425 replies to this topic

[Valder]

My Dragon with 16 heatsinks that are double heatsinks went from 1.52 heat efficiency to 1.27 with the patch. If 1.4 happened, it should have become slightly more heat efficient, not less. You guys should NOT shoot all the internal testers in the head, but instead give them a beating.

EDIT: The consensus is that the 1.52 was a bugged value that was saying that everything (including engine internal heatsinks) was all 2.0.

EDIT EDIT: This thread is NOT to discuss the finer points of nerfing over brandy. It was to figure out if the dev's intended implementation is bugged. If you want to talk about 1.4 vs 2.0 being better OP or nerfed or "double means double" go spam general forum.

Edited by Niko Snow, 16 April 2013 - 02:25 PM.

[Marineballer]

Yeah, because the value for the indicator wich was used was 2. Now DHS have a value of 1.4

[Nighteyes]

Valder, on 06 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

My Dragon with 16 heatsinks that are double heatsinks went from 1.52 heat efficiency to 1.27 with the patch. If 1.4 happened, it should have become slightly more heat efficient, not less. You guys should NOT shoot all the internal testers in the head, but instead give them a beating.

Do you have pulse lasers installed? Maybe their change also affected listed heat efficiency.

[IronCossack]

They need to rename them from "Double Heat sinks" then.

[Slanski]

Marineballer, on 06 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Yeah, because the value for the indicator wich was used was 2. Now DHS have a value of 1.4

Probably this and the adjustment of pulse lasers. Never assume indicative numbers like the mech lab things to have any resemblance with ingame performance. They don't even input the same variables.

[Valder]

I have 3x AC2's and 1 small laser. If the value was based off the wrong numbers that would make sense... maybe. There's no way that 1 small laser is dropping my value by .4 with 16 DHS tho.

[Aratan Aenor]

It seems "Double Heat Sinks" has a nicer, if less accurate ring to it than "1.4x Heat Sinks."

Edited by Aratan Aenor, 06 November 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[Opus]

Oh Well!

Description
[color=#000000]
Double Heat Sinks, often abbreviated DHS and colloquially also referred to as Freezers throughout the Inner Sphere after their NAIS codename^[1], operate in much the same way and for the same purpose as standard heat sinks. The difference is that a double heat sink offers twice the heat dissipation capacity of a standard heat sink, for the same mass (one ton).[/color]
[color=#000000]
Their drawback is that they are much bulkier than a standard heat sink (unless integrated into a fusion engine).
The advanced Clan version twice the size of a standard heat sink; Star League era double heat sinks and those later (re-)developed by the Inner Sphere are three times as bulky as a standard heat sink.[/color]
[color=#000000]
Also, double heat sinks are normally incompatible with standard heat sinks. A given unit must therefore be equipped exclusively with either standard or double heat sinks, though exceptions are known.^[2][/color]
[color=#000000]
The benefits of doubled heat dissipation capacity usually outweigh the drawbacks and by 3058 almost every 'Mech model was equipped or retrofitted with double heat sinks.[/color]

[Demon Horde]

iI agree going with 1.4 setting on DHS is a load of cr--. they bassically made DHS WORTHLESS , as there is NOTHING double about them at all now. I highly disagree with the devs that DHS being at 2x made heat concerns null, cos even when I had a heat efficency of 1.7 i still got shut downs.1.4 value is terrible , not to forget the DHS still take up 3 slots for not much more heat dissipation. and they cost WAAAAY more money than standard heat sinks. I'm a little p--ed with this change to DHS. The should at least dissipate 1.75 X heat to be worth using them. either that or make them only take up two slots NOT 3.

[Stradivarious]

Marineballer, on 06 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

Yeah, because the value for the indicator wich was used was 2. Now DHS have a value of 1.4

^This, the indicator was wrong during the EHS bug. My 30 standard HS config showed lower but operated better then my 19 DHS config.

[WaKK0]

Having the same problems... my three commandos all running 170 standards with 4 double heat sinks went from

• COM-1D was 2.0 --> now 1.68
  
• COM-2D was 2.41 --> now 2.02
  
• COM-1B was 1.73 --> now 1.43

These are all running mixes of streak SRM2s, tag, and medium lasers.

What the heck is going on??

[Tokimonatakanimekat]

Valder, on 06 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

My Dragon with 16 heatsinks that are double heatsinks went from 1.52 heat efficiency to 1.27 with the patch. If 1.4 happened, it should have become slightly more heat efficient, not less. You guys should NOT shoot all the internal testers in the head, but instead give them a beating.

I'll also suggest to "love them tenderly" for a while.

Edited by Tokimonatakanimekat, 06 November 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Grayzzur]

You are actually probably right about where you were before the patch. I believe I recall them saying that the heat efficiency scale calculation was assuming that engine heatsinks were not bugged. So, before patch, the scale was claiming 16*2=32, when in reality you had 10+(6*2)=22. Now you have 16*1.4=22.4, and the heat efficiency scale should be reflecting it correctly.

I could be wrong.

[Hexcaliber]

These changes are doing everything that was predicted; making laser and ppc boats less effective, polarising the games useful builds, and making double heatsinks a waste of fk'n time on most mechs. They either need to reduce the crit slot use to two, so players have a little more space to play, OR, increase the rating to around 1.6; anything else is a waste of time

The heat efficiency of every med boat with lasers and dbls that I own is now LESS heat efficient, than the same mech using singles, which is nothing short of ********, frankly piranha are fkn clueless.

Edited by Hexcaliber, 06 November 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[Paladin Brewer]

Valder, on 06 November 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

I have 3x AC2's and 1 small laser. If the value was based off the wrong numbers that would make sense... maybe. There's no way that 1 small laser is dropping my value by .4 with 16 DHS tho.

Your concern should be better mech builds Zing!

[Project Dark Fox]

Your old heat efficiency ratings did not take into effect the bugged engine heat sinks. 10 DHS then still had the efficiency of 10 SHS -- but it would not show this in the graphs.
Now, take your 10 DHS and observe it should act like 14 SHS. Your graph may drop, but you should've actually seen some improvement.

Quote

The heat efficiency of every med boat with lasers and dbls that I own is now LESS heat efficient, than the same mech using singles, which is nothing short of ********, frankly piranha are fkn clueless.

Ooh, they nerfed laser boats! Have you perhaps considered using different weapons, or maybe dropping a weapon or two? I think they made the right call, though further testing will yield if they should bump it to 1.5 or 1.6 or so.

Edited by Project Dark Fox, 06 November 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[Teh Zig]

Lowering the heat sinks from 2 to 1.4, and then raising the lasers heat output by 25 to 50 percent is a seriously silly idea. When you consider that the patch also tightened up missile grouping it seems like PHG doesn't want people to use lasers. Someone should probably do some re-naming to these items. You can start be changing double heat sinks to something like "Considerably larger but only slightly better heat sink" you can change lasers to "Medium you're going to cook yourself alive, stall, and get torn to pieces by missiles" and then you can go ahead and change Mechwarrior Online to "Shoot Many Missiles"

Edited by Teh Zig, 06 November 2012 - 03:13 PM.

[Valder]

Paladin Brewer, on 06 November 2012 - 03:06 PM, said:

Your concern should be better mech builds Zing!

You're rite guy! =D
turrible

[Paladin Brewer]

703 dmg + no kills = wildly spread damage, which I imagine happens with AC2s

[Tallnob]

They work very well still for light mechs using mostly the engine 1.4x , but on larger mechs or those with endo/ferro I see no point.