84 replies to this topic

[Calmon]

Blackfire1, on 31 October 2012 - 07:14 AM, said:

I'm sorry but no. There are builds that still use the SHS effectively. There are builds you have tons of Weight and no room for DHS. Thats just how it is.

I doubt it. Just consider MWO filled bigger engines with even more free places for DHS. I can't see any mech which want the SHS variant. Keep in mind you need to add 10 tons/10 critical slots of SHS just to equalize DHS engine. Now you start to add more SHS to get your small advantage. BUT MWO alternative is: just take a bigger engine for the tons you would invest for the additional SHS. Get more DHS in this engine and your'e better, saved the critical slots (worth nearly Endo Steels), even faster/more mobile mech.

Edited by Calmon, 31 October 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Double Heat Sinsk do not make heat management go away. Even Quadrupling Heat Dissipation rates will not do that.

Why? Quite simple - the best possible build is not necessarily a build that can never overheat. The best possible build is just a build that gets not "too hot".

If you need to deal x points of damage to an enemy mech to destroy it, you will need a certain amount of time t to do this with any weapon loadout you have. Your goal is not overheat within this time t, so you can be sure you can kill your enemy (also including a reasonable safety margin for misses and all that).

If you are really going to min/max your mech, you want that extra damage in the time you need, because if you don't and the enemy does, he will kill you before he shut downs.


The problem with the current heat values is that it totally imbalances the weapons, because low heat weapons can utilize their full rate o fire and thus much cheaper increase their damage output (and reach a high total damage output for it) then high heat weapons. This is a fundamental imbalance.

The current heat mechanics do not make heat neutrality an impossibility at all. They just require you to equip something like 4 Medium Lasers and 40 heat sinks to reach it. And then you have a DPS of about 5. Which you can exceed with 2 Gauss Rifles and 10 tons of ammo and 5 heat sinks. 2 x Gauss Rifle DPS: 7.5; 4 Medium Laser DPS: 5. 2 Gauss Rifle + 10 ammo + 5 heat sinks = 45 tons. 4 Medium Laser + 40 heat sinks = 44 tons.
ML efficiency: 0.11 DPS per ton. Gauss efficiency: 0.166 DPS per ton. With a higher range and a better alpha strike, the Gauss is vastly superior. The fault are the imbalanced weapon heat values, that are simply not working for a game with the rate of fires the system has.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 31 October 2012 - 07:22 AM.

[BFalcon]

Calmon, on 31 October 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

I doubt it. Just consider MWO filled bigger engines with even more free places for DHS. I can't see any mech which want the SHS variant. Keep in mind you need to add 10 tons of SHS just to equalize DHS engine. Now you start to add more SHS to get your small advantage. BUT MWO alternative is: just take a bigger engine. Get more DHS in this engine and your'e better!

Agreed - we're saying if they didn't...

Assaults are notorious for running out of slots and often can't even spare the slots for FF or Endo... so the single HS are sometimes better IF the engine HS aren't also doubled. Just by doubling the engine HS, you're making this argument void.

Bluten: You're assuming you have enough slots to use Endo and FF - take note of this... and only a fool puts non-Gauss ammo in their legs... especially when falling damage is fixed.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

Hey guys double heat sinks are new technology in the MWO universe. go back to using your rotary phone for a while and then come back and explain to me all the ways it better than a tone phone or cell phone.

Heat sinks are the same way, there is no circumstance where using single heat sinks is better than double. The only benefit singles provide is reduced repair bill. Yes even if you have tons of weight availalbe but not many critical, doubling the heat sinks in your engine is more efficient that placing single heat sinks in your critical slots.

Sorry, sometimes new technology is just better than the old stuff.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

I love when people have NO idea what they're talking about.

well done OP, well done.

[BFalcon]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Double Heat Sinsk do not make heat management go away. Even Quadrupling Heat Dissipation rates will not do that.

Why? Quite simple - the best possible build is not necessarily a build that can never overheat. The best possible build is just a build that gets not "too hot".

If you need to deal x points of damage to an enemy mech to destroy it, you will need a certain amount of time t to do this with any weapon loadout you have. Your goal is not overheat within this time t, so you can be sure you can kill your enemy (also including a reasonable safety margin for misses and all that).

If you are really going to min/max your mech, you want that extra damage in the time you need, because if you don't and the enemy does, he will kill you before he shut downs.


The problem with the current heat values is that it totally imbalances the weapons, because low heat weapons can utilize their full rate o fire and thus much cheaper increase their damage output (and reach a high total damage output for it) then high heat weapons. This is a fundamental imbalance.

The current heat mechanics do not make heat neutrality an impossibility at all. They just require you to equip something like 4 Medium Lasers and 40 heat sinks to reach it. And then you have a DPS of about 5. Which you can exceed with 2 Gauss Rifles and 10 tons of ammo and 5 heat sinks. 2 x Gauss Rifle DPS: 7.5; 4 Medium Laser DPS: 5. 2 Gauss Rifle + 10 ammo + 5 heat sinks = 45 tons. 4 Medium Laser + 40 heat sinks = 44 tons.
ML efficiency: 0.11 DPS per ton. Gauss efficiency: 0.166 DPS per ton. With a higher range and a better alpha strike, the Gauss is vastly superior. The fault are the imbalanced weapon heat values, that are simply not working for a game with the rate of fires the system has.

I feel that the main problem is the rate of fire. If they had it so that each weapon did TT amounts of damage PER 10 SECONDS and generated the same amount of heat, the doubling of heatsinks wouldn't cause any problems that weren't present in the TT game, tbh (with some variation for the damage spread for lasers, LRMs and LBX, for example). If this is the case, then the doubled heat sinks wouldn't increase the damage per second for any weapon system, except those which used to run hot, which are those the heatsinks are supposed to help.

The main problems have come where they increased the rate of fire, without decreasing the damage per second and then relied on the heat to balance things - an issue that some saw coming a while back, especially with Clan heat values being what they are and their standard use of "all the trimmings" (ie DHS, FF and ES).

Agent 0 Fortune, on 31 October 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Hey guys double heat sinks are new technology in the MWO universe. go back to using your rotary phone for a while and then come back and explain to me all the ways it better than a tone phone or cell phone.

Heat sinks are the same way, there is no circumstance where using single heat sinks is better than double. The only benefit singles provide is reduced repair bill. Yes even if you have tons of weight availalbe but not many critical, doubling the heat sinks in your engine is more efficient that placing single heat sinks in your critical slots.

Sorry, sometimes new technology is just better than the old stuff.

I believe the doubled heatsinks in the engine is the point we're agreed on - it's just that there's some doubt as to whether or not PGI will implement it, from the wording of the announcement. We're discussing the "if they don't" scenario atm.

[Mister Blastman]

Moogles, on 31 October 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

this change will effectively negate heat management, as well as void Single Heat Sinks entirely. There will be literally no reason not to upgrad

That was the point of them in Battletech. Also, to help the IS have a chance against superior clan technology. DHS in the engine open up large amounts of flexibility in mechs that we need to compete against superior tech.

Look at it this way--you'll still have to manage heat while having more firepower to play with. Some people might just max out their heatsinks for pew but well, they'll get killed by the higher alpha players who still have heat balancing to worry about.

It won't make the game worse. It will make it richer and more diverse.

[Bigbaddaboom]

Moogles, on 31 October 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

The game is basically done for and busted.

No longer will we have a skill based, tactical shooter. You won't even need to think with 20 heat sinks defaulted in your engine. People are saying "NON-TABLETOP VALUES SOLVE THIS", but they really don't. I've been in the beta for over four months now, and I can safely say that this change will effectively negate heat management, as well as void Single Heat Sinks entirely. There will be literally no reason not to upgrade; which is really sad in a game about customization. Engine DHS makes SHS obsolete in every way, removing that aspect of customization. Also, you think LRMs are powerful now? Wait until they have FOUR LRM15s with 10 tons of ammo. You're going to be REALLY upset.

You think it's difficult to fight a Jenner now? A Hunchback 4P with eight medium lasers seems like a hassle now? After this patch is implemented, those designs are going to be ridiculously strong. You can argue what ever point you want. The fact of the matter is the game is getting more and more casual due to these silly changes that are balance-breaking nightmares. Enjoy it, because I think I'm done.

WHERE the hell do you you come up with " You won't even need to think with 20 heat sinks defaulted in your engine"

[Angel of Annihilation]

MustrumRidcully, on 31 October 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Double Heat Sinsk do not make heat management go away. Even Quadrupling Heat Dissipation rates will not do that.

Why? Quite simple - the best possible build is not necessarily a build that can never overheat. The best possible build is just a build that gets not "too hot".

If you need to deal x points of damage to an enemy mech to destroy it, you will need a certain amount of time t to do this with any weapon loadout you have. Your goal is not overheat within this time t, so you can be sure you can kill your enemy (also including a reasonable safety margin for misses and all that).

If you are really going to min/max your mech, you want that extra damage in the time you need, because if you don't and the enemy does, he will kill you before he shut downs.


The problem with the current heat values is that it totally imbalances the weapons, because low heat weapons can utilize their full rate o fire and thus much cheaper increase their damage output (and reach a high total damage output for it) then high heat weapons. This is a fundamental imbalance.

The current heat mechanics do not make heat neutrality an impossibility at all. They just require you to equip something like 4 Medium Lasers and 40 heat sinks to reach it. And then you have a DPS of about 5. Which you can exceed with 2 Gauss Rifles and 10 tons of ammo and 5 heat sinks. 2 x Gauss Rifle DPS: 7.5; 4 Medium Laser DPS: 5. 2 Gauss Rifle + 10 ammo + 5 heat sinks = 45 tons. 4 Medium Laser + 40 heat sinks = 44 tons.
ML efficiency: 0.11 DPS per ton. Gauss efficiency: 0.166 DPS per ton. With a higher range and a better alpha strike, the Gauss is vastly superior. The fault are the imbalanced weapon heat values, that are simply not working for a game with the rate of fires the system has.

This isn't even completely true or rather I should say that the margins for Overheating might be alot slimmer. Alot of people will build for having only a portion of their firepower sustainable with the rest being reserved for 2-3 Alpha Strikes when extreme burst damage it needed. For example you might build to just run your ER PPCs cool and leave the 3 medium lasers and 2 SRM6s only for emergencies.

However your spot on that heat managment will not go away.

Your also spot on in regards to how the current heat imbalances weapons. What fixing heat does it actually allow weapons like PPCs and Large Lasers to be fully competitive against Gauss Rifles and other low heat or low weight weapons which in turn means more variety to the builds.

Also fixing heat does really increase DPS because that DPS already exists in builds using the Gauss or other low heat weapons. The difference is that more mechs and more build will actually reach the same DPSes which again means more diversity to the game.

This is one of the reasons I just don't understand why so many people are against fixing the heat issues to balance the game. I mean I can understand a few people trying to protect their Gaussapults or other low heat builds but for the vast majority, fixing heat just opens up the window to many more options, many of which might be even more enjoyable that what can be built currently. It just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to limit options.

[Kraven Kor]

BFalcon, on 31 October 2012 - 07:10 AM, said:

Actually, not entirely true - you can fit singles in places where doubles wouldn't fit, so might end up with more heatsinks than you'd otherwise end up with, unless the engine 'sinks are doubled, in which case it's a clear advantage. You see this more on the larger mechs, I think.

Larger mechs that need 30 to 40 SHS are about the only place you will still see SHS used. You just can't get to more than 20 DHS with any actual weapons. Even with a 400XL, leaving 9 slots in each torso, you could only fit at most about 10 DHS and that is if you only use 3 to 6 crits for weapons between arms and torso. With a typical assault energy loadout - say, 4 Large Lasers, you can only get may 6 or 8 DHS outside engine, where you could easily get to 40 or so SHS if you had tonnage to spare.

The cases where SHS are "better" are incredibly rare; but they are there.

BFalcon, on 31 October 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Agreed - we're saying if they didn't...

Assaults are notorious for running out of slots and often can't even spare the slots for FF or Endo... so the single HS are sometimes better IF the engine HS aren't also doubled. Just by doubling the engine HS, you're making this argument void.

Bluten: You're assuming you have enough slots to use Endo and FF - take note of this... and only a fool puts non-Gauss ammo in their legs... especially when falling damage is fixed.

If you need more than 20 SHS, and are low on crit slots, then SHS might work better. Again, the builds where SHS are better are rare.

Thontor, on 31 October 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

The heat cap is raised 2x number of heat sinks... Read the DHS post in the Developer/Command Chair forum.

I wouldn't be against increasing SHS "health" either... In fact I think component "health" would be an interesting way to balance all items.

Yup.

Make AC/20 durable, 30+ hit points, while Gauss is fragile, 10 hit points. ER Large Laser - 10 HP; Large Laser? 20 HP. SHS - 20 HP. DHS? 10 HP.

It's a thought.

[Yokaiko]

Bigbaddaboom, on 31 October 2012 - 07:39 AM, said:

WHERE the hell do you you come up with " You won't even need to think with 20 heat sinks defaulted in your engine"

I have a number of builds that would explode after two cycles with only 20HS.

Hell I still run Mlas -4Ps from time to time. Its hot as hell and spends a lot of time in shutdown, but its gets the job done.

[Calmon]

Agent 0 Fortune, on 31 October 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Hey guys double heat sinks are new technology in the MWO universe. go back to using your rotary phone for a while and then come back and explain to me all the ways it better than a tone phone or cell phone.

Heat sinks are the same way, there is no circumstance where using single heat sinks is better than double. The only benefit singles provide is reduced repair bill. Yes even if you have tons of weight availalbe but not many critical, doubling the heat sinks in your engine is more efficient that placing single heat sinks in your critical slots.

Sorry, sometimes new technology is just better than the old stuff.

And? Taking SHS out is the solution because we life in times of DHS? Life with the fact of an increasing gap between Trial and constructive mechs?

Tabletop use Battlepoints to balance. Something similar is needed here. Repair costs isn't the thing which matters.

Edited by Calmon, 31 October 2012 - 07:46 AM.

[BFalcon]

big: I dunno either... I've had a few guys say to me that they want 2.0 heat efficiency on their mechs, but to me, that figure needs to be around 1.4 or 1.5 to be ideal - enough to sustain fire for a while, but any more heatsinks than that and you're leaving off weaponry tonnage that is being wasted as heat disposal. After all, you don't fire your weapons 100% of the time, there's often periods where you're repositioning where your heatsinks can bring you down to 0 heat, so any more than 1.5 is a waste most of the time. 1.2 is more likely to be the more efficient, but might suffer from heating problems on maps like Caustic.

[Yokaiko]

BFalcon, on 31 October 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

big: I dunno either... I've had a few guys say to me that they want 2.0 heat efficiency on their mechs, but to me, that figure needs to be around 1.4 or 1.5 to be ideal - enough to sustain fire for a while, but any more heatsinks than that and you're leaving off weaponry tonnage that is being wasted as heat disposal. After all, you don't fire your weapons 100% of the time, there's often periods where you're repositioning where your heatsinks can bring you down to 0 heat, so any more than 1.5 is a waste most of the time. 1.2 is more likely to be the more efficient, but might suffer from heating problems on maps like Caustic.

To be fair, unless you are running a K2 there is no such thing as wasted heat disposal.

[Tickdoff Tank]

Thontor, on 31 October 2012 - 06:22 AM, said:

The heat cap is raised 2x number of heat sinks... Read the DHS post in the Developer/Command Chair forum.

I wouldn't be against increasing SHS "health" either... In fact I think component "health" would be an interesting way to balance all items.

I agree with the HP on items. Something along the lines of 5hp+1 per slot of weapon. AC2 would be 6 hp, AC10 would have 13hp and AC20 would be 15hp. (edit, see below) You could then adjust certain weapons based on how "fragile" they are supposed to be, the gauss could lose a few HP and the AC20 could gain a couple.

Just an idea, I am sure that a lot of playing with the numbers would be needed.

Edit: I messed up. Was looking at tonnage and not space for the weapon.

So, make it 5hp +2HP per slot of weapon.

AC2 1 space, 7hp
AC10 7 spaces, 19hp
AC20 10 spaces, 25 hp
and so on.

The adjust based on the fragility of the weapon.

Edited by Tickdoff Tank, 31 October 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Culler]

I'd like to point out that firing 6 medium lasers requires 60 heat sinks to remain heat neutral. The most DHS you can have realistically is 22, and then you've got almost no space for anything else and the heaviest engine in the game. More often even on energy builds you're only going to see 15-20 and these builds will still generate a lot of excess heat. DHS will help manage heat and will make more builds viable but it won't be any kind of instant fix.

[Thuzel]

Calmon, on 31 October 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

I doubt it. Just consider MWO filled bigger engines with even more free places for DHS. I can't see any mech which want the SHS variant. Keep in mind you need to add 10 tons/10 critical slots of SHS just to equalize DHS engine. Now you start to add more SHS to get your small advantage. BUT MWO alternative is: just take a bigger engine for the tons you would invest for the additional SHS. Get more DHS in this engine and your'e better, saved the critical slots (worth nearly Endo Steels), even faster/more mobile mech.

It does happen. I've run into several scenarios in which SHS are superior to DHS due to the crit space requirements. That also includes upgrading engines to accomodate more heatsinks without crit requirements.

The trick, and the drawback, to DHS's is that they don't just require 3 crits, they require 3 contiguous crits. There are a lot of heavier builds that end up with 1 or 2 crits free in the torsos and arms that leave them unable to add additional DHS even though the mech is still underweight. Effectively, this places a barrier for DHS equipped mechs to around 18 to 20 total heatsinks. Without the engine heatsinks being doubled, that means that any mech that uses DHS will have a maximum heat dissipation equivalent to only around 30 SHS. At that point, SHS equipped mechs can actually be more heat effective because all of those 1 or 2 free crit locations can be used to equip a SHS.

I love optimizing mech builds (it's actually more than playing the game for me), so I've modeled this out on several variants. It depends on a combination of weight and weapon hardpoints, but it is absolutely possible to have a mech that runs better with SHS than DHS.

[wanderer]

Moogles, on 31 October 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

The game is basically done for and busted.

No longer will we have a skill based, tactical shooter. You won't even need to think with 20 heat sinks defaulted in your engine.

You know, I heard these same arguments about 20 or so years ago when they put DHS into wide use in tabletop play?

The impact here will actually be less than it was in TT- though certainly noticeable. DHS are the last "baseline" item for 3049+ era play to go in, and were the most critical. With them in, we're at the ground level for what all the fancy tech we see in Clan War-era designs need- where pulse, ER, and all kinds of higher-heat stuff gets fed into the line in large numbers. SHS has been the "slow dance" warmup for MWO, DHS is the "full speed" version. Fortunately, heat builds faster in MWO, so DHS don't produce heat-neutral designs- they just give you an extra salvo or two on older layouts before that shutdown warning blares. We WILL be able to fire more. We still won't be firing constantly, save on heat-miserly designs we've upgraded- and people will ratchet up designs to whatever notch we can manage with the higher heat tolerances.

Remember, DHS give you a base 2 heat per second removal, which goes up to about a best-case 5.2 HPS or so assuming you literally stuff every available spot with DHS on a 350 engine rating- and devour crit spaces left and right doing it. Hardpoints also mean that many 'Mechs lose spots for DHS as well, meaning they actually won't be able to maximize their use, and of course under-250 engine 'Mechs have fewer spots to add them too.

The end is most definitely NOT near.

[Calmon]

The points is: if we have something in without downsite there is no reason to keep the outdated variant. It creates even massive problems to keep because new players trying out the game already have the massive disadvantage of playing Trials. If we now have more or less bad built Trials with SHS and highly modified once with even DHS the gap increase more and more.

When they start switching trials to DHS why do we need SHS at all?

Either we want only one way (DHS) or we find a way to make both worth using (battlepoint system).

Edited by Calmon, 31 October 2012 - 08:01 AM.

[Calmon]

Thuzel, on 31 October 2012 - 07:56 AM, said:

It does happen. I've run into several scenarios in which SHS are superior to DHS due to the crit space requirements. That also includes upgrading engines to accomodate more heatsinks without crit requirements.

The trick, and the drawback, to DHS's is that they don't just require 3 crits, they require 3 contiguous crits. There are a lot of heavier builds that end up with 1 or 2 crits free in the torsos and arms that leave them unable to add additional DHS even though the mech is still underweight. Effectively, this places a barrier for DHS equipped mechs to around 18 to 20 total heatsinks. Without the engine heatsinks being doubled, that means that any mech that uses DHS will have a maximum heat dissipation equivalent to only around 30 SHS. At that point, SHS equipped mechs can actually be more heat effective because all of those 1 or 2 free crit locations can be used to equip a SHS.

I love optimizing mech builds (it's actually more than playing the game for me), so I've modeled this out on several variants. It depends on a combination of weight and weapon hardpoints, but it is absolutely possible to have a mech that runs better with SHS than DHS.

Show me a build please. If you just run SHS because you would otherwise have 1-2 DHS which MAY run into problem with crits its nothing to consider. The advantages of the DHS build will so much better than just this.

Edited by Calmon, 31 October 2012 - 08:04 AM.