103 replies to this topic

[Urza Mechwalker]

Solis Obscuri, on 30 October 2012 - 04:04 PM, said:

I think we can kiss heat management goodbye once people buy the upgrade, which is unfortunate.

Not at all.. Even with double heat sinks PPCs family of weapons are unable to fire for too long. But its a boost enoguht that ER PPCs become almost usable. And that is part of balance needed to coutner gauss and LRM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Well I guess I will go out of my way of playing the game as I'd like, with a balanced mech with both ballistic and energy weapons and will just use laserboats when the fix goes life. Might as well ruin the game for others as they ruin it for me. That's just fair, right?

/edit: Mhm...according to the Excel Mechlab that still wouldn't work. A hunchback with effectively 38 heatsinks (due to DHS) is still producing too much heat to be really effective. My bad then. ^^

When did they change this? Is there a (hidden) penalty for boating of the same weapon type?

Edited by GODzillaGSPB, 31 October 2012 - 01:16 AM.

[Urza Mechwalker]

Calmon, on 31 October 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

DHS in engine replacing SHS is just stupid. It means: There is no good SHS alternative. Full DHS in engine alone make every SHS build bad -> trial mechs will get devastaded even more. It will also make heatsinks in engine the only important fact. Therefore -> get big engines because you get more speed, more mobility and even more doubleheatsinks. Slow engines are just plain bad. No good balancing!

It also not compareable with TT because in TT you fire far less and so the initial coolness is far more influencing than here. Also you pay DHS with battlevalue. Here you you have higher repair costs which is nothing 99% will look at - they want to have the best builds and to win!

All this could have be balanced silencely in closed beta. Now you will get a "shitstorm" for every change which makes the going open-beta really a bad decision.

Wrong. There will be still quite a few setups that will use SHS (specially on an atlas) and on the money making mech of most smart people (DHS cost more to repair)


If 8/10 mechs use DHS, GREAT, that is the cocnept of DHS , so much that in MW lore that is what happens as soon as DHS become available!

GODzillaGSPB, on 31 October 2012 - 01:12 AM, said:

Well I guess I will go out of my way of playing the game as I'd like, with a balanced mech with both ballistic and energy weapons and will just use laserboats when the fix goes life. Might as well ruin the game for others as they ruin it for me. That's just fair, right?

Funny, because the other half of threads in forum complain how LRM and gauss oare overpowered when comapred to energy weapons and AC/20.... both that SURPRISE are buffed by DHS.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Urza Mechwalker, on 31 October 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Funny, because the other half of threads in forum complain how LRM and gauss oare overpowered when comapred to energy weapons and AC/20.... both that SURPRISE are buffed by DHS.

Please see my edit above. And btw. the gauss needs no DHS buff, it works perfectly fine without DHS.

[Vassago Rain]

Finally.

[Calmon]

Urza Mechwalker, on 31 October 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

Wrong. There will be still quite a few setups that will use SHS (specially on an atlas) and on the money making mech of most smart people (DHS cost more to repair)

On an Atlas? I play my founder in moment. Put in Engine 325 and you get 3 places in engine. With DHS working in engine I know have the same like 26 SHS. Give me any argument to not play with just this! It work even now where only the additional 3 works as DHS so effectively 16 Heatsink. I can use Endo Steel for additional 5 tons, put in 2 LRM 15, and the rest fine close range weapons of choice.

And come on, most of us would never start playing less effective builds just because of a bit repair costs. We play a game and we usually want to enjoy it and win at highest priorities. I make 250-300K per match plus in moment with it (premium time/founder bonus included but even without its a good amount)

Edited by Calmon, 31 October 2012 - 01:51 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

During the testing of the DHS bug we uncovered a long standing heat related bug. This is also going to be addressed in the next patch. Expect some widespread changes. I will fill you later when the exact numbers are tested.

I wonder what this is about?

[MustrumRidcully]

Oh, and from my various threads (most now gone to the Closed Beta Archive) on evaluationg heat in MW:O and its effect on balance.

(To explain a bit: These charts are based on the damage 4 instances of a weapon can deal within 20 respectively 90 seconds, compared to the weight of the weapons and the heat sinks required to run them continiously for 20 or 90 seconds, and the heat sinks required to run them for this time frame without overheating, plus ammo sufficient to fire each ammo-based weapon for 180 seconds.)

Current State with Single Heat Sinks:


Current State, but with Double Heat Sinks:






If people are concerned that the damage output will be vastly higher than it was before, you need to consider this.
1) Energy weapons were already very inefficient. So yes, the damage output with energy weapons can now go up.
2) Ballistics and Missiles were more efficient than energy weapons. They will gain a lot less than energy weapons, but they are still pretty good.

Overall this means that the damage output on the low end rises, but the max output doesn't really change. If you knew how to deal with Gauss Cats and Streak Cats and Slunchbacks and LRM boats, you'll be able to deal with the DHS. If not, things will get tougher for you - but on the plus side, your build may improve by simply upgrading to DHS and be more competitive with the other mechs

Double Heat Sinks working correctly would just bring energy weapons up to the level of ballistic weapons. Trial Mechs will still suck. And future mechs that relied on Double Heat Sinks will work just as bad as the trial mechs do now.

In fact, how DHS work when working correctly is acutally much closer to how single heat sinks would need to work to represent the original weapon balance better. Yes, DHS are a major upgrade in the table top and a game changer. I have ideas how they could be "nerfed" a bit to still retain SHS a viable choice, but that only makes sense to me if the fundamental issues of the heat system would be adressed first.

Unless their heat bug is something else related to this and changes fundamental assumptions.

For the indepth analysis and wall of text, read the post linked in my signature.

[Tokra]

Bartolomeo, on 30 October 2012 - 06:18 PM, said:

but the engine should not come with 10 heatsink minimum?
100 to 250 rating = 10 heatsink (not less)
250+=1 heatsink slot for every 25+ engine rating

I think I read something like that before they closed the closebeta forum

as example, the CN9-A come with a 200 rating engine, and only 8 heatsink come from engine, shouldn't that be always 10 (from engine) minimum?

Yokaiko, on 30 October 2012 - 06:51 PM, said:

Heh fair enough I was going by the TT rules.

10 was 10 and it didn't matter WTF engine it was.

Just to clear up a bit the problems and missinformations on the engines.
Currently the TT rules and the MWO rules for construction are the same.

Fact:
- Each engine comes with 10 heatsinks.
- Each engine can store one heatsinks for each fulll 25 in size (Engine 200 = 8, ...).
- All other heatsinks have to be places in crit slots in the mech.

In MWO they just had to make the trick with the bought engines that has only the stored HS. and you get the message that you have to fill the heatsinks to a min of 10 to have a legit mech.
The engine weight this much less as he has less heatsinks (you have not penalty when using small engines). And PGI just added the weight of the gyro and the cockpit to the engine to remove the faults they had with small engines because of the missng heatsinks.

So again, there is no bug in MWO. You have no drawback when using extreme big or small engines.


About the second part, DHS:
There is no, and really no reason to use SHS at all anymore. You will always be better with DHS. The only difference is the price of these. But this one is so minimal that it really does not matter.
The way you can choose the free engine size in MWO makes it even was more better to just spend the extra weight you gain from less HS into a bigger engine.

Even a Gausscat can easy use DHS. Even if it does not need it.

If you say you run out of crits on your mech when using DHS think twice. The stock HS in the engine become double (once the bug is fixed). And this way you save a lot of weight.

Even if you had a mech with 40 SHS (really extreme, i know). And only a 250 engine. You had to place 30 HS in the mech. With DHS you need only 20 DHS, 10 of these are in the engine, and 10 need to be placed into crit slots. That makes 30 crits again. But you gained 20 tons!!!!. You could get a bigger engine this way, and place more HS in this one.
But if you say you want to change the 40 SHS with 40 DHS you will for sure run into problems with the crit slots. But this is not a problem of the game or the construction rules but with your failed math .

DHS were already a must have in the TT and no reason not to use. It is the same in MWO. Any self constructed Mech will / should have DHS. Else you are wasting potential of the mech.

About the problem with the "bad" trial mechs compared to self made mechs, its the matchmaking (as said so often all over the forum already). Trial vs trial, custom vs custom. Only way.
But there are so many factors already for matchmaking (group/solo, ELO, matches played, weight, custom/trial, ...) that it will need tons of players to get matches with all these to check. Only question is what is most important of these, and match player from this one. And imo its the matches played that is biggest factor.

[Yokaiko]

Calmon, on 31 October 2012 - 12:37 AM, said:

DHS in engine replacing SHS is just stupid. It means: There is no good SHS alternative. Full DHS in engine alone make every SHS build bad -> trial mechs will get devastaded even more. It will also make heatsinks in engine the only important fact. Therefore -> get big engines because you get more speed, more mobility and even more doubleheatsinks. Slow engines are just plain bad. No good balancing!

It also not compareable with TT because in TT you fire far less and so the initial coolness is far more influencing than here. Also you pay DHS with battlevalue. Here you you have higher repair costs which is nothing 99% will look at - they want to have the best builds and to win!

All this could have be balanced silencely in closed beta. Now you will get a "shitstorm" for every change which makes the going open-beta really a bad decision.

Going bad is just plain bad generally.

DHS, is supposed to outclass singles, that is the point.

[Belorion]

Someone on the firstpage said something about chain firing 8 medium lasers... The most that you need for continious cf is 4.

[Adrienne Vorton]

EtherDragon, on 30 October 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

Hardly, even with fully functioning DHS in the engines - fire rates are such that you build up lots of heat over time, even with DHS during continuous fire.

right, DHS don´t prevent you from overheating if you "alphaspam all teh wepp0nz"... they on the other hand reward you for NOT shooting every now and then^^

you can fire more frequently, but you still have to let your DHS build down the heat... notice, that DHS don´t increase the heatcap

i think thats good that way

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 31 October 2012 - 04:17 AM.

[Yokaiko]

Tokra, on 31 October 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

Just to clear up a bit the problems and missinformations on the engines.
Currently the TT rules and the MWO rules for construction are the same.

Fact:
- Each engine comes with 10 heatsinks.
- Each engine can store one heatsinks for each fulll 25 in size (Engine 200 = 8, ...).
- All other heatsinks have to be places in crit slots in the mech.

In MWO they just had to make the trick with the bought engines that has only the stored HS. and you get the message that you have to fill the heatsinks to a min of 10 to have a legit mech.
The engine weight this much less as he has less heatsinks (you have not penalty when using small engines). And PGI just added the weight of the gyro and the cockpit to the engine to remove the faults they had with small engines because of the missng heatsinks.

So again, there is no bug in MWO. You have no drawback when using extreme big or small engines.

Ahh ok it was 15 years ago...more actually. I stopped playing shortly after 3050,
.

Tokra, on 31 October 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

About the problem with the "bad" trial mechs compared to self made mechs, its the matchmaking (as said so often all over the forum already). Trial vs trial, custom vs custom. Only way.

To an extent.

There will be screams the first time they drop in a stock custom mech, and the guy that gets his new Atlas wasted to the tune of 200k is going to be be crying (yes, I have managed that one).

Basically I don't think they can keep eveyone happy, so I will argue for my game.

[Calmon]

Yokaiko, on 31 October 2012 - 03:34 AM, said:

Going bad is just plain bad generally.

DHS, is supposed to outclass singles, that is the point.

No its not you always need reasons to use the old version otherwise you can't justify you have them ingame implemented! TT uses battlepoint system. There is nothing equal to this in MWO, they use repair costs for this. For me very bad solution because the players who don't need to earn CBs for mechs or get enough via different bonus just use the most game-winning-efficient builds while others may be forced to use most-cost-efficient builds which makes a good matchmaking even more complicate and also makes trial mechs how they currently built up far worse.

Edited by Calmon, 31 October 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[Yokaiko]

There is, if you want to use a 4 llas atlas, SHS is the way to go, DHS runs out of crit slots around 38 I think it was. SHS gives you 44ish

[Bagheera]

Prosperity Park, on 30 October 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

Well, we can also kiss some of that double armor goodbye, too... DHS means more pewpew and more dakkadakka. It will probably mean less ska-thuuuummm, since dakka will look more attractive, but I dont't expect to see any reduction in wooosh.

Definitely moar dakka. I'm betting just a slight increase in wooosh, already at least 1 in this thread with a plan to increase their missle power.

I might even leave the AC20 in one of my Hunchies now.



Might.

Edited by Bagheera, 31 October 2012 - 05:17 AM.

[Lane]

So double heat sinks will work in engines but disipation on all heat sinks will be half. So the engine heatsinks will be a wash and all other heatsinks will be worse?


Lane

[Marzepans]

Great news. My faith is restored.

[Fooooo]

Yokaiko, on 31 October 2012 - 05:01 AM, said:

There is, if you want to use a 4 llas atlas, SHS is the way to go, DHS runs out of crit slots around 38 I think it was. SHS gives you 44ish

Had a post here but thinking it over I'm not sure if the DHS are only counted for their amounts or their total effective amounts....

DHS increase your total heat threshold by 2 and increase heat dissipation by 0.2

SHS increase your total heat threshold by 1 and increase heat dissipation by 0.1


So, if say in that atlas you said there, if it had 19 DHS, does it only get 38 to its total heat threshold ? (19 x 2) Or does it give an increase of 2 for each SHS it represents ?? ( 38 x 2 ) ..............if you get me.....sorta sounds confusing even to me.....

If its the case that DHS only give 2 for the actual amount you put onto your mech (including engine, which would make that 19 DHS on that atlas) Then yea SHS are a much better option.

If however DHS give 2 for each SHS it represents....(so instead of 19 x 2, its 38 x 2) which would give DHS a 76 total heat threshold increase (vs 44 SHS's 44 total increase.....).......making them probably the better option if thats the case....

Edited by Fooooo, 31 October 2012 - 05:49 AM.

[Sabrea]

Fooooo, on 31 October 2012 - 05:37 AM, said:

Had a post here but thinking it over I'm not sure if the DHS are only counted for their amounts or their total effective amounts....

DHS increase your total heat threshold by 2 and increase heat dissipation by 0.2

SHS increase your total heat threshold by 1 and increase heat dissipation by 0.1


So, if say in that atlas you said there, if it had 19 DHS, does it only get 38 to its total heat threshold ? (19 x 2) Or does it give an increase of 2 for each SHS it represents ?? ( 38 x 2 ) ..............if you get me.....sorta sounds confusing even to me.....

If its the case that DHS only give 2 for the actual amount you put onto your mech (including engine, which would make that 19 DHS on that atlas) Then yea SHS are a much better option.

If however DHS give 2 for each SHS it represents....(so instead of 19 x 2, its 38 x 2) which would give DHS a 76 total heat threshold increase (vs 44 SHS's 44 total increase.....).......making them probably the better option if thats the case....

Heat Threshold is 30 + # of heatsinks. I've tested this myself with several mechs and different heatsink configurations. I'll probably be testing tonight if the DHS's (out of engine) are +2 to heat threshold or only +1 (It's only one heatsink!).

I've already tested 10 engine SHS and 10 engine DHS and can confirm they are both counted as singles for heat disapation and heat-threshold.