85 replies to this topic

[Lightdragon]

...stupid idea mechs should be allowed double heatsinks as the base amount of heat sinks dont really dissipate enough heat anyways

[Uri Brauer]

My thread on the subject

Conclusion - DHS might not give their full expected advantage, because you won't be able to alpha strike the way you'd expect... IF this is the way DHS have been implemented.

Is that enough of a nerf? Can't tell without beta access...

Edited by Uri Brauer, 20 July 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[ExAstris]

Lightdragon, on 20 July 2012 - 12:52 PM, said:

...stupid idea mechs should be allowed double heatsinks as the base amount of heat sinks dont really dissipate enough heat anyways

Well, its pretty much garunteed that MWO will be launching with mechs that start with single heat sinks. So we can't just make double heat sinks the standard starting point for everyone. Its also known that Double Heat Sinks are in production at this point in time, and the clan invasion will slowly turn DHS into the standard over the next 10 years. However, until that time we have this problem of the base engine heat sinks going from single to double giving a huge advantage and having no serious drawbacks.

VanillaG, on 20 July 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

Slight math fail, any engine 250 or above would not have to equip heatsinks.

Thanks for the correction.

Garth Erlam, on 20 July 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Great ideas guys, keep 'em coming!

Good to see their radar is at least watching
Now if only we can get an Ask The Dev's response on this topic...


Also, while there are people interested in the topic, I had an idea earlier that could retain the upgrade of the engine heat sinks to doubles, but make it a gradual upgrade process instead of an instant jump. There would need to be limiting factors, initially c-bills were considered, but perhaps total pilot xp might be a better option.
http://mwomercs.com/...and-heat-sinks/

On the whole, I think the idea I covered there is more condusive to providing players with upgrades to look forwards too and things to spend their money on. However, the main idea of this thread, leaving all the engine heat sinks as singles, is probably more condusive to an overall more level playing field.


If it were my call, I think I might opt for this thread's suggestion at game launch, then once the clans hit and players get more established, use my previous idea to give the players upgrade paths to work on in order to gear up to beat the clanners.

Edited by ExAstris, 20 July 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[WardenWolf]

ExAstris, on 20 July 2012 - 01:10 PM, said:

Now if only we can get an Ask The Dev's response on this topic...

I just asked over on Ask the Devs 11, so we'll see early next week if they choose to tackle this topic right now

[Paj]

If you start changing the rules about how double heat sinks work, it could have some serious negative side effects further down the line.

Level 2 energy weapons (ER PPC, ER Large Laser) are a liability without double heat sinks to mitigate the extra heat they build up. They become even more important with Clan tech, as they have even more high heat weapons.

The problem seems to be combining double heat sinks with the bog standard, vanila, Inner Sphere Medium Laser.

My recommendation would be to limit availability of double heat sinks, either behind C-bills, skill points, or some other combiniation rather than changing how they work.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

They can't limit level 2 tech by price because those who can will just spend the money to get the advantage. The only way I can see to limit availablity would be say to only alow pilots who achieve Elite level to buy the tech. It would mean that no-one could just throw money at the tech for an advantage. It would give people the ability to customise without full min/maxing at the start.

[ManDaisy]

Take away the double heat sinks crit sponge ability. Make it so one hit kills the entire 3 critical slots. That way there is an incentive to use single heat sinks rather then double heat sinks to pad your mech. The alternative padding... is gauss rifle ammo.

Edited by ManDaisy, 21 July 2012 - 12:11 PM.

[Johannes Falkner]

I would also look at the mechs that you can break canon configurations based on DHS rule changes, which unfortunately includes most new tech/Star League heavy/assaults which rely on the heat dissipation of engine mounted heatsinks to have enough crits or tonnage. Some of the canon lights can get even more screwed because the 10 heatsinks in the engine represent all of their heatsinks. (Luckily they chose lights that aren't as problematic in general.)

Some examples for mechs in MWO:
Atlas AS7-S (12 Engine mounted DHS / 15(30) total HS / 35 Max Heat ) (3049 variant)
Cicada CDA-3F (10/10(20)/29) (3052)
Trebuchet TBT-7M (10/10(20)/24) (3049)
Dragon (Grand Dragon) DRG-5K (13/13(26)/30) (3040)
Dragon (Grand Dragon) DRG-C (13/13(26)/27) (3040)
Catapult CPLT-C1b (10/12(24)/26) (2561)
Cataphract CTF-3L (13/16(32)/35) (3051)
Awesome AWS-9M (12/20(40)/57) (3050)
Stalker STK-5M (12/17(34)/42) (3047)

Counter Example:
Hunchback HBK-5M (8/13(26)/17) (3046)
Jagermech JM6-DG (10/10(20)/14) (3054)

Additional Examples
Flashman FLS-8K (15/15(30)/45) Yikes! (2701)
Javelin JVN-10N Fire Javelin (10/10(20)/27) (3053)
King Crab KGC-010 (10/10(20)/29) (2743)
King Crab KGC-000b (10/10(20)/34) (2743)

A lot of the mechs that are needed to fight the Clans are the ones that will be neutered by a DHS change....

[Uri Brauer]

Paj, on 21 July 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

The problem seems to be combining double heat sinks with the bog standard, vanilla, Inner Sphere Medium Laser.

Agreed. A lot of canon mechs dodge the issue by switching to ER or Pulse lasers at the same time that they switch to DHS.

[Graphite]

WardenWolf, on 20 July 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

This got me thinking about how it could be implemented in MW:O without having the same overpowering issues... and I think I have a good idea! What if there was no 'upgrading' to double heatsinks: your engine just has a set amount of heat dissipation it is capable of, period. You can then add on top of that either single or double heatsinks: the trade-off is space vs weight: a DHS dumps the same heat as two singles for half the weight, but takes up 50% more space on the mech. You could even mix and match them, as needed.

That seems like it would make things much more flexible, and allow for higher-heat mech designs without them being too powerful. Any thoughts or criticisms? (I know this gets away from strict TT rules, but I think this change is worth that)

It's theoretically a good idea - the TT game should have done this in the 1980s.

But MWO shouldn't, and won't do this. Retroactively fixing game design mistakes breaks many of the famous official canon mech designs. Totally unacceptable to too many people.

Edited by Graphite, 21 July 2012 - 05:55 PM.

[ManDaisy]

Graphite, on 21 July 2012 - 05:54 PM, said:

It's theoretically a good idea - the TT game should have done this in the 1980s.

But MWO shouldn't, and won't do this. Retroactively fixing game design mistakes breaks many of the famous official canon mech designs. Totally unacceptable to too many people.

Yes but then again most iterations of "mechwarrior" had a ****** up heat scale that didn't reflect "battletech" anyway. I don't see how fixing the problem here would make it deviate any more then the previous games. If anything only allowing 10 "single" heat sinks built into the engine is a step in the right direction, as we have nothing to base those "cannon" variants that depend on double heat sinks in the engine off of anyway. They were either never properly applied or not available in past "mechwarrior" games. If anything their 10 single heat sink for the engine versions should count as the bases of their first actual performance, rather then table top.

It is perfectly acceptable to me.

Edited by ManDaisy, 21 July 2012 - 06:46 PM.

[DocBach]

Double heat sinks are already balanced. Especially in assault 'Mechs with tiny engines - try fitting more than five or so in a 'Mech and still have room to carry guns....

[Uri Brauer]

DocBach, on 21 July 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Double heat sinks are already balanced. Especially in assault 'Mechs with tiny engines - try fitting more than five or so in a 'Mech and still have room to carry guns....

Assault mechs aren't the problem here - as you say, lack of criticals balances them back out (and an ML-boat will be too slow).
See my thread linked above for some unbalanced Hunchback variants.

[Comguard]

The problem with taking away the ability to upgrade the free 10 heatsinks that come with every engine is:

- certain mech designs would die out because no one would play them
- our pretty expensive founders-mechs would be severly outclassed over a couple of weeks and become obsolete

I don't think DHS's are that unfair because everyone has the chance to install them. Of course it is a no-brainer, but, well, it is not necessarily bad.

Only way I could imagine to balance it would to alternate the formula for included HS's from engine size /25 to engine size/50. But I don't know if the gameplay would really profit if people can't build in that much heat dissipation, it would just make engagements longer and lead to the domination of the Gauss rifle.

[Streeter]

I think if the devs dont want them implemented inflate the Cbill price? or make repair costs on them high... maybe implement disadvantages that way rather than moving away from TT rules.

[Sir Hunter]

I like this idea. I don't know if it is a beta issue but right now I don't seem to able to tarde off decresing armor weight for use in other categories - such as heat sinks. Also compared to earlier versions of MechWarrior the Mechs seem much more heat sensitive.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Using cost as a disincentive for items such as DHS won't work as those who want to be competetive will pay the price, whether it be in C-bills or MC.

[ManDaisy]

Here's a thought, only allow double heat sinks in the engine for XL engines. Standard engines would carry single heat sinks in the engine. That way if they want the double heat sinks included with the engine they risk going boom boom with the side torsos.

Edited by ManDaisy, 22 July 2012 - 12:53 PM.

[Risen]

DHS are in my opinion the most unbalaning factor in MW, at least in the boardgame.

in MWO the heat system will be different to the TT, because you just can't do the math of saying, I have 20 DHS so I can mount 4 PPC's and keep up constant alpha strikes because it's 40-40=0 heat.

Weapons and all other actions like moving or jumping should generate their maximum heat directly and the amount of heat sinks should increase the speed of how fast heat dissipates.

Maybe half of the heatsinks should provide a constant reduction for weapons or action say in our 20DHS case our 4 PPC alpha strike would generate 20 heat (20 being substracted) imidiatly.
Or the constant reduction is not limited by SHS or DHS so it would only be 10 in our case here.

So long, mho

[Streeter]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 22 July 2012 - 12:23 PM, said:

Using cost as a disincentive for items such as DHS won't work as those who want to be competetive will pay the price, whether it be in C-bills or MC.

cant you organise it so the money needed to pay for Double heat sinks is not real cash buyable and only able to be bought by "earned" money? if you want them pay for them? short of nerfing double heat sinks, which screws with how the game works and many existing mechs, I cant see any other way?


They are in the game, if you want them buy them? if we make them so they dont work then it will just make low heat weapons like the gauss rifle too powerful.

Edited by Streeter, 23 July 2012 - 12:31 AM.