105 replies to this topic

[Rattlehead NZ]

I would of like the option of "Something in between"

1.5 seems to calculate better compared to the current engine shs mistake. Just a smidgen higher than what we have now but makes enough of a difference when you calculate.

[trycksh0t]

Checked both, not because I could, but because I believe there is a 3rd option.

Give engine heatsinks a 1.4 (I'd actually go 1.5), this takes care of the apparently gamebreaking issues occuring from 2.0 engine sinks, but leave any added DHS at 2.

[MagicHamsta]

Making DHS actually double would be extremely overpowered.
Before Open Beta began, me tested out my build on DHS compared with singles and had increased by killing power by ~30-40%. (And me killing power was quite decent to begin with what with a 2+ K/D ratio & high win rate while solo queuing.)

[GunGoBoomBoom]

vifoxe, on 02 November 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

Stop having a discussion! The OP said No Discussion! Stop it!

Discussion bumps the thread and keeps it on the front page.


Silly OP.

[Miken]

Double heatsinks with 1.4 efficiency, make them useless like NARC today

[Krivvan]

Tehtos, on 02 November 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Yes, they are trying to balance the game. Wait, was double unbalanced? We don't really know if it was unbalanced, do we? I sure haven't tested any builds with real double heat sinks. I've only used the broken double heat sinks.

You haven't, but others have.

[The Cheese]

I don't know what you're all moaning about. After installing DHS, I've been able to fit my standard build with an extra two sets of ssrm2s with ammo and still have it be more heat efficient than it was with standard heat sinks. On top of that, the build can also carry more armour.

By all means, make them 2 times as effective as standard. Just don't start crying when people just load up with 4 LPLs and alpha you in the face repeatedly without having to worry about overheating.

[trycksh0t]

The Cheese, on 04 November 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

I don't know what you're all moaning about. After installing DHS, I've been able to fit my standard build with an extra two sets of ssrm2s with ammo and still have it be more heat efficient than it was with standard heat sinks. On top of that, the build can also carry more armour.

By all means, make them 2 times as effective as standard. Just don't start crying when people just load up with 4 LPLs and alpha you in the face repeatedly without having to worry about overheating.

Not a big surprise you could cram extra SSRMs with the currently broken DHS system, SSRMs aren't all that heat intensive. As for 4 LPLs running heat neutral, it'll never happen, no 'Mech could mount enough heatsinks to fully negate 4 LPLs at their advertised RoF. Even with true DHS, it would be difficult for any 'Mech to run multiples of any of the heavy energy weapons at heat neutral, but they'd at least be able to use them relatively effectively.

[Apoc1138]

2.0 DHS' are OP on small mechs, but on assaults and heavies 1.4 DHS' are pointless because you can easily mount more SHS than the effective DHS' and that saved weight doesn't gain you more damage output because adding weapons adds more heat that you can't dissipate

there needs to be a 3rd option, like 1.75 instead of 1.4 or 2

[Asmosis]

Hey, if your going to go with 1.4, just let us mix and match single and double heatsinks. with the 1.4 value small mechs can get higher heat disipation than assult mechs, that aint right

Or better, put them in at 2.0 and fix the cause of the problem because otherwise you will HAVE to refix the problem again when clan tech comes out, much better to fix the real issues during this "beta" when things are still up in the air than in 6-12 months when we start getting clan tech (if thats where it fits on the timeline).

*edit*

just so long as the fix takes into account the eventual arrival of clan DHS so we dont have to reconfigure later.

Edited by Asmosis, 04 November 2012 - 05:10 AM.

[Daycrist Bloodfang]

I think a big issue that concerns me about is 1.4 seems to hurt you in the fact that each double heat sink takes up 3 critical slots. You make it so Double Heats sinks only take 2 critical slots and I'll be ok with 1.4 but if I'm having to use 3 critical slots per double heat sink I want 2.0 because if I can place 3 standard heat sinks per every 1 double heat sink it doesn't make it workwhile

[MustrumRidcully]

Tehtos, on 02 November 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:

Yes, they are trying to balance the game. Wait, was double unbalanced? We don't really know if it was unbalanced, do we? I sure haven't tested any builds with real double heat sinks. I've only used the broken double heat sinks.

They tested it, they claim. So 40 developers had a few matches.

I am not sure how they did test it. Maybe the took a Gaussapult, added Double Heat Sinks and noticed "Huh,this mech doesn't overheat anymore" Imbalanced!

Or did they take an Awesome 8Q, upgrade to DHS and said "Huh, the Awesome doesn'T overheat in 9 seconds anymore, that'S totally OP"?

Or did they take a mech with 2 Medium Lasers and 10 double heat sinks and said "Oh, this mech doesn'T overheat anymore", heat is meaningless, we can't have that! Nerf!

[SilentSooYun]

I can't vote on this since I haven't seen it in game yet, although the maths are worrisome.

I will say I've taken to calling them HAHS, for "Half-Again Heat Sinks" (and because it's a great big joke by the Devs).

[wanderer]

As I've said elsewhere- nerfing DHS down to 1.4 is taking nearly every 3050+ era design and telling you it now only functions with 70% of it's current heat sinks.

For a comparative experience pre-Nov 6th, buy any stock 'Mech. Remove 30% of it's heat sinks. Run it a few rounds and be amazed at how quickly you burn your way up the overheat bar. Because that's what they're planning to do to any design that comes with DHS stock, and by extension anyone who wants to build a 3050-style custom. They're starting us with heat removal that's 70% of tabletop stats in a game where 'Mechs already run hotter than 10-sec-turn rules.

For less wealthy types, play a Trial 'Mech and imagine if it overheated approximately 1/3 faster than they already do. Does this sound like fun? Nope? Welcome to why people are furious about a DHS "fix" like this.

[r4plez]

PGI and thier dumb ideas - this game will fall

[The Cheese]

trycksh0t, on 04 November 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

Not a big surprise you could cram extra SSRMs with the currently broken DHS system, SSRMs aren't all that heat intensive.

My point was that I can get a reasonable advantage out of the current DHS system without it being overpowered. This is a good thing. Also, you appear to have missed the part where my build is more heat efficient than it was with fewer weapons and also have free weight to do with as I want. In my case, I added armour. The advantages of DHS aren't just that you can cram in more firepower.

trycksh0t, on 04 November 2012 - 03:39 AM, said:

As for 4 LPLs running heat neutral, it'll never happen, no 'Mech could mount enough heatsinks to fully negate 4 LPLs at their advertised RoF.

I never mentioned heat neutrality. I'd argue that it's never necessary, and in fact a huge disadvantage in most situations, but that's another argument.

[Gunghoe]

Bubba Wilkins, on 02 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

Enough threads exist now that another discussion thread would serve no purpose. But I'll throw a poll up anyways in the hopes that PGI gets the hint.

Instead of thinking of it like OMG it is double the heat disipation, It is Double the size and takes up 3 slots each so it increases the heat disipation by 40% so Heck yeah win win makes since to me, all they have to do is change the tool tip to double the size and not double the heatdisapation. so we can still call em double heat sinks. You guys think a heat sink twice your size on the cpu will double the effectiveness of the heat sink?. what i think also is that, verrying the loadouts what you can choose and still be effective is important

Edited by Gunghoe, 04 November 2012 - 05:37 PM.

[The Cheese]

Gunghoe, on 04 November 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

Instead of thinking of it like OMG it is double the heat disipation, It is Double the size and takes up 3 slots each so it increases the heat disipation by 40% so Heck yeah win win makes since to me, all they have to do is change the tool tip to double the size and not double the heatdisapation. so we can still call em double heat sinks. You guys think a heat sink twice your size on the cpu will double the effectiveness of the heat sink?.

It's actually triple the crit space at the same weight. Having the word "double" in any part of this component is just plain confusing right now. It's just there because Battletech canon says that "this is what they're called".

[lceman]

Loving the people saying be quiet and wait for the patch. You can do some simple math, and not need to test it to know how it will be after tuesday. Either A: these people have no idea what math is and thus say "wait 'til the patch before you knock it." Or B: Are praying it won't be as bad as it shows to be when you do the math.

[General Taskeen]

lceman, on 04 November 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Loving the people saying be quiet and wait for the patch. You can do some simple math, and not need to test it to know how it will be after tuesday. Either A: these people have no idea what math is and thus say "wait 'til the patch before you knock it." Or B: Are praying it won't be as bad as it shows to be when you do the math.

Indeed. Math has already shown the diminishing return of what happens with the proposed "1.4" change. So really, there is no reason to test a faulty change that results.

Edited by General Taskeen, 04 November 2012 - 06:12 PM.