98 replies to this topic

[WardenWolf]

I run a lot of energy weapons on my mechs, and so had been looking forward to the arrival of double heatsinks. When they got here, I noticed that some of my mechs were better off and some weren't, which it turned out was due to the in-engine heatsinks not having been doubled. PGI said they were looking into it, and now has released this today:

http://mwomercs.com/...31#entry1335931

So the in-engine double heatsinks will now be equal to the added ones, but all DHS will only cool at 1.4x a single heatsink instead of 2x (you know, the definition of 'double'?). This made me want to run some math.

Assuming a 250 engine rating for ease of calculations, as that means 10 in-engine heatsinks both in weight and capacity:

# added DHS / dissipation now / dissipation as of Nov 6 / will new DHS be better?

0 / 10 / 14 / yes
1 / 12 / 15.4 / yes
2 / 14 / 16.8 / yes
3 / 16 / 18.2 / yes
4 / 18 / 19.6 / yes
5 / 20 / 21 / yes
6 / 22 / 22.4 / yes
7 / 24 / 23.8 / no

Any mechs with 7+ added DHS, then, are getting *nerfed* on November 6th. This will directly affect a couple of my designs, so I am quite disappointed. Bryan says they will 'monitor telemetry' (http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1336260), but I'm not sure how that will help give that they may be forcing folks to simply not use DHS for high-heat builds (which is where they should be most helpful).

Further, as part of the same 'fix' they will be increasing heat on some weapons (Pulse lasers in particular). This will be a double-nerf to one of my designs, and to many others as well I'm sure. I had been hoping that DHS would make other weapons more capable vs the Gauss rifle, to quell some of the complaints about it, but this is taking things the wrong direction.

Devs, please take notice and check out how the math works on this!

[Krivvan]

But isn't over 7 DHS already FAR more DHS than most even put on any mechs? It still makes sense to use DHS when you have the critical slots to spare but not the tonnage. Which is the entire point of them. They shouldn't be outright better than single heat sinks.

I mean, single heat sinks were already better than double heat sinks on an Atlas, but people didn't complain about that.

Edited by Krivvan, 02 November 2012 - 10:43 AM.

[WardenWolf]

Krivvan, on 02 November 2012 - 10:42 AM, said:

But isn't over 7 DHS already FAR more DHS than most even put on any mechs? It still makes sense to use DHS when you have the critical slots to spare but not the tonnage. Which is the entire point of them. They shouldn't be outright better than single heat sinks.

I mean, single heat sinks were already better than double heat sinks on an Atlas, but people didn't complain about that.

I run only Atlases, and at least based on TT heat dissipation numbers I was greatly looking forward to DHS. My mechs were all going to be able to switch from XL to standard engines (with the saved tonnage) and end up 10 to 30% more heat efficient. I bought three Atlases with my MCs (from my Founders package) based on the assumption that I would be able to do this.

With DHS the way they are *now*, one of my designs was actually a little less efficient with DHS so I moved it back to an XL engine and singles... but the other was slightly better off with DHS and able to keep a standard engine. That mech has 13 added DHS and 4 Large Pulse Lasers: as of November 6th, it will be substantially less efficient in cooling *and* the weapons are going to generate more heat. Even if I move back to the XL engine and standard heatsinks I ran before the last patch, the weapons will still make more heat. They are effectively killing all of my favorite mech configurations :/

[Blackfire1]

Quote

After fixing the EHS bug, and setting DHS to a cannon value of 2.0, we experienced anticipated result. Heat was no longer a concern, increasing DPS exponentially on certain types of mech loadouts. After testing a variety of standard builds, we settled on 1.4. This value maintains the spirit of both DHS and maintains the integrity of MWO's overall gameplay experience.

Already answered.

[Tarrasque]

WardenWolf, on 02 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

I run only Atlases, and at least based on TT heat dissipation numbers I was greatly looking forward to DHS. My mechs were all going to be able to switch from XL to standard engines (with the saved tonnage) and end up 10 to 30% more heat efficient. I bought three Atlases with my MCs (from my Founders package) based on the assumption that I would be able to do this.

With DHS the way they are *now*, one of my designs was actually a little less efficient with DHS so I moved it back to an XL engine and singles... but the other was slightly better off with DHS and able to keep a standard engine. That mech has 13 added DHS and 4 Large Pulse Lasers: as of November 6th, it will be substantially less efficient in cooling *and* the weapons are going to generate more heat. Even if I move back to the XL engine and standard heatsinks I ran before the last patch, the weapons will still make more heat. They are effectively killing all of my favorite mech configurations :/

While I sympathize, what people neglect to realize is that they've been realizing something was off and now theyre putting it back the way it should have been in the first place, a la the engine nerf.

[Noth]

I personally think 1.5 would be a good point.

at 1.5, it would be a buff up until you added in 10 DHS.

[zzSleeper]

The real balance issue is that small mechs are getting increased heat dissipation from just the engine 10, right? Why not then also reduce the crit requirement? - Since placing extra heat-sinks will still be a barrier for smaller mechs.

1.4 effectiveness with only 2 crits used roughly maintains the same effectiveness per crit ratio as true double heatsinks and could be a reasonable balance compromise.

[Acehilator]

I wonder what types of nechbuilds would see an exponential increase in DPS. With tripled heat compared to TT you still cannot boat energy weapons with 2.0 DHS, so...

[Bubba Wilkins]

Blackfire1, on 02 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Already answered.

Yes, we are all aware of that opinion. We aren't buying it.

Just like we didn't buy it the first time they implemented DHS.
Just like we didn't accept that the build was ready for OB the first time.

Edited by Bubba Wilkins, 02 November 2012 - 10:59 AM.

[WardenWolf]

zzSleeper, on 02 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

The real balance issue is that small mechs are getting increased heat dissipation from just the engine 10, right? Why not then also reduce the crit requirement? - Since placing extra heat-sinks will still be a barrier for smaller mechs.

1.4 effectiveness with only 2 crits used roughly maintains the same effectiveness per crit ratio as true double heatsinks and could be a reasonable balance compromise.

This seems like a reasonable thing to me, or at least something that should be looked into by the Devs.

[aspect]

Yep, just built a DHS / medium pulse laser hunchback LAST NIGHT. 8 extra dhs. Spent all of my cbills and was so eager to finish it that I actually bought a mech with MC and sold it to put me over the top.

Sure am happy about the change. Lesson learned, I guess...

[RG Notch]

Bubba Wilkins, on 02 November 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Yes, we are all aware of that opinion. We aren't buying it.

Just like we didn't buy it the first time they implemented DHS.
Just like we didn't accept that the build was ready for OB the first time.

Exactly, some folks don't want to bother with heat management.

[WardenWolf]

aspect, on 02 November 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Yep, just built a DHS / medium pulse laser hunchback LAST NIGHT. 8 extra dhs. Spent all of my cbills and was so eager to finish it that I actually bought a mech with MC and sold it to put me over the top.

Sure am happy about the change. Lesson learned, I guess...

I feel your pain. If they insist on keeping the announced values for DHS, I would at least like to see them offer an option for folks who have spend MCs and C-bills since the Open Beta wipe to be able to be 'refunded' for them (have the amounts of each reset and items purchased removed).

[zhajin]

Acehilator, on 02 November 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

I wonder what types of nechbuilds would see an exponential increase in DPS. With tripled heat compared to TT you still cannot boat energy weapons with 2.0 DHS, so...

im going to go with srm boats, and light laser boats... think cat with 6xsrm6 and jenners/cicada with 6xmpl... the large energy builds, that actualy needed the dhs, are getting screwed...

Edited by zhajin, 02 November 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Dakkath]

WardenWolf, on 02 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

They are effectively killing all of my favorite mech configurations :/

Fire less often.

[WardenWolf]

RG Notch, on 02 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Exactly, some folks don't want to bother with heat management.

I have 13 tons and 30 crits assigned to help manage my heat, along with me watching my heat meter carefully, and yet they are going to make my design cool less than it does now and also generate more heat than it does now. I want very much to manage my heat - I just need the tools to be able to do so, and they are prying them from my fingers :/

[Karyudo ds]

WardenWolf, on 02 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

They are effectively killing all of my favorite mech configurations :/

By giving you a reason to use Singles? In Battletech DHS always seemed the obvious choice with no downsides at all aside from taking a little more space. I think here they want Ferr/Endo/DHS to all be "upgrades" but still have their "standard" equivalents as useful. If DHS running at 2.0 in their system (which I'm not looking at the code of right now) eliminates heat as a concern then would anyone be stupid enough to take Singles aside from the people in trial mech variants that have them?

For the space they take up I wouldn't have thought you'd be able to load many weapons and carry +7 of them anyway.

[Tennex]

not only are they NOT buffing PPCs, they are nerfing other lasers and letting Gauss as it is?

Edited by Tennex, 02 November 2012 - 11:13 AM.

[Noth]

Karyudo ds, on 02 November 2012 - 11:11 AM, said:

By giving you a reason to use Singles? In Battletech DHS always seemed the obvious choice with no downsides at all aside from taking a little more space. I think here they want Ferr/Endo/DHS to all be "upgrades" but still have their "standard" equivalents as useful. If DHS running at 2.0 in their system (which I'm not looking at the code of right now) eliminates heat as a concern then would anyone be stupid enough to take Singles aside from the people in trial mech variants that have them?

For the space they take up I wouldn't have thought you'd be able to load many weapons and carry +7 of them anyway.

They better nerf Endo and FF as those are direct upgrades and can make a big difference in builds. Why should dhs be stuck at what is essentially a side grade instead of an upgrade. 2.0 is too much, but 1.4 is just too low.

[WardenWolf]

Tarrasque, on 02 November 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

While I sympathize, what people neglect to realize is that they've been realizing something was off and now theyre putting it back the way it should have been in the first place, a la the engine nerf.

What was 'off', and what people noticed that caused players to bring DHS to the Devs attention, was that cooling was *lower* than it should be. And their response? For some people, *slightly* improve cooling - and for others, make cooling worse. Oh, and while they are at it, for some people also make their weapons generate more heat. I sort of wish we'd all been quiet and the DHS had just stayed the way they are now!