47 replies to this topic

[WardenWolf]

Glythe, on 28 June 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

The double heat sinks we will have available take up 3x as much space as a regular heat sink and provide double cooling per ton but use up more critical space. What you are really talking about here is a weight saving method for lighter mechs. When you start talking about bigger mechs the critical space becomes a lot more important than the weight. An easy way to balance the DHS issue is to increase the build value AND the cost for double heat sinks. Assault mechs already cost a ton; I see no issue with DHS and XL engines if they ramp up the cost of the mech so much that you could have almost just brought an Atlas instead. At that point the game does seem more balanced....

The problem comes in with the way the TT handles the heatsinks built into the engine of your mech. Simply by saying "Oh, I am using double heatsinks" your mech suddenly vents twice the heat with no added cost to space. This is what is imbalanced: the ability to spend extra crits to sink more heat is fine, I think. Hence my recommendation above to remove the doubling of the in-engine heatsink efficiency, in order to restore balance

[zencynic]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

I agree that DHS are a bit off the scale (but boy, do I love them!). Here is my idea for fixing that:

- The engine sinks a given amount of heat, based on engine size (bigger engine = more sinks, right?). However, the heatsinks in the engine are neither single nor double: they just are what they are. You can add *on top of that* either single or double heatsinks, or a mix of *both*. The doubles will cost more, and take up more space, but sink twice as much heat per ton.

This way, the imbalance of the engine alone suddenly sinking more heat doesn't come into play, and I think things would be much more balanced overall.

I like this idea. I doubt it will happen in MWO, but I like it.

John Kerensky, on 28 June 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

You have got about everything right except these two.

The only error on the XL Engines is that it is not "P2W", because they will be purchased with C-Bills (maybe you will alternatively be able to buy them with MC, but they will not be MC-exclusive, and therefore do not qualify for "P2W", which implies a required transaction of real cash for in-game prowess).

Double-Heat sinks destroyed the balance of the game. They have practically no down-side to get the majority of the benefit. Clan Double Heat Sinks do, in fact, have *zero* downside. XL Engines, in the case of the IS, you are dead if you lose a side torso. If Clan XL loses a side torso, he may not be dead, but he is on death's doorstep and pretty well-mauled, especially in TT where you lose the arm attached to the torso, which sadly seems to be left out. That is a balance. Getting essentially 10 free heat sinks just for changing heat sink type was broken beyond all reason. The 'free' 10 heat-sinks you get with your engine should never have been doubled. I hope and pray PGI has the cahonès to correct this decades-old mistake.

I don't think you understood me. I'll try again.

When I say "I would not call this P2W", I am not calling them P2W. I have yet to see any Dev quote showing any difference in the list of equipment, mechs, upgrades, etc that I can buy with MC vs C-bills. Until I do, I will assume I can buy XL with either.

When I say "I think its closer to the line than most of the other options discussed here," I mean just that. New Mexico is closer to Mexico than Canada. New Mexico is not in Mexico. Again, I have yet to see any Dev quote showing any difference in the list of equipment, mechs, upgrades, etc that I can buy with MC vs C-bills. Until I do, I will assume I can buy XL with either.

"Double Heat Sinks - Huge game-changers, skewing the mech design options in favor of energy weapons. (Imagine an upgrade that fired your missiles twice as fast or doubled your ammo per ton for AC 20) I think the XL Engines are more powerful than this, but there is the concern that 2XHS have little inherent balance.

The cost increase is trivial. At lower numbers of use, they take up little to no extra space (a certain number of heat sinks fit in the mech engine). When using many, the fact that they eat up crit-slots is largely negated by the fact that energy weapons use very few crits."

??? Seems like we have very similar opinions on the issue.

[Wolftrap]

Except that heavier mechs hold more heatsinks in their engines I think its 12 or 14 for an atlas where its only 10 for a jenner(engine size/rating determines)(from mechlab program) and if you take a double heat sink all heat sinks are double....unless they changed it from all the other games and the board game. Also they already seem to have the base for 2 energy boats that I alone have seen... Catapult version with ppcs and lasers(make all laser) and the swayback Hunchback thats a offical variant with 8 med lasers. If you pick the right variant the hardpoints will be different and you can mini max your build all you want(within hardpoint allowance). And thats just what I've gleened from watching videos and looking at mech loadouts.

Edited by Wolftrap, 28 June 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[Glythe]

The other thing with the missile launchers is that if you're carrying 4 launchers and a lot of extra ammunition it just means you are a LOT more likely to explode... or you need to use CASE which will eat up your critical space. Overall I think it will only be a theoretical saving in this game when you compare the alternatives.

[Glythe]

WardenWolf, on 28 June 2012 - 10:36 AM, said:

The problem comes in with the way the TT handles the heatsinks built into the engine of your mech. Simply by saying "Oh, I am using double heatsinks" your mech suddenly vents twice the heat with no added cost to space. This is what is imbalanced: the ability to spend extra crits to sink more heat is fine, I think. Hence my recommendation above to remove the doubling of the in-engine heatsink efficiency, in order to restore balance

And here I'm putting a little faith in the devs. I think they would have noticed the magical savings of internal double heat sinks and said.... hmmm that's completely broken and fixed it almost immediately. While I am sure the possibility exists they could have missed something like this at first I think they would have had a lot of people point out on the beta forums about just how broken it was in the game.

[Glythe]

Wolftrap, on 28 June 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

Also they already seem to have the base for 2 energy boats that I alone have seen... Catapult version with ppcs and lasers(make all laser) and the swayback Hunchback thats a offical variant with 8 med lasers. If you pick the right variant the hardpoints will be different and you can mini max your build all you want(within hardpoint allowance). And thats just what I've gleened from watching videos and looking at mech loadouts.

I don't see a problem with the possibility for a few boats... it would be a different story if every mech can be turned into a boat. Remember that the doubling of armor will also help to prevent some of the boating. It effectively doubles the amount of time that you have to wait for your heat to dissipate as they take a lot longer to kill. Furthermore remember that lasers are a 2 second burst that requires you to keep the laser on the target. Even just a little wiggle-walking can make you shoot a different part of the mech and in so doing make it take even longer for you to kill an enemy.

[John Kerensky]

Ah, my mistake, misreading/misunderstanding most of your post.

zencynic, on 28 June 2012 - 10:40 AM, said:

"Double Heat Sinks - Huge game-changers, skewing the mech design options in favor of energy weapons. (Imagine an upgrade that fired your missiles twice as fast or doubled your ammo per ton for AC 20) I think the XL Engines are more powerful than this, but there is the concern that 2XHS have little inherent balance.

The Bold/Underlined is the part to which I take exception. XL Engines have a balancing drawback. Double Heat sinks have practically none. The one extra relative crit per additional non-engine-internal IS Double Heat Sink is good and all, but A) CLan DHS are still absurd, and the 10 free heat sinks with the engine still get doubled.

You can do ridiculous things with lights and mediums with the 10 'free' engine-internal heat sinks when you double them, while suffering no penalty at all.

XL Engines may be less penalizing in sims as opposed to TT, since you get to personally aim your shots rather than relying on "RNG" shot-placement, but I still think their draw backs are stronger than what few drawbacks exist for Double Heat Sinks.

Especially when you consider that CASE is useless on a(n IS) BattleMech with an XL Engine, since it only stops the explosion from reaching the CT.

[BarHaid]

Going to throw my support behind only allowing Double Heat Sinks to be add-ons, and the engine heat sinks stay singles. I know this breaks canon, but DHS are in desperate need of nerfing, IMHO

[zencynic]

John Kerensky, on 28 June 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

The Bold/Underlined is the part to which I take exception. XL Engines have a balancing drawback. Double Heat sinks have practically none.

You can do ridiculous things with lights and mediums with the 10 'free' engine-internal heat sinks when you double them, while suffering no penalty at all.

Fair enough. I do agree that XL drawbacks >> 2xHS drawbacks

We seem to disagree about XL raw power vs 2xHS raw power, but I think we can agree that they are both quite powerful.

Ponder this, 2xHS seem to be most overpowered in a 'laser boat' style mech. Hard Points will help with this, but I honestly think it will simply shift more from medium laser boats towards large laser boats. We'll see.

The XL engine changes an 80 ton, 5/8 move, max armor mech from -3 tons available to 23 tons available for weapons loadout. It may be balanced by cost and side torso vulnerability, but it is certainly also powerful.

Edited by zencynic, 28 June 2012 - 01:24 PM.

[Voyager I]

John Kerensky, on 28 June 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

The Bold/Underlined is the part to which I take exception. XL Engines have a balancing drawback. Double Heat sinks have practically none. The one extra relative crit per additional non-engine-internal IS Double Heat Sink is good and all, but A) CLan DHS are still absurd, and the 10 free heat sinks with the engine still get doubled.

You can do ridiculous things with lights and mediums with the 10 'free' engine-internal heat sinks when you double them, while suffering no penalty at all.

I don't particularly mind lights getting away with ridiculous stuff in this game, since they're going to be expected to pull their weight one-for-one against assault chassis...but I will agree that the effectiveness of DHS in combination with the free in-engine sinks is patently absurd.

You can tell this game was designed before balance was a concept.


XL Engines aren't so bad. On lights, they don't make up that much of a difference to begin with, while the chassis that stand to gain the most from them are already starting to get crunched for critical spaces. That and the part where you can get cored out on your entire upper body.

Edited by Voyager I, 28 June 2012 - 11:49 AM.

[BduSlammer]

1 other thing you cant put double heatsinks in the legs no room for them

[Elizander]

Double Heatsinks don't need to give an extra 100% in MWO. They can and will tweak the balance of the items as needed from what I can tell. Perhaps the final DHS in MWO will give just 50% more heat dissipation or even less.

Energy weapons aren't the only thing that DHS affect. It takes a bit to maintain LRM spammage.

[Voyager I]

Clan missile boats are terrifying though.

Built-in DHS should be enough to cover any heat concerns without spending any critical spaces on them, and you've got half-weight LRM launchers. Yeah, you need ammo, same as anyone else, but god they can do so much damage for their weight.

[Death Mallet]

There are 2 main reasons why TT game balance issues are completely irrelevant to MWO.

1. Random damage allocation in TT
In the tabletop game, you roll for where your weapon hits the target. That means your AC20 can just as easily hit an arm or a leg as it can the torso of your opponent. The ability to target specific parts of the enemy mech actually makes some weapons (mostly those that do large amounts of damage to a single location) significantly more powerful. However, this, and everything else, is counteracted by the next one

2. Real time vs. turn based.
In the table top, pretty much everything fires once per turn. In MWO an AC/5 might fire 10x for every shot you get off from the AC20 (probably an extreme example, but just illustrating the point). In that scenario the AC/5 is a vastly more powerful weapon than the AC/20. This introduction of a "Rate of Fire" element that is (mostly) missing in tabletop, completely changes the whole balance of power amongst weapon systems. It also makes it very easy for the devs to increase or decrease the effectiveness of a particular weapon, just by increasing or decreasing the cycle time.

Thus. . . rendering all discussions about weapon power levels in TT vs. MWO moot, until we actually see the game.

[Alfred VonGunn]

grimzod, on 28 June 2012 - 09:39 AM, said:

The bigger the engine the larger number of Heat Sinks are IN the engine and not placed in crit slots elsewhere. And the sinks in the engine and not in the engine must match, you can't mix. Mixing would be bad.

Huh? What rule set changed it from 10 Heat Sinks in the engine design everything else takes up Crit spots?

[Joseph Mallan]

Glythe, You are sorta right and sorta wrong. The hard point concept is good, but a Black Knight or Flashman are legal laser boats. The Rocket Launcher Archer variant is a Missile boating nightmare! Also look at the Wolfhound with its 5 laser hard points (1 arm 4 torso) it will (probably) be equipped with, 5 medium lasers on a Light Mech is a deadly light hunter! And what are we going to say when the Nove appears on the scene... 10 Medium lasers! So Clan Mechs will be allowed to "Boat" but IS won't?

An Omni Mech's strength was its quick repair time. But if it's going to be able to be made a boat and IS Mech's cannot because of "Hard Point" limitations. Then I think the IS will be doomed to destruction. UNLESS hard points will be able to be modified.

A hard point is nothing more than a mounting system for random equipment. So a cavity for a LRM20 is fairly open due to the bulk of the system. IF you used a LRM10 (less bulky and lighter) you could fit in 2 medium laser mounts with the missiles. The whole hard point system will handicap the IS by restricting our non-modular weapon mounting.

If TPTB are going to try to stick with the 1:1 day ratio then allow unrestricted mods but restrict how soon we can get back into the game if we mod again, or need repairs. This would also make it almost necessary to have a stable of Mechs so you can stay in the game while being repaired/upgraded. Clanners in Omnis could come back in a day, IS up to a week or more... depending if your unit has all the parts in stock... Those VLAR300 engines don't grow on trees!

Quote

Huh? What rule set changed it from 10 Heat Sinks in the engine design everything else takes up Crit spots?

An engine rating 25 "points" over 250 rating can hold another heat sink within. So a VLAR 300 has 12 yeatsinks. Conversely every 25 points under is one less sink the engine holds thus a Nissan 200 engine only holds 8 heat sinks. Been that way since the 80s.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 28 June 2012 - 01:23 PM.

[Alfred VonGunn]

Voyager I, on 28 June 2012 - 12:45 PM, said:

Clan missile boats are terrifying though.

Built-in DHS should be enough to cover any heat concerns without spending any critical spaces on them, and you've got half-weight LRM launchers. Yeah, you need ammo, same as anyone else, but god they can do so much damage for their weight.

AT least with the TT style damage spread twe are seeing in the videos missles boats wont be as scary.. no more 3 vollys of LRMs 20s and Center torso is shreaded unless they get lucky on the hit location

[Vaktor]

Death Mallet, on 28 June 2012 - 01:13 PM, said:

There are 2 main reasons why TT game balance issues are completely irrelevant to MWO.

1. Random damage allocation in TT
In the tabletop game, you roll for where your weapon hits the target. That means your AC20 can just as easily hit an arm or a leg as it can the torso of your opponent. The ability to target specific parts of the enemy mech actually makes some weapons (mostly those that do large amounts of damage to a single location) significantly more powerful. However, this, and everything else, is counteracted by the next one

2. Real time vs. turn based.
In the table top, pretty much everything fires once per turn. In MWO an AC/5 might fire 10x for every shot you get off from the AC20 (probably an extreme example, but just illustrating the point). In that scenario the AC/5 is a vastly more powerful weapon than the AC/20. This introduction of a "Rate of Fire" element that is (mostly) missing in tabletop, completely changes the whole balance of power amongst weapon systems. It also makes it very easy for the devs to increase or decrease the effectiveness of a particular weapon, just by increasing or decreasing the cycle time.

Thus. . . rendering all discussions about weapon power levels in TT vs. MWO moot, until we actually see the game.

Here here good point! there is a lot they can do to balance the game that cannot be done in TT so nerfing anything based on TT rules is premature at best.

[Elkarlo]

Energy Weapons and with them a Double Heatsinks will have a Drawback the Dev's Mentioned:
You need to keep the Beam on the Enemy Mech for 2 Secounds. Missles AC are Instant damage, so fighting Heavy Laser Mechs with lot of Heatsinks, Jumps out and he will do half of the Damage you do with an AC in Peek-a-boo gaming style.

So they already balancing it, and lot of Double Heatsinks means very Few slots left. Ever played MW2 Mercs? Was a real pain in the *** there, and you was glad to get Clan Heatsinks, because with FF Endoskeleton you had no Slots left for IS-DHS.
The TT Formula is btw: For every 25 Reactor size you get 1 Heatsink inside.
Means an Atlas can put 12 Heatsinks inside (300 reactor). From the Mechs announced i think the Mech with the most Heatsinks inside will be the Dragon with a Reactorsize of 325. Biggest IS-XL reactor is 400 size so 15 Heatsinks and that will be Charger or Atlas. But the XL reactor needs Slots for 2 IS-DHS so it even not MORE Space thanks to Heatsink but only less Weight and/or more Speed. For nearly doubled REPAIR costs, as a Mech with XL reactor cost nearly double as much.

So a Lost Mech with XL reactor will cost a Pain in the *** to get repaired, and may catch pretty early an reactor hit...

Btw i am still on Pending Beta status, so i don't know if there is an Internal Slots free Counter, as soon there is one, we won't have any Problems reagarding Balancing with DHS. You can Put them only into Arms, left and right Torso and into the Engine. Normals you can Putt into Center and Legs too.. so you will run out of Zones pretty fast with the 3 Slot in a Row IS-DHS. One of the Reasons the AS-7K have single Heat sinks is, that he have the Option 12 Double heatsinks so 24 Heatpoints, or 20 singleheatsinks and some into the Legs, when you optimize it you will get only 4 additional into the arms so 16 double heatsinks, no more possible following TT rules!

A Mech got:
2x Side torso=12=24
Center torso=2
2xArms =8=16
2x Legs= 2=4
1x head=1
47 Slots total
Zones for everything to install.
Only Ac's and Gausweapons are allowed to spread.
( AC20 needs 10 zones, Gaus needs 7 ) when we have Weapon slots i hope the Weapon goes into the Hardpoint and eat the Freeslots up.
DHS are not allowed to Spread.
An Xl-Reactor needs 3 Sidetorso slots, so 6 gone total, of the best Slots !

And over the Slots the DHS and XL Reactor are balanced because they eat lot of Space, we simply don't remember it because of MW3/4 no Heatsink allocation, and MW2 had Clan Heatsinks and Xl reactors which are smaller.
But with IS-Tech, modern Tech comes with a high price. And you can't have simply everthing. ( Not Mentioning Endosteel and Ferrofebrit Armor which eats 14 slots each so you gain weight but won't have the Slots to use them Clan Equipment 7 Slots Endo FF, and XL Reactor= 4 Slots less and Double heatsinks 2 Slots not 3.)

The Mechs most drive in MW3/4 are simply not possible after MW2 Mercs or TT rules ! And when i understood the Developer correctly he never mentioned this Games but that we will follow lead of the MW2 games !

Edited by Elkarlo, 28 June 2012 - 02:07 PM.

[GHQCommander]

chumppi, on 28 June 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Either you're talking something you don't know squat about or you're breaking NDA. It's absolutely useless to post this kind of things while the game is still in beta. And even after that it's very... useless on public forums.

I found it hard to read myself. I also wonder if the OP has played beta. Why else talk about a game that is not even out yet in such detail.

If this OP has been in beta they need a warning. No OP should be discussing the next step in the games development. It is no different from telling us some facts from the game as it is.