:12 AM.

[Sjorpha]

Brody319, on 06 December 2014 - 08:49 AM, said:

Bump Single heat sinks to 1.4 effectiveness and make DHS 2 where they should be.

This sounds pretty nice actually.

SHS should be a viable choice, just like std engines.

I think another approach would be to have engine internal heatsinks unaffected by upgrading to DHS, so you actually have to pay crit slots for all the increased efficiency. If all engine heatsinks is always treated as single, DHS would only be a good choice when you have enough crit slots. So not a nobrainer anymore. And it would also reduce the firepower across the board because of worse heat, and that would be a good thing IMO.

Also add a heat penalty scale so that being hot actually has drawbacks.

Edit: Ninjad by Viktor Morson. Agreed.

Edited by Sjorpha, 06 December 2014 - 09:16 AM.

[FupDup]

Victor Morson, on 06 December 2014 - 09:11 AM, said:

Said it before, will say it again: DHS should be a full 2.0, but shouldn't double any free heatsinks.

The only reason true DHS is so damn overpowered is because you get roughly 10hs for zero downside brought up to 20.

That's literally the only problem. If you had to invest tonnage & space to get any effect out of DHS, it'd be far, far more questionable.

The problem with that approach, though, is that having all 10 engine sinks be SHS would completely cripple every energy-based loadout in the game, and even loadouts that aren't heavy on energy. It would have the same effect as removing 5 DHS from the engine of every build in the game. In terms of external sinks, that would be like removing more than 7 external Poordubs™.


Going from the opposite direction and having all of the 10 base sinks be Dubs, however, wouldn't have any collateral damage, and might make SHS somewhat bearable (although still probably outclassed). Stock mechs might be somewhat more usable as well.

Edited by FupDup, 06 December 2014 - 09:22 AM.

[The Boz]

Lower heat max heat. Add a "low signal" target info/map blank at 50%. Get DHS to 2.0, give SHS a good ratio to expand max heat level, as well as the penalty level. Kill three targets with one stone.

[Brody319]

What if we allow people to upgrade the heatsinks in the Engine to Double, but have external heat sinks count as a different upgrade.
1,500,000 CB for external double heat sinks
500,000 CB for internal double heat sinks.

With the numbers I suggested before this would make Single heat sinks worth using to save money and you could have better heat efficiency.

[Lightfoot]

People will say, "Oh Noes, Efficiencies make the 1.4's plus the Engine 2.0's = to regular 2.0 DHS.", but this is ignoring the fact that MWO's DHS do not shed heat at 2.0 rates and all the large weapons are set at 1.8 to 2x normal recharge. This is why Ballistics are so OP in MWO, because they are cool and fire at very high rates as far as B-Tech is concerned.

If you ever played MW3 which stuck true to B-Tech values or MW4 even, you would see how DHS are supposed to shed Heat. MWO has no DHS. In MWO the heat seems to be dropping at the rate of single heatsinks which means pilots can't actually manage heat spikes in combat (which is normal canon) except to withdraw or automatically shutdown (which is not canon for average load-outs).

So double the heat shedding ability of DHS and let us manage the overheats in true canon B-Tech functionality.

[Walluh]

Money saving doesn't really mean much in this game, since you're not fielding a proper army of mechs like in TT. It would just put a gap between new players and old even worse than the current one.

Though man, I reeeally wish I could mix DHS and SHS, especially on my awesome. The triple crit slots are brutal.

[Cyborne Elemental]

Definitely sort out SHS and DHS internal efficiencies first.

[Sjorpha]

Brody319, on 06 December 2014 - 09:21 AM, said:

What if we allow people to upgrade the heatsinks in the Engine to Double, but have external heat sinks count as a different upgrade.
1,500,000 CB for external double heat sinks
500,000 CB for internal double heat sinks.

With the numbers I suggested before this would make Single heat sinks worth using to save money and you could have better heat efficiency.

Saving money never works as a balancing tool, you have to balance peak performance of each option against the other or the weaker will not be used (except by newbies who become even more cannon fodder) no matter how cheap they are.

[FupDup]

Walluh, on 06 December 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

...
Though man, I reeeally wish I could mix DHS and SHS, especially on my awesome. The triple crit slots are brutal.

That would make SHS viable on crit-intensive builds, and PGI would be happy that they still get to keep their 1.5M DHS tax too (to upgrade the engine sinks).

The only issue is the construction rules breaking, but they already broke Omnipod JJ rules and various other things...

[Brody319]

Walluh, on 06 December 2014 - 09:28 AM, said:

Money saving doesn't really mean much in this game, since you're not fielding a proper army of mechs like in TT. It would just put a gap between new players and old even worse than the current one.

Though man, I reeeally wish I could mix DHS and SHS, especially on my awesome. The triple crit slots are brutal.

well engines with extra heat sink slots could have Doubles put into it, then you could use single heat sinks outside to save space and increase heat dissipation. if we make single heat sinks 1.4 then once fully skilled up, they would be as effective as external double heat sinks are now.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

The underlying issue goes back to PGI's choice to set the HS timescale at the TT 10s turn, but to ramp up weapon rates of fire anywhere from 2x to 20x (the AC2).

At one point I suggested they change the HS timescale to 5s, similar to but still longer than the weapon recycle timescale. It'd bring a lot of builds back into line with how they should be, but given PGI's heat capacity system and the lack of heat penalties it would not work as the only change they make.

If PGI were to do a heat rework, they'd have to include both a much lower and much harder cap on heat capacity, in addition to real-time scaling penalties to things like movement and turn/twist rates, lock-on times, weapon reload/recycle times, and weapon precision. Until they do both of these things they cannot really boost HS performance relative to weapon heat generation without breaking combat.

[Escef]

I don't like this idea in the slightest.

However, the only thing I can think of to balance making all of your heat sinks true doubles would be to nerf the DHS's ability to increase maximum heat threshold. Say, drop it from 1.4 to 0.8, thus giving SHS lower dissipation but higher heat ceiling.

Edited by Escef, 06 December 2014 - 10:03 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Levi Porphyrogenitus, on 06 December 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

With efficiencies, 1.4 DHS apparently outperform true DHS by a wide margin, until they begin to approach the limits of IS ability even to carry enough DHS.

That said, quirks do a good job of bringing heat generation/dissipation closer to where it should be, though they require fixed build archetypes for a given variant in order to maximize utility and impact.

I am here to say they don't even come close to matching a real double sink. Dbls reduce 100% of heat prior to the second volley. So if I build 17 heat and have 10 double sinks, Before I fire again (you know, the next turn) I am at 0 heat. And don't gimme the 10 second BS. That 10 seconds is for both sides to move fire punch vent COMBINED. So Heat takes 3-5 seconds(about as long as it take weapons to recycle) to vent in a 10 second turn.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 December 2014 - 10:13 AM.