56 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

Robinson Crusher, on 18 September 2016 - 04:30 AM, said:

ScarecrowES, while it's an interesting system, I don't believe you've made a successful case that heat isn't part of balancing. In TT it certainly was since all weapons fired once per turn. Heat versus weight to get your damage was the primary balancing factor, with range and a consideration for ammo dependency also included.

If we truly want to go back to table top then all cooldowns should be equal, and then you could make the case that heat could be separate from balance. That would be boring, so let's not.

Meawhile I voted yes on the poll. Doubles should be double for Lore and to ease the learning curve of new players. Balance it out with the rest of the stuff.

He is using TT to include the heatscale penalties that occur prior to hitting the 100% shutdown penalty.

TT (10sec) simulated what was happening in 10 secs. Weapon fires are done at one time for ease of gameplay but those same weapons were not necessarily fired at the same time. Solaris (2.5sec) had actual weapon delays but was a harsh mistress with heat management. For Solaris, all heat generating items were multiplied by 4, as well as the heatscale. The heat sinks though were not multiplied by 4, so they provided a quarter of their BT heatscale buffer cap.

MWO though should not stay strictly to Battletech rules, be it the base TT (10sec) OR Solaris (2.5sec), but it also means that PGI should not apply to MWO only the beneficial pieces such has Heatscale that is 100% influenced by heatsink type without including many of the controlling pieces of that scale. There were no serious effects to exceeding the heatcap except for shutdown prior to GH. But there still is nothing to make players consider their next option before the final tap. The Live setup, even with GH, unlimited run of the game UNTIL the cap is reached/exceeded.

[ScarecrowES]

davoodoo, on 18 September 2016 - 01:35 AM, said:

Your given example of tbr wouldnt ever overheat in tt
2x10, 5x5, 35 total, while 24 dhs vent 48, its horribly underarmed build

Meanwhile 4uac10 on double tap requires 12 for heat neutral, idk how many you pack but I packed 16dhs

The TBR in MWO needs 50 heat to alpha, can only mount 48 heat cap.

Quad-dakka Kodiak-3 needs 24 heat on a double tap. Most common build uses 15 sinks for 30 cap.

If we're looking at firing every 10 seconds like TT, the Kodiak-3 would have too many sinks... it doesn't need that many, and would be heat neutral every turn. If you only fired once every 10 seconds in MWO, it'd be heat neutral here too. But you can fire twice every 2.5 seconds here, so that's what we're testing for.

Real time game, after all.

[ScarecrowES]

Robinson Crusher, on 18 September 2016 - 04:30 AM, said:

ScarecrowES, while it's an interesting system, I don't believe you've made a successful case that heat isn't part of balancing. In TT it certainly was since all weapons fired once per turn. Heat versus weight to get your damage was the primary balancing factor, with range and a consideration for ammo dependency also included.

If we truly want to go back to table top then all cooldowns should be equal, and then you could make the case that heat could be separate from balance. That would be boring, so let's not.

Meawhile I voted yes on the poll. Doubles should be double for Lore and to ease the learning curve of new players. Balance it out with the rest of the stuff.

I think you misunderstand the argument.

The heat value of a weapon is certainly part of weapon balancing. If that number is off, balance is off. That number is supposed to be a reflection of your output vs your investment. It's pretty easy to get that right, and noone would argue against the idea that MWO gets this pretty close already.

But this has nothing to do with the heat SYSTEM. The heat system shouldn't be used to correct weapon balance, and vice versa. What you end up with, in the live game a bit, and with ED a LOT, is weapon balance trying to fix flaws in the heat system, and heat system trying to fix flaws in weapon balance. It causes all kinds of problems when you try to use one system to fix another.

One thing PGI is doing with the ED PTS is messing with heat cap and dissipation, specifically by devaluing heat sinks. This is a HUGE problem for balance. Heat cap and dissipation are integral to weapon and build balance. Every weapon has a different way that you have to pay for its output. In ballistics, you pay with weight and crits. In energy, you pay with sinks. You devalue heat sinks, it screws with everything. It's a mistake. If PGI was interested in lowering heat caps, it should be doing it from the free 30 points it gives to every mech, not from the heat cap each mech earns through its build. They're showing a fundemental misunderstanding of its own system, and it's causing additional balance issues.

Your argument about cooldowns is a bit false here. As I've shown, cooldowns are largely meaningless to combat pacing, which is the job of the heat system. It doesn't matter what your cooldowns is, it takes your mech a set amount of time to overcome the heat from firing. If you've got a 2.0pts/sec dissipation rate, it takes you 5 seconds to overcome the heat from a 10-ht PPC. You could reduce the cooldown to 2 seconds if you want... you're still only going to be able to fire it every 5 seconds. And that's IF that's the only weapon you fire.

There are only a handful of weapons... specifically the AC/2 and AC/5 which, in their current numbers, could actually gain output with a faster cooldown on some mechs, simply because MWO has them running so cool that it's possible to have them heat neutral even in THIS game.

Cooldowns are really only useful for balancing out weapons against each other, they really have no influence on the heat system.

[Robinson Crusher]

No ScarecrowES, I understand the argument. You agree that heat is part of weapon balance, but think the heat system isn't... and that by adjusting more than just cooldown this causes problems. Then you go on to make a fairly strong argument that the system IS actually part of balancing GROUPS of weapons by discussing the differences in behaviour between TT and MWO. I agree completely with your assessment of how the TT penalties effect behaviour compared to MWO and would personally prefer we were in that environment. That's why I said your system was interesting.

My point is that heat (by weapon and the heat system itself) is part of balance because of the effect on groups of weapons. Since "boating" and alpha strikes are the enemy of the day, I'm not surprised the devs want to play with the heat system rather than cooldowns.

You seem to be assuming the devs don't understand their game. What they adjust for balance will have to do with coding time and server load, not the twists and turns they put us through to get to that goal. However, I completely support your efforts to put an end to "redlining". I hope the devs take a close look at it.

As for cooldowns, you seem to have misunderstood my comment. Not to worry, my sense of humour often does that to people.

Edited by Robinson Crusher, 18 September 2016 - 03:07 PM.

[Kuaron]

@ Scarecrow:
Speaking about explaining: Leaving your texts short is quality for itself.
Also, and without contradicting to your explanations in most of the points, I don't think the topic is complicated.
What you say, is mainly: Heat system is not a balancing parameter, even if it affects an actual balancing parameter, bevause there are other balancing parameters (specific to the weapons) to balance against the met changes.
Maybe it is a question of definition, but in this case I find yours not well met.

Consider that you cannot just lower the weapon's hat because then you get back to where you started before lowering the effective cap in the new system. The system change has to be a nerf, but it hits some weapons more than others.

What you tell abut Gauss in TT is interesting (because, again, I don't know the TT), but I didn't quite get what you actual recipe is for balancing it in MWO.

[ScarecrowES]

Robinson Crusher, on 18 September 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

No ScarecrowES, I understand the argument. You agree that heat is part of weapon balance, but think the heat system isn't... and that by adjusting more than just cooldown this causes problems. Then you go on to make a fairly strong argument that the system IS actually part of balancing GROUPS of weapons by discussing the differences in behaviour between TT and MWO. I agree completely with your assessment of how the TT penalties effect behaviour compared to MWO and would personally prefer we were in that environment. That's why I said your system was interesting.

My point is that heat (by weapon and the heat system itself) is part of balance because of the effect on groups of weapons. Since "boating" and alpha strikes are the enemy of the day, I'm not surprised the devs want to play with the heat system rather than cooldowns.

You seem to be assuming the devs don't understand their game. What they adjust for balance will have to do with coding time and server load, not the twists and turns they put us through to get to that goal. However, I completely support your efforts to put an end to "redlining". I hope the devs take a close look at it.

As for cooldowns, you seem to have misunderstood my comment. Not to worry, my sense of humour often does that to people.

The thing is... the heat system... if it is to be impartial, and function correctly in all situations no matter what weapons you're using and in what amounts... then it has to be designed that way from the get go.

As we showed, weapon balancing and build mechanics and the heat system all work together. To do this much damage at this much range, you need this much investment. Essentially, you're going to spend this many crits, and this much weight, or this much heat or whatever to get it. These values are carefully chosen. The relationship to the heat of a weapon to the concepts of output and investment are EXTREMELY important. And just the same, the relationship of the build to output and heat are extremely important. Changing something like the heat cap value of heat sinks or their dissipation changes the relationships of heat and investment. It messes with weapon balance, it messes with build balance, and it messes with match balance.

On the Live servers, this balance is thrown off. PGI's methodology for setting up cap and dissipation deviates from the very specifically chosen method, while neither the build system or weapon balance have fundementally changed. The ways in which PGI deviated cause ALL of its current problems. Adding 30 extra heat to the heat scale for all mechs gives everything more heat to work with. That means higher alphas and longer bursts of damage with no way to reign it in other than a shutdown.

Changing the way cap and dissipation are calculated has lead to low-cap builds getting a significant boost to both cap and dissipation, while high-cap builds lose significant dissipation. That throws off the investment mechanic in the build and with weapon balance, yeah? These are the results of the very first choice PGI made. They gave players WAY too much heat, with no restrictions on how they could use it, and didn't dole out that heat fairly. So their fix... ED...

You punish damage output by penalizing heat. Mistake. Throws off balance - automatically you are punishing some weapon types more than others for the same infraction. You now decided that certain kinds of damage aren't worth as much as others... further unbalance. Then you started messing with heat cap and dissipation rates even more. More imbalance. You didn't reduce cap by reducing the fixed amount of heat all mechs get, but pulled it from the cap they earn through their builds. Further imbalance. Not to mention the hundreds of stat changes we're going through trying to compensate for all these mistakes.

I say PGI doesn't understand their system for several reasons... first, they've never gone back and addressed the very first mistake... deviating from TT in the first place for the heat system, while retaining the other pillars of balance from TT intact.

The second is in using one metric to punish another metric that has no direct correlation to the first. Damage and heat are not the same thing. You cannot measure them equally against each other.

The 3rd is in decoupling heat cap and dissipation from the build. This is, for all intents and purposes, a capital sin. Noone who understands the system at all would have done this.

[MechaBattler]

Honestly after watching Sader's stream earlier, I don't think we need higher dissipation.

[ScarecrowES]

Kuaron, on 18 September 2016 - 05:10 PM, said:

@ Scarecrow:
Speaking about explaining: Leaving your texts short is quality for itself.
Also, and without contradicting to your explanations in most of the points, I don't think the topic is complicated.
What you say, is mainly: Heat system is not a balancing parameter, even if it affects an actual balancing parameter, bevause there are other balancing parameters (specific to the weapons) to balance against the met changes.
Maybe it is a question of definition, but in this case I find yours not well met.

Consider that you cannot just lower the weapon's hat because then you get back to where you started before lowering the effective cap in the new system. The system change has to be a nerf, but it hits some weapons more than others.

What you tell abut Gauss in TT is interesting (because, again, I don't know the TT), but I didn't quite get what you actual recipe is for balancing it in MWO.

The heat system only ever favors one weapon type over another if it's designed in a way that doesn't treat all weapon equally. Luckily, the TT system is very well designed and DOES treat all weapons equally. Neither the base MWO heat system, and ESPECIALLY not ED, are designed to treat all weapons equally. This causes problems both in balance and in gameplay.

The heat system is a gameplay mechanic. It has no role in balance... or should I say... it is not SUPPOSED to have a role in balance. All the system does is say "This is how much heat it takes to fire what you just did. You only have this much heat to work with. You went over by this much." It shouldn't get into any more than that. Long have we had a system that favors certain kinds of weapons over others, and certain builds over others, because the way the system does certain things messes with the careful balance choices for weapons and build mechanics.

The build and weapon balance systems are supposed to establish what kind of damage you can do and at what range for what kinds of investment. If we feel that the amount of heat it costs to do 10 damage at 500 meters with an energy weapon isn't fair... that's not the heat system's fault. The weapon isn't balanced properly. It isn't the heat system's fault for that.

If you mess with with how cap and dissipation are determined... for instance, if you give all mechs a 30-point bonus to their heat caps that they didn't earn... or you give certain kinds of mechs bonus heat or dissipation they didn't earn, while taking heat and dissipation away from other mechs that DID earn it... well, your weapon and build balance will be off. This is exactly what both the base MWO heat system AND ED currently do.

By instituting the TT system, I'm re-normalizing the heat system. And I'm removing unearned bonuses. I'm making it fair across the board... first and foremost. No convoluted math. What you build is what you get. No more, no less.

As for the gauss... what we do with the weapon to balance it back out depends on what we want the weapon to BE. It's not a standard autocannon, so we shouldn't treat it like one. Whether or not we leave the charge mechanic in matters. Whatever its range and speed ends up being matters. What we can do, pretty much in any case... is give the weapon some heat. Somewhere, probably, in the neighborhood of the AC/10 and /20. That's a baseline we can work from. The idea is... we either have to give it some unique risk that makes it a liability over other similar weapons, or we have to bring its base stats in line with other weapons, as defined by its output and investment.

If, for instance, we got rid of the crit explosion mechanic... completely ignore that... what would be a fair heat value for the weapon? It's got a lot more range than an AC/20, more damage than an AC/10. Somewhere in this neighborhood seems right, yeah? Good place to start as any.

[davoodoo]

ScarecrowES, on 18 September 2016 - 07:29 PM, said:

The heat system is a gameplay mechanic. It has no role in balance... or should I say... it is not SUPPOSED to have a role in balance.

I disagree strongly.

1st role of heat, to limit how much damage can mech put out is a balancing factor.
2nd role is balancing weaponry, medlas being shorter range yet having higher dmg/heat ratio, or heavy acs having low heat with high dmg.

These are balance factors, you cant just throw out part of it without breaking whole system. Like 4 uac10 kodiak, which wouldnt be a good build in tt yet here its ridiculous how powerful it is compared to laserboat builds.

Edited by davoodoo, 19 September 2016 - 06:21 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

davoodoo, on 19 September 2016 - 06:15 AM, said:

I disagree strongly.

1st role of heat, to limit how much damage can mech put out is a balancing factor.
2nd role is balancing weaponry, medlas being shorter range yet having higher dmg/heat ratio, or heavy acs having low heat with high dmg.

These are balance factors, you cant just throw out part of it without breaking whole system. Like 4 uac10 kodiak, which wouldnt be a good build in tt yet here its ridiculous how powerful it is compared to laserboat builds.

Again, you're talking about weapon balance. That has nothing to do with the mechanics of the heat system. All the heat system worries about is heat in and heat out. If weapon balance is screwed up, you fix the weapon.

The Kodiak-3 is strong for several reasons. First, UACs are overpowered compared to where they're supposed to be. PGI gave them all of the reward with none of the risk. Second, as a low cap mech, PGI gave the Kodiak an extra few heat sinks thanks to the way they tuned the heat system. It also has a much higher unpenalized heat cap.

As I showed earlier... if you normalize the heat system, you normalize the output. You only get the output you pay for. For all intents and purposes, we're finally balancing the heat system and making it fair by removing inherent bias from the system.

The heat system shouldn't treat heat from energy builds and heat from ballistic builds differently. Both the base system and ED DO treat it differently. The TT system, faithfully applied... doesn't care if your 10 heat came from one PPC or 4 UAC/10s. Nor should it. All it is there to do is limit how much heat you can dish out over a given time based on what your build allows.

The build system and weapon balance determine whether or not the damage you get for your investment is fair. If you get more damage for your investment out of a UAC/10 over a PPC or vice versa, your balance is screwed up.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 19 September 2016 - 10:54 AM.

[davoodoo]

ScarecrowES, on 19 September 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

Again, you're talking about weapon balance. That has nothing to do with the mechanics of the heat system. All the heat system worries about is heat in and heat out. If weapon balance is screwed up, you fix the weapon.

Lets reduce how much heat you can dissipate, part of heat system.

Suddenly weapon balance breaks and ballistics become king.

[ScarecrowES]

davoodoo, on 19 September 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

Lets reduce how much heat you can dissipate, part of heat system.

Suddenly weapon balance breaks and ballistics become king.

Both heat capacity and dissipation are determined by the build system. These are determined by specific values given to heat sinks. These values are then used by the heat system as a check against the heat value of mounted weapons (determined by build and weapon balance) and their frequency of use to establish combat pacing.

Remember, the heat cap and dissipation of your mech and its weapon heat requirements are all established during the build. How your mech will perform and it's total output over time are predetermined once you scratch in that last armor bubble or click the SAVE button.

But yes, if you mess with how much heat cap or dissipation you get from each sink, it throws off weapon balance. You've just messed with a carefully chosen modifier meant to perform equally across all weapons. It throws a wrench into the ballet of output vs investment. But that's screwing with the numbers that will get plugged into the heat system when you boot up a match. It doesn't change how the system functions.

Dissipation doesn't matter here as much as cap. Cap determines how much heat you have to work with. Dissipation only worries about how quickly you get that heat back. As long as dissipation remains tied directly to cap as a consistent ratio of that number, it will be fair to all builds.

For instance, dissipation that is 1/10th of cap per second is fair no matter what your cap is... it will always take 10 seconds to dissipate your whole cap. However, if you set different a dissipation rate that is not a direct ratio of the cap, it will treat different weapons unfairly.

Screwing with the cap... like for instance lowering the heat cap value of heat sinks while still adding a fixed 30pts on top of it absolutely WILL mess with weapon balance.

The base values assigned here on the Live servers heavily favor low-cap builds... ballistics and low-heat laser builds, etc. They get a significant bonus to both cap and dissipation. High-cap builds still get a bit of a cap boost, but lose a lot of dissipation. Heat cap and dissipation are not doled out fairly from the build system.

ED is even worse at this. It punishes the heat system by the same heat penalty regardless if the weapon that exceeded the damage limit is a ballistic or energy. That makes no sense whatever. The penalty is bound to be a larger multiplier of the heat of a ballistic, and thus a larger percentage of a ballistic mechs heat cap, than of a comparable energy mech. So it punishes you harder the lower your ratio of heat to damage. Balance destroyed.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 19 September 2016 - 12:24 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 19 September 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

As long as dissipation remains tied directly to cap as a consistent ratio of that number, it will be fair to all builds.

Fairness and balance are not the same thing. Dissipation and capacity do not necessarily need to be linked nor should they be for variety's sake.

[Robinson Crusher]

I wish the quoting here let me edit text like I can on other forums... and if there is a way to do that here, then someone feel free to let me know how... because I'd like to focus on the last three points you make (as the above analysis is pretty clear). Lovely, it seems to be refusing to include ScarecrowES post responding to my last post.

First let me say that I don't think the original designers of Battletech put this level of thought into the values they chose for weapons and heat. The numbers just don't produce the results in game that they describe in the BT fiction. In fiction people are going hot to tip the balance at some crisis point. In TT you never do, because the penalties are so prohibitive. Making some changes to the heat system would be necessary to make min-maxing gamers willing to take on the penalties. Not that I'm saying the changes PGI made are the right ones, mind you. I also dislike the thirty free heat and no effect on offensive potential environment. I'm just saying that a return to TT would put us back to a situation where no one ever alphas at all, and the alpha strike should have a place in the game since it is a part of the lore.

I agree with the second to last point, but damage and heat are of course related, since you are trading one to get the other. Since people are dying too fast for the game to have maximized enjoyment, some kind of damage choke point seems reasonable.

The final point is the crux of the matter as I see it. By decoupling heat from the build they are forcing a radical change in builds, so much so that people need to reconsider what 'mechs meet their play-styles. Here is the hidden head of the business decision and one that leads to long term bad things for a game. That is to say, the rules change which is designed to sell new hardware. Just like Quirk nerfs that force people out of their current mech, the ED system will produce a flurry of new mech choices and a stream of revenue. Yes, I think the Devs understand their game very well.

I wish all the devs could be forced to play Star Trek online, look at what happened to the best space sim once it adopted that kind of strategy, and take careful note of population levels even amongst Fans who are notorious for being radically committed to their IP.

Edited by Robinson Crusher, 20 September 2016 - 04:19 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 19 September 2016 - 09:37 PM, said:

Fairness and balance are not the same thing. Dissipation and capacity do not necessarily need to be linked nor should they be for variety's sake.

Oh I agree... fairness is not balance. However, it's vastly more easy to balance a system that is fair from inception, than trying to balance one that is NOT fair.

But yes, cap and dissipation absolutely DO have to be linked if you hope for the build system, and thus the heat system, to treat all weapons fairly. If you allow dissipation to become decoupled from cap, it will absolutely favor one type of weapon over another. There is no doubting that.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 20 September 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

But yes, cap and dissipation absolutely DO have to be linked if you hope for the build system, and thus the heat system, to treat all weapons fairly.

Not all weapons need to be treated fairly. For example energy weapons in this game are burst oriented, because you eventually get heat capped after 2-3 full salvos (because heat is meant to be managed in game), unlike ballistics which can fire repeatedly, but often with lower burst damage. Now, if someone wanted to make an energy boat more DPS oriented rather than burst, they could for example quirk it to have higher dissipation and lower overall capacity. Sadly, the only way to make the opposite true for ballistic boats would be to add smaller ballistics that allow for large enough alphas at the expense of heat efficiency (Proto ACs and Magshots plox).

Maybe the base formula should be to treat them equally, but all mechs do not nor should they be treated that way.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 September 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

Not all weapons need to be treated fairly. For example energy weapons in this game are burst oriented, because you eventually get heat capped after 2-3 full salvos (because heat is meant to be managed in game), unlike ballistics which can fire repeatedly, but often with lower burst damage. Now, if someone wanted to make an energy boat more DPS oriented rather than burst, they could for example quirk it to have higher dissipation and lower overall capacity. Sadly, the only way to make the opposite true for ballistic boats would be to add smaller ballistics that allow for large enough alphas at the expense of heat efficiency (Proto ACs and Magshots plox).

Maybe the base formula should be to treat them equally, but all mechs do not nor should they be treated that way.

Certainly, and this is largely my point here. Right now, the base heat system is unbalanced. Aside from merely the addition of 30 unpenalized points, which affects everything though not equally... you have the issue where the lower your heat cap, the more free cap and dissipation you get. This is a imbalance on the build side.

What this means is that low-cap builds do not need to invest in nearly as many heat sinks to achieve their given damage output. They didn't earn that output. High cap mechs, meanwhile, don't get the output they've earned. They get less bonus cap to work with (though they do still get a small bonus) and straight up lose on dissipation.

When all that gets fed into the actual heat system, your weapon balance gets tanked. Basic principle of engineering, coding, whatever... garbage in, garbage out.

The problem is minor but noticeable on the Live game, but it's amplified times 5 under ED. Hence all the stat changes.

Once we have a fair heat system, getting the right weapon balance should be a lot easier.

Luckily, MWO has tools here that TT simply doesn't have for balancing out weapons... the mechanics of the weapons themselves, as well as duration, spread, cooldowns, etc. Lots of tools and options to dial weapons in. Cooldowns in particular are extremely effective for balance.

So yeah... we need a well-functioning heat system to handle our combat pacing, and we need a fair and balanced build system... otherwise you'll always be struggling to balance weapons. And if you can't fix those fundementals first and having them work rock solid, most of your other effort will go to waste... as demonstrated by the last 4 years of chasing basic weapon and build balance.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 20 September 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

you have the issue where the lower your heat cap, the more free cap and dissipation you get.

This is only a thing because of the discrepancy between engine/external DHS which I could've sworn they corrected in one of these latest PTS iterations. The extra free dissipation though keeps the heavier mechs in check because of the increase in free tonnage that assaults and such gain that lights can rarely afford.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 September 2016 - 10:54 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 20 September 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

This is only a thing because of the discrepancy between engine/external DHS which I could've sworn they corrected in one of these latest PTS iterations. The extra free dissipation though keeps the heavier mechs in check because of the increase in free tonnage that assaults and such gain that lights can rarely afford.

Ah... but it doesn't just apply that bonus to lights though, does it? It applies it to any low-cap build. So your Jenner gets a bonus, which is probably good. But your Kodiak also gets a bonus. The Night Gyr would also get a bonus. The most powerful builds here are low-cap too.

I'm sure everyone would agree that you didn't want Heavies and Assaults to receive a 50% increase on their heat caps and dissipation rates, and yet this is exactly what happens.

But yes... I believe more recent PTS sessions have changed the discrepancy between engine and external sinks. That's an important positive change. The rest of the sink changes weren't. One step forward, two steps back, unfortunately.

But it shows willingness to make the correct types of changes, just also a lack of understanding as to which ones are correct.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 20 September 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Ah... but it doesn't just apply that bonus to lights though, does it? It applies it to any low-cap build. So your Jenner gets a bonus, which is probably good. But your Kodiak also gets a bonus.

Kodiak doesn't get a bonus because it is never running with just the base 10 DHS except maybe the Quad Gauss build, at worst it is running 15-16 DHS.

ScarecrowES, on 20 September 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

The Night Gyr would also get a bonus. The most powerful builds here are low-cap too.

Night Gyr might need it given how slow it is, but then again, it has dakka so we will see how well it compares to the Dakkahammer.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 20 September 2016 - 01:19 PM.