31 replies to this topic

[Uri Brauer]

Since Mechlab and double heat sinks are a recipe for rampant laser-boating... but the Devs don't seem interested in discussing this on the open forums... it occurs to me that my best option for ensuring that this issue comes to their attention is to throw out a couple of sample mech builds so that Beta players can demonstrate the problem for me (before the game goes live and it's all too late).

I'm choosing to work with just 3025 tech, plus the IS double heat sink from 3050, to demonstrate that they're the main problem.

Given the use of hardpoints, I'm going to start from the HBK-4P, which has been seen in game footage. With (at least) nine energy weapon hardpoints, it looks like the laser-boat base mech of choice - especially for those on a budget. It's pretty overpowered in its standard form:

Int + Gyro + Cockpit = 10t
Engine (4/6) = 8.5t
Heat Sinks (23) = 13t
Armour (160) = 10t
8x ML = 8t
SL = 0.5t

But, like the HBK-4G, it's got one major problem - no long range weapons yet it's no faster than most heavy mechs, which restricts its ability to close on opponents and lay down the smack.

So, here are two solutions to make the Hunchback an even scarier proposition, using just DHS.


HBK-4W 'Hunchhammer'

Int + Gyro + Cockpit = 10t
Engine (4/6) = 8.5t
Double Heat Sinks (11 [22]) = 1t
Armour (160) = 10t
2x PPC = 14t
6x ML = 6t
SL = 0.5t

Same speed, armour and long-range armament as the Warhammer, but better short-range weaponry and better heat dissipation.


HBK-4F 'Flashback'

Int + Gyro + Cockpit = 11t
Engine (6/9) = 19t
Double Heat Sinks (11 [22]) = 1t
Armour (160) = 10t
8x ML = 8t

All the close-range firepower of the 4P, but 50% faster.


So, Beta players... build 'em and misuse 'em. And, hopefully, make a better game for the rest of us...


EDIT: D'oh! Fixed the Flashback's gyro to cope with the larger engine. I'd stick with this version in TT, but would consider swapping an ML for another DHS in MWO if this ran too hot.

Edited by Uri Brauer, 24 July 2012 - 02:41 PM.

[BigJim]

Not trying to come across as a naive fanboy or anything here, but isn't the more relevant part of that sentiment "stop worrying" ?

Not to take the pi**, all I mean by that is the founders (of which you are one) are all gonna descend on MWO within a month, well before any mere mortals so that's the ideal time for hammer out these final few balancing issues, rather than the relatively tiny sample size of testers the devs are working with now.

I support your ingenuity & I certainly have my own strong opinions on how each mech should handle relative to the rest, but trying to get people to break the game by proxy probably isn't the best way to highlight issues that in all fairness, no one here who isn't already in beta can possibly know about?

Edited by BigJim, 10 July 2012 - 01:21 PM.

[SilentObserver]

My hope for double heat sinks is that they don't let the 10 engine heat sinks be doubles. Then you actually have to pay the critical slot cost. Just that one change really makes a difference. Of course a bunch of clan mech suddenly have to worry about heat but tough *******.

[Five by Five]

hum,.... where's the German accent?

[Reoh]

Solutions?

No DHS would break several builds of later variants, all DHS would balance this in many regards but still prevents some assault mech builds that rely on the smaller SHS due to space problems. Access to both means best of both worlds and have the upgrade path to improve where viable, so most (except those that choose not to) have access to the benefits.

I appear to have walked around in a circle. :s

[Death Weasel]

Five by Five, on 10 July 2012 - 02:01 PM, said:

hum,.... where's the German accent?

THAT! was funny.

[Xandre Blackheart]

If they are sticking with canon, mounting one double heatsink demands that your engine be RETROFITTED with double heatsinks also. Expensive, but it won't stop anyone who wants it. And you have to have at least one mounted to be retrofitted. so it does take at least 3 crits.

I have concerns also about laser boating because energy hardpoints are just so plentiful, but there are other ways to balance it out also. The laser DOT mechanic was supposed to be one method, but I'm seeing that as an actual advantage in a lot of ways.

Probably increasing the number of hardpoints for non energy weapons is going to help some also.

I think best way to balance energy boats is to include flamers in the game and.. oh look, there they are!

[Tincan Nightmare]

Well in the TT double heat sinks were balanced somewhat because of the critical spaces it took up. While all engines came with 10 'free' heat sinks, you still had to mount some of them on your record sheet in critical spaces depending on your engine rating. If you had a mech with a 200 rated engine, you divide that rating by 25 and that is the number of heat sinks you don't have to place in your critical slots. So for a 200 rated engine you would have 8 of your 10 heat sinks considered part of the engine and taking up no critical space, but still needed to mount 2 somewhere on your mech. If you were using double heat sinks that meant 6 critical spaces taken up by those 2 heat sinks. I don't know if this mechanic would stop boating if used in MWO, though it might keep down some of the extremes.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Oh and it also made those heat sinks taking up critical spaces able to be destroyed by critical hits, especially the double heat sinks that took up 3 slots apiece.

[Xandre Blackheart]

Interesting. I do not recall that certain engine ratings only had a certain number of heat sinks "built in".

I should go back and look at the original record sheets.

It's one of the better sources I've found for doping out the original rules I can't recall off the top of my head.

I'll be damned you're right. You can look at the commando on the first sheet and see it has to mount 4 of it's base 10 heat sinks in non engine slots.

Well, problem solved... or at least mitigated.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Yah it still gives a big benefit to double heat sinks, but depending on your engine and how many sinks you mount, it could quickly eat up your critical slots, especially if endo of ff armor comes into play.

[Uri Brauer]

Reoh, on 10 July 2012 - 05:13 PM, said:

Solutions?

There aren't any easy ones, as you've shown. But doing nothing will leave use with a sea of laser-boats... and I don't think that's the best choice.

Tincan Nightmare, on 10 July 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

Oh and it also made those heat sinks taking up critical spaces able to be destroyed by critical hits, especially the double heat sinks that took up 3 slots apiece.

True, but that only becomes a problem for heavier mechs... because (for no apparent reason) every size of mech has the same amount of critical space inside it. These two designs are still swimming in empty crits.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Uri Brauer, on 10 July 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

There aren't any easy ones, as you've shown. But doing nothing will leave use with a sea of laser-boats... and I don't think that's the best choice.


True, but that only becomes a problem for heavier mechs... because (for no apparent reason) every size of mech has the same amount of critical space inside it. These two designs are still swimming in empty crits.

Well the 'Hunchhammer' is already pretty balanced since it can't fire both the PPC's and lasers without gaining a large amount of heat, you'd probably use the PPC's at range and the lasers up close. Now the 'FLashback' would be a cool running design with a lot of close range punch, but it does lack any long range weaponry though this would be mitigated by its speed. It would be a very deadly mech against anything up to a Cataphract or the assaults where they have enough armor and firepower to reply, especially as it could run down anything but a Jenner or Cicada.

[SilentObserver]

Xandre Blackheart, on 10 July 2012 - 08:38 PM, said:

Interesting. I do not recall that certain engine ratings only had a certain number of heat sinks "built in".

I should go back and look at the original record sheets.

It's one of the better sources I've found for doping out the original rules I can't recall off the top of my head.

I'll be damned you're right. You can look at the commando on the first sheet and see it has to mount 4 of it's base 10 heat sinks in non engine slots.

Well, problem solved... or at least mitigated.

But its not solved or mitigated. Because you can always pump up your engine rating to compensate. Switch to an XL engine and double the rating. now you have used the same number of critical slots but your mech much faster and running cooler.

DHS are a broken game mechanic. The fix is to make all the "free" heatsinks singles regardless of what the other heatsinks are. This make sure that if you want DHS you have to pay for them.

[Tincan Nightmare]

SilentObserver, on 11 July 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

But its not solved or mitigated. Because you can always pump up your engine rating to compensate. Switch to an XL engine and double the rating. now you have used the same number of critical slots but your mech much faster and running cooler.

DHS are a broken game mechanic. The fix is to make all the "free" heatsinks singles regardless of what the other heatsinks are. This make sure that if you want DHS you have to pay for them.

Yes but if you switch to an XL engine, either side torso getting destroyed means the end of your mech, lowering battlefield endurance, especially as either side torso have lower max armor than the center torso. If you don't use XL, you can install a more powerful engine but it costs you in tonnage (cutting what you have available for weapons or heat sinks.) So you can get a larger engine by making your mech more vulnerable or sacrificing tonnage. So it does reduce the issue of double heat sinks to some degree, though it is far from a solution. It does still mean 'boating' mechs would still be capable as Uri Bauer proved in the above post with his 'Flashback' version of a Hunchback, though the devs could simply adjust the available energy hardpoints for that chassis if it becomes an issue.

Oh and you might have to pay for them, as it may be very costly to switch to double heat sinks, plus to repair or replace ones lost in combat. They definetely should cost more than standard heat sinks.

Edited by Tincan Nightmare, 11 July 2012 - 01:28 AM.

[Streeter]

SilentObserver, on 11 July 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

But its not solved or mitigated. Because you can always pump up your engine rating to compensate. Switch to an XL engine and double the rating. now you have used the same number of critical slots but your mech much faster and running cooler.

DHS are a broken game mechanic. The fix is to make all the "free" heatsinks singles regardless of what the other heatsinks are. This make sure that if you want DHS you have to pay for them.

not sure how much of a difference it makes but they are already making lasers a damage over time item. So you have to hold your aim on the same part of the mech to do the full damage there, or else it damages what ever the lasers are hitting.

They are the ones play testing it and it seems like they already knew it was a problem. I have faith they can sort it. Easiest way to nerf lasers is to just to continue the length of fire time. ie. if the damage over time doesnt work just make the fire time longer and longer for the same amount of damage.

[Reoh]

It's worth noting that there are several mechanics at play that we're discussing:

• Only a few variants have significant energy hardpoints.
  
• Energy Weapons spike heat and then dissipate over time, in TT you just added surplus. Greater chance to shut down.
  
• Energy Weapons are DOT which spreads damage, reduces spike and makes you more vulnerable in the field.
  
• They really should add the HS by engine rating if they haven't already.
  
• For DHS the benefits you get from up rating (increased tonnage, or greater side torso vulnerability) is mitigated.
  
• Rate of Fire may also be a factor, PGI has favored this as a balancing mechanic.

Taking all of those into account provides a compounding balancing mechanic, I'm eager to see just how effective that is and if there really is a problem we need to be concerned about.

Edited by Reoh, 11 July 2012 - 03:52 AM.

[Uri Brauer]

Your point on variants is more of a problem than a mitigation... will anyone use anything but an HBK-4P?

[Reoh]

Uri Brauer, on 11 July 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

Your point on variants is more of a problem than a mitigation... will anyone use anything but an HBK-4P?

That's not true of every single mech available.

[Fastred]

Uri Brauer, on 10 July 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Since Mechlab and double heat sinks are a recipe for rampant laser-boating... but the Devs don't seem interested in discussing this on the open forums...

I believe they have already addressed the laser boat issue by making lasers require time on target for full effect. Laser boats were effective because you only had to step off snap of one good shot and then hit your coolant and step back into cover in the mech warrior titles. As I understand it Lasers in MWO require time on target to do full damage completely changing the game. Lasers have gone from an easy mode point and kill weapon and turned into something that will require a great deal of skill to use effectively.

I know speaking for myself if I see a laser boat trying to attack anyone on my team I am going to make keeping those lasers on target extremely difficult. Gone are the days of lasers coring a mech without any recourse and that assume the mech being targeted does not simply break LOS. That said I don't know how the mechanics will play but I am guessing the devs are not panicking over laser boats because they have already addressed the issue.

Edited by Fastred, 11 July 2012 - 05:37 AM.