103 replies to this topic

[Thragen]

Sabrea, on 31 October 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

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.

I am guessing that the DHS will count 2 towards heat threshold when the patch hits and the other heat bug PGI found was that the current DHS were only counting 1 towards heat threshold.

[Mister Blastman]

Woooohooo! Thank you PGI! Now we can really start customizing mechs like they should be.

[Dakkath]

Yokaiko, on 30 October 2012 - 06:24 PM, said:

All engines are supposed to HAVE 10 heatsinks as well. Right now they don't.

Some heat sinks don't come 'free' per say, as they may require critical space


Space

Regardless of the type of heat sinks used, or how many more are added after the engine’s 10 free sinks, a number of heat sinks may not require any critical slots on the Critical Hits Table, based on the size of the engine. To find the number of heat sinks that may be considered “critical-free,” divide the BattleMech’s engine rating by 25 and round the result down. These sinks are considered an integral part of the engine, and so can only be destroyed if the engine is destroyed. All remaining heat sinks (even the engine’s 10 free sinks) must be allocated to the Critical Hits Table, with each sink considered a separate item. Heat sinks that occupy multiple critical slots—such as Clan and Inner Sphere double heat sinks—must allocate these slots contiguously on the table.

For example, if a player adds 5 heat sinks (for a total of 15) to a Battle Mech with a 195-rated fusion engine, 7 of these sinks (195 ÷ 25 = 7.8, rounded down to 7) are considered integral to the engine and are not assigned critical slots. The other 8 [10 (original equipment) + 5 (extra) – 7 (integral to engine) = 8] must be assigned to critical slots. Each standard (single) heat sink not considered integral to the engine takes up 1 critical slot, while Inner Sphere double heat sinks fill 3 slots each.



So in theory, DHS in the engine will be fixed, but you can only have one type of heat sink on your mech, so if you decide to take the DHS; and the engine comes with the standard 10 (but addressing critical space above), you will then still be required to use DHS if you want more, causing you to take up additional crit space.


So, that means, DHS still require you to make sure you plan properly for critical space on certain mechs.

PGI is doing it by the rulebooks on this one. (When they fix it next week)

Edited by Dakkath, 31 October 2012 - 09:47 AM.

[DocBach]

Lights don't benefit most from DHS. On average they use smaller engines than heavier 'Mechs and actually usually carry less heat sinks in the engine.

[Idzy]

DocBach, on 31 October 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Lights don't benefit most from DHS. On average they use smaller engines than heavier 'Mechs and actually usually carry less heat sinks in the engine.

But they do rely more heavily on the heat sinks in their engines because they don't have the extra weight to install additional ones, and just go with the stock 10.

[Raalic]

I'm pretty excited about the prospect of a CDA-2A with a 320XL, max armor and 6 MPL that doesn't explode when I shoot stuff more than once!

[Vermaxx]

DHS benefits everyone with the critspace to make it happen, assuming they work properly and double the engine.

Light/medium space-starved mechs DOUBLE their cooling instantly. Bam. An AC20 Hunchpunch is more punch and less 'hunch' (heat shutdown).

Heavies and assaults can save weight at the cost of critslots, and some variants can boost heat dissipation. Or, they can do the Tabletop Special and just add bigger guns.

There is no basis for the fear that DHS will unbalance the game, because they are the new equal footing. Everyone can use them for a benefit except in those rare instances where having singles is more personally advantageous.

Besides, they still stink when compared to clan DHS and clan damage output.

[Stoindrae]

Calmon, on 30 October 2012 - 04:23 PM, said:

This means 4xLRM 20 on my Awesome... I need to play a lot to show LRMs OPnes

Don't we have an Abrahms for that?

[Joehunk]

Hi. Do you have a reference for:

Quote

closer to 0.2 heat/sec (exact numbers pending)

The command chair post doesn't say anything about numbers pending, but rather says 0.2 is the correct value for engine heat sinks and what the Nov patch will deliver.

[Stoindrae]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 02:49 AM, said:

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.)
**** charts removed for space ****

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.

I like the charts .. they look nice.. but .. what do they mean? For example: WTF does TET mean?

and... I need you to clarify your clarification:

Quote

(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.)

Wha?

Let me see if I understand... via rewrite...

To explain a bit: These charts are based on the damage output a weapon can deal for 20 or 90 seconds of continuous fire, compared to the weight of the weapons and the heat sinks required to run them continuously for 20 or 90 seconds. And heat sinks.. again.. for .. ... wait.. 180seconds? who, what? nevermind.. I give up.

Can you?

[MustrumRidcully]

Stoindrae, on 31 October 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

I like the charts .. they look nice.. but .. what do they mean? For example: WTF does TET mean?

and... I need you to clarify your clarification:



Wha?

Let me see if I understand... via rewrite...

To explain a bit: These charts are based on the damage output a weapon can deal for 20 or 90 seconds of continuous fire, compared to the weight of the weapons and the heat sinks required to run them continuously for 20 or 90 seconds. And heat sinks.. again.. for .. ... wait.. 180seconds? who, what? nevermind.. I give up.

Can you?

Yes, I can explain more, but there is the other thread for this in theory - the problem is finding a wa to keep it short enough to get people to read it, but long enough to actually put all the info in it to understand them.
I will try again, but probably just fail in another way.

"TET" stands for targeted engagement time. A smart closed beta poster whose name I unfortunately cannot remember and whose post is now lost to the beta archive coined this term. The idea was to find a benchmark for weapons to determine their balance or strength that is more practically relevant than the usual standard - which was heat neutrality.

So the idea is this - "Targeted Engagement Time" is the time you want a single weapon exchange to last. This time may vary a lot. If you play a sniper that shoots between covers, you may only have a TET of 5 seconds. But if you're a brawler, your TET may be up to 90 seconds as you never really run away to cool off - you are constantly firing, evading your enemy and keeping on him.

The idea is now to maximize your loadout of weapons, heat sinks and ammo to last throught he "TET" without overheating.
There is a second constraint that I added for my charts - you actually need to be able to last an entire match with your weaponry, which mostly is relevant for ammo - there will be probably more than just one single engagement during a match. My guesstimation is - the total time of all engagements in a match will be something about 3 minutes. A match may theoretically last 15 minutes, but these 15 minutes will not be uninterrupted shooting.

So what did next was to create formulaes that describe how much heat a weapon will produce over the "TET" and how much heat sinks you would need to dissipate just enough that you would not go over your heat capacity during the TET (also keeping in mind, that the number of heat sinks you have in MW:O also affect your max heat capacity, so if you add heat, you not only dissipate faster, you also could last a bit longer without the extra dissipation...)
Over the TET; I also calculated how much damage a weapon could maximally inflict.

This results in a Damage value and a weight value. The TET efficiency stat is simply total damage divided by total weight.

Early on I noticed that just using a single weapon in the benchmark could lead to inflated values for efficiency. For example, if you just test a single Small Laser - fired at its highest rate of fire, it produces about 0.6 heat per second. To get a mech with a heat capacity of 30 to shutdown, it would take 50 seconds for a mech with a single small laser to overheat. But adding a second would change this figure to 25.
But that would already require to have no heat sinks at all, and a mech should always have at least 10.

I eventually settled for one simple approach - packing groups of 4, hoping that this would generally lead to enough heat production to countermand the heat capacity - after all, no one is running around with just one small laser. This affects all values in the charts - damage generated and tonnage required

Obviously,the charts can be varied and refined in many ways. You could use different weapon numbers in the calculations. You could even have them variable - requiring a minimum amount of damage (to represent your goal to destroy a mech perhaps?), or a minimum amount of heat output. But I settled for this approach now, since it's generally "good enough".


So what does the TET charts tell you?

How efficient - in terms of damage for tonnage - is a weapon if you want to use it for the Targeted Engagement Time, account for all weight these weapons would require, not just the weapon itself, but also heat sinks and ammo needs.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 October 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[Solis Obscuri]

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

Also you pay DHS with battlevalue.

in theory, the planned matchmaker is a lot like BV, but it isn't going live until sometime in December... I'm predicting an arms race until then.

Krivvan, on 31 October 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

Well, SHS are far more effective in Assault mechs.

Not really, particularly if the 'mech is running at least a 250 engine (most assaults are) the DHS conversion basically gives 10 free heat sinks while saving the extra 10 tons/crits that would be required with SHS. SHS never really catch up in terms of efficiency for weight/space, making DHS preferrable in about every situation except maybe ballistic-heavy assaults with very low engine ratings, like the Annihilator - though even then, there isn't anything lost by converting.

Comparatively, XL engines are often a poor choice in assaults since they decrease survivability so much, and endo-steel doesn't catch up to DHS for weight savings even when you get to the 100-tonners - and even then, a 300 engined Atlas can hold the equivalent of 24 heat sinks in the engine alone for the cost of zero crits and two tons, while a conversion to endo steel and 24 single heat sinks would cost twenty-six criticals and nine tons. SHS are pointless after DHS is introduced.

Urza Mechwalker, on 31 October 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

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.

Yeah, so DHS make the PPC that should have been balanced against the other T1 weapons with SHS already work better against a Gauss Rifle, and all the lasers that are limited by heat vs. high-cost, high-crit, low-damage/ton T1 ballistics get a massive boost.

Fixing the PPC vs. Gauss Rifle at the expense of balance for just about every other weapon in the game is like burning down your house to get rid of a flea infestation.

Adrienne Vorton, on 31 October 2012 - 04:13 AM, said:

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

Except they actually DO increase the heat cap. If they didn't, I'd be less concerned. But if you read the Command Chair article:

Quote

First, let’s take a look at a Standard Heat Sink. It’s a pretty basic piece of equipment that weighs 1 ton, occupies 1 critical slot. Each Standard Heat Sink equipped on your Mech cools it by 0.1 heat/sec and increases the maximum heat threshold before you shut down by 1.

A Double Heat Sink also weighs 1 ton, but it occupies 3 critical slots. This means that you’re unable to fit them in a Mech’s head, center torso, or legs. The upside is that each one cools your Mech by 0.2 heat/sec and increases your maximum heat capacity by 2.

So those DHS are also increasing the heat cap before shutdown - effectively making them 4x as efficient as a SHS.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 31 October 2012 - 01:29 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Solis Obscuri, on 31 October 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

So those DHS are also increasing the heat cap before shutdown - effectively making them 4x as efficient as a SHS.

No, It's still only making them twice as effective as SHS.

But I think having them adjust the heat capacity differently (or rather, the same - add the straight number of sinks to the heat cap*) could be an interesting way to reduce their effectiveness, and making it more of a meaningful choice.

For low heat configs, the heat capacity can carry you a long way before you overheat. That makes it more interesting again for light mechs and mechs that use low-heat ballistics and missiles. (Gauss Rifle being the poster child here, but LB-10 X AC and AC/5 and AC/10s aren't that bad in this area either, as are SRMs).


*) Interesting may be something radical even:
Single Heat Sink Capacity: 30 + # Heat Sinks
Double Heat Sink Capacity: 15 + # Heat Sinks.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 October 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[Solis Obscuri]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 11:32 AM, said:

No, It's still only making them twice as effective as SHS.

But I think having them adjust the heat capacity differently (or rather, the same - add the straight number of sinks to the heat cap*) could be an interesting way to reduce their effectiveness, and making it more of a meaningful choice.

For low heat configs, the heat capacity can carry you a long way before you overheat. That makes it more interesting again for light mechs and mechs that use low-heat ballistics and missiles. (Gauss Rifle being the poster child here, but LB-10 X AC and AC/5 and AC/10s aren't that bad in this area either, as are SRMs).


*) Interesting may be something radical even:
Single Heat Sink Capacity: 30 + # Heat Sinks
Double Heat Sink Capacity: 15 + # Heat Sinks.

I agree that separating the heat cap from the cooling rate would be a step in the right direction. What you proposed isn't a bad notion, though I think just creating an absolute cap for thermal shutdown (along the lines of how the heat scale worked in TT) might be just as effective of an option.

Edited by Solis Obscuri, 31 October 2012 - 01:34 PM.

[Stoindrae]

Thanks Mustrum .. that helped a lot!

[Tuoweit]

JewBoy, on 31 October 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

XL engines arent really viable in a laserboat hunchback if youre using dual heatsinks.

That's ok, with DHS and Endo Steel you don't need XL to fit in a 260 engine and 9 MLs.

[MustrumRidcully]

Stoindrae, on 31 October 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Thanks Mustrum .. that helped a lot!

You're welcome.

[TigrisMorte]

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.

unless you're firing is a gauss

Edited by TigridMorte, 02 November 2012 - 02:25 PM.

[Squigles]

Prosperity Park, on 30 October 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

The bug where upgrading your Mech to DHS did not actually convert your Engine heatsinks from singles to doubles has been noted, addressed, and the Nov. 6th patch will bring their cooling rates up closer to 0.2 heat/sec (exact numbers pending). There will also be a second heat fix.

That Command Chair thread has been locked, so we can use this Discussion thread for Discussion.

Firstly, I'd like to congratulate everyone who didn't say that PGI is too obtuse to adress/fix the engine HS or boldly threaten to quit if they left engine HS as they are.

Secondly, I'd like to say that this will be changing gamelay significantly beyond where the first "introduction" of DHS in their current [bugged] state took us. A great benefit will go to Light Mechs for they store most of their HS in the engine, but Assaults might now be adding bigger weapons, too... Also, a big benefit I see for Energy Assaults is the ability to drop the XL engine and use DHS to save weight, instead.

PP, I usually love your posts, but since this topic has now been popped back to the front page....I have to ask. What do you think of all of this now that DHS have been announced to be closer to 1 instead of 2. Still looking forward to the Energy Assaults using DHS's?

[Chemie]

What I do not understand is how it took until now for things to come to a head. I mean, even Brian finally states that if they implemented properly, it would mess up heat and balance....but didn't they think about this before. The whole community was talking about this for months (i.e. DHS would ruin heat balance) I mean, when they tested internally, shouldn't someone have said "Gee, why didn't this break heat balance?" Instead, they rush it out the door and then the community points out the EHS weren't working per cannon.

Now I do not care about cannon but PGI comes across as idiots. Why couldn't they test this before and catch before first implementation? I actually think the "current version" (meaning single in engine and doubles when installed in slots) works. The new implementation is stupid. I mean, 3 crits for 1.4 bonus? There is no point for assaults to use. But also now my assault can not use endo either (current Atlas must use DHS to make room for endo but under new system, for the same heat efficiency, DHS won't fit so endo won't fit). Stupid.