310 replies to this topic

[DivideByZer0]

I am running a Catapault ( F ) with the following equipment:
Std 260 engine
Endo steel Chassis
2x LPL
2x SPL
2x SRM 4
1x AMS

1 ton SRM ammo
1 ton AMS
7x DHS
0.5 Tons/ extra armor

Without that 7th heatsink (exchanged for extra SRM), this mech is difficult to heat manage with the dual LPL.

Edited by DivideByZer0, 03 November 2012 - 06:09 PM.

[Bubba Wilkins]

Onyx Rain, on 03 November 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

That would at least be better then the current broken system, better then the fix which is still just as broken of a system, and not as OP as true dhs in the engines and on the mech MIGHT be. I could live with that system.

Unacceptable as it favors small mech builds with ample crit space while crippling large mech builds which rely on engine HS as the bulk of the cooling. Anything less than 2 does not benefit everyone across the board.

Edited by Bubba Wilkins, 03 November 2012 - 06:10 PM.

[lceman]

Bubba Wilkins, on 03 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Unacceptable as it favors small mech builds with ample crit space while crippling large mech builds which rely on engine HS as the bulk of the cooling. Anything less than 2 does not benefit everyone across the board.

How does it not benefit anyone with less than two? If your engine HS's are doing 1.6-1.7 instead of 1 each... How is that not beneficial? I fail to see the rationale in that statement.

Also, mechs with more crit slots available, but they have to worry more about weight should benefit more from it than an atlas that worries about crit space rather than weight.

Edited by lceman, 03 November 2012 - 06:20 PM.

[Deedsie]

Quote

How does it not benefit anyone with less than two?

He said "everyone" not "anyone".

And my Awesome gets absolutely no benefit as my current 20(28) will STILL be 20(28).

Edited by Deedsie, 03 November 2012 - 06:27 PM.

[lceman]

Deedsie, on 03 November 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

He said "everyone" not "anyone".

And my Awesome gets absolutely no benefit as my current 20(28) will STILL be 20(28).

Nice troll post lol. Same meaning in the sentence. But again, bravo on the troll post.

[Bubba Wilkins]

lceman, on 03 November 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

How does it not benefit anyone with less than two? If your engine HS's are doing 1.6-1.7 instead of 1 each... How is that not beneficial? I fail to see the rationale in that statement.

Also, mechs with more crit slots available, but they have to worry more about weight should benefit more from it than an atlas that worries about crit space rather than weight.

Because at 1.6-1.7 you can downsize an engine to free up tonnage and fit more SHS than you can an DS configuration. It's not until 2 that you can rely on DHS to make up the loss of the 4 knee locations and surpass a SHS build.

Edited by Bubba Wilkins, 03 November 2012 - 06:29 PM.

[Pugnacious Stoat]

This might be a silly question, but do we actually have confirmation from the developers that the 1.4 multiplier applies to all double heat sinks, and not just the engine heat sinks? People seem to be pointing to this post:

Quote

Double Heat Sinks (DHS)

• Fixed a bug where DHS where Engine Heat Sinks were not be converted to DHS.
  
• Single Heat Sink = 1.0
  
• Double Heat Sink = 1.4

After fixing the EHS bug, and setting DHS to a canon value of 2.0, we experienced anticipated results. 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.

PGI will monitor DHS' closely and tune this number up or down depending on the telemetry data received from production servers.

The context provided by the first bullet point seems to suggest that Bryan Ekman is only talking about engine heat sinks here. Also, why would PGI make double heat sinks weaker overall in response to complaints that they aren't working as well as they should be? It would be great if someone could link to a post in which a developer confirms explicitly that 0.14 heat dissipation applies to all double heat sinks. If no such post exists, it seems like we might be getting upset over nothing.

[Deedsie]

Quote

Nice troll post lol. Same meaning in the sentence. But again, bravo on the troll post.

It was a serious post. There are different meanings to "everyone" and "anyone".

Quote

The context provided by the first bullet point seems to suggest that Bryan Ekman is only talking about engine heat sinks here. Also, why would PGI make double heat sinks weaker overall in response to complaints that they aren't working as well as they should be? It would be great if someone could link to a post in which a developer confirms explicitly that 0.14 heat dissipation applies to all double heat sinks. If no such post exists, it seems like we might be getting upset over nothing.

I would sure hope you are correct on this. I could stop the complaints if the 1.4 is just for the engine.

Edited by Deedsie, 03 November 2012 - 06:35 PM.

[lceman]

Bubba Wilkins, on 03 November 2012 - 06:28 PM, said:

Because at 1.6-1.7 you can downsize an engine to free up tonnage and fit more SHS than you can an DS configuration. It's not until 2 that you can rely on DHS to make up the loss of the 4 knee locations and surpass a SHS build.

And balance is achieved. You don't want to make an upgrade ALWAYS an upgrade, hence making no one use SHS's. In order for you to get slightly more heat efficiency in that situation, you would lose some speed. This is a good balance of "is this an upgrade or not based on the fact that I will lose some speed, or less survivability by upgrading to an XL?"

Deedsie, on 03 November 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

It was a serious post. There are different meanings to "everyone" and "anyone".

In this sentence, he states that "it would be a downgrade to everyone with less than 2 slotted." In my retort, it was meant as "how could this system be a downgrade to ANYONE vs what they are proposing."

Edited by lceman, 03 November 2012 - 06:41 PM.

[Bubba Wilkins]

lceman, on 03 November 2012 - 06:39 PM, said:

And balance is achieved. You don't want to make an upgrade ALWAYS an upgrade, hence making no one use SHS's. In order for you to get slightly more heat efficiency in that situation, you would lose some speed. This is a good balance of "is this an upgrade or not based on the fact that I will lose some speed, or less survivability by upgrading to an XL?"




In this sentence, he states that "it would be a downgrade to everyone with less than 2 slotted." In my retort, it was meant as "how could this system be a downgrade to ANYONE vs what they are proposing."

A value of 2 is also the only way to allow large energy weapons to actually be utilized in Assualt builds rather than running a Heavy or Medium mech load out in an Assault Chassis. The expense and difficulty of configuring a DHS build is the trade off.

[Skipper Chibbs]

Current build:

Raven-3L
XL 210
Endo
6 x DHS
1 x ER Large Laser
1 x Medium Pluse Laser
1 x Small Laser
2 x SSRM 2 (1T ammo shared)
(in no way would this build be possibly with SHS's)

Current equivalent SHS with bugged EHS = 20
Under the propsed changes = 19.6

With the increase in heat to pulse and small lasers, this will likely require a reduction of the ER Large Laser down to a standard model, reducing my capacity to 'reach out and touch someone'. Either this or a downgrade to the engine to support two additional DHS's. The overall impact is negative to my prefered Raven build.

I can certainly see the wisdom in starting low (1.4) to manage expections. I can also see an increase to 1.5 - 1.6 in very short order... Keep at it guys.

Edited by Skipper Chibbs, 03 November 2012 - 06:47 PM.

[Deedsie]

Quote

In this sentence, he states that "it would be a downgrade to everyone with less than 2 slotted." In my retort, it was meant as "how could this system be a downgrade to ANYONE vs what they are proposing."

IF it applies to ALL double heat sinks installed, some current builds that do rely on the full double effect on external heat sinks will have a little less dissipation than before, made worse by pulse lasers going up in heat generation.

The two slotted heat sinks currently just act as single, and some engines aren't big enough for those and the extra two are external, and work as full doubles.

Hopefully, as mentioned above by Stoat, what Bryan was trying to say for the 1.4 heat sinks was specifically for the engine. If such is the case, that will still leave all the external ones the full double. And if such is the case, some of the complaining can be toned down a bit, though I still think it's too low. I'd say no less than 1.5 for the engine. There's no excuse to reduce the external ones.

Edited by Deedsie, 03 November 2012 - 06:53 PM.

[lceman]

Deedsie, on 03 November 2012 - 06:52 PM, said:

IF it applies to ALL double heat sinks installed, some current builds that do rely on the full double effect on external heat sinks will have a little less dissipation than before, made worse by pulse lasers going up in heat generation.

The two slotted heat sinks currently just act as single, and some engines aren't big enough for those and the extra two are external, and work as full doubles.

Hopefully, as mentioned above by Stoat, what Bryan was trying to say for the 1.4 heat sinks was specifically for the engine. If such is the case, that will still leave all the external ones the full double. And if such is the case, some of the complaining can be toned down a bit, though I still think it's too low. I'd say no less than 1.5 for the engine. There's no excuse to reduce the external ones.

I believe you captured what I was trying to say, only I was advocating the engine ones to be 1.6-1.7 rather than 1.4-1.5.

And what Bryan was trying to say was make the engine ones 2.0 and make the other slotted ones 1.4. My proposition is backwards from what he said in his post--Engine ones 1.6-1.7, and slotted ones 2.0. This helps with the balancing of mainly things like gauss cats. A gauss cat currently can run 2 medium lasers and be golden. If you double the engine ones rather than the slotted ones, they can run 4 medium lasers and be golden. A 50 damage alpha with pin-point damage is nuts. Also, I don't know if/how it would work with Bryan's proposition, but imagine a gauss cat with 2 gauss rifles and 2 large lasers. Holy daing!

Edited by lceman, 03 November 2012 - 07:14 PM.

[Deedsie]

Quote

I believe you captured what I was trying to say, only I was advocating the engine ones to be 1.6-1.7 rather than 1.4-1.5.

If that is the case, we are in agreement.

[bollemrk]

lceman, on 03 November 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

So I posted in this thread before about my 5 Small 4 Med hunchie and how I was going to be losing HE anyway you looked at it before. THEN I was told they were upping the heat on smalls? Lol? Even with 9 small's (which is a pretty gimped laze hunchie) that crap is gonna be so hot its unreal. Lol at 1.4 being the "fix."

Here is an idea... And a pretty well thought out one (I believe)

Make the engine HS's 1.4-1.7
Make the slotted HS's 2.0.
This way, you wont see gauss cats with 4 mediums able to fire those lasers like crazy, yet every single double HS you slot is going to be better and better. Meaning, the more DHS's you slot, the more helpful the upgrade will be. Also, it still gives the extra in the engine to make all mechs get *some/most* of the benefit they are supposed to get by upgrading. And the choice will remain, "do i need the weight or do i need the crit slots."

EDIT: Before I said 1.4-1.7. It needs to be 1.6-1.7 for the engines after doing some maths. Sorry for the post without fully thinking through it.

yes yes wil make the cheezy bilds less cheezy

[LaserAngel]

lceman, on 03 November 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

I believe you captured what I was trying to say, only I was advocating the engine ones to be 1.6-1.7 rather than 1.4-1.5.

And what Bryan was trying to say was make the engine ones 2.0 and make the other slotted ones 1.4. My proposition is backwards from what he said in his post--Engine ones 1.6-1.7, and slotted ones 2.0. This helps with the balancing of mainly things like gauss cats. A gauss cat currently can run 2 medium lasers and be golden. If you double the engine ones rather than the slotted ones, they can run 4 medium lasers and be golden. A 50 damage alpha with pin-point damage is nuts. Also, I don't know if/how it would work with Bryan's proposition, but imagine a gauss cat with 2 gauss rifles and 2 large lasers. Holy daing!

I'm somewhat partial to your idea. If you're going to spend real tonnage and critical slots, you want that 2.0. On the other hand I can understand how boosting the engine sinks themselves to 2.0 can make them too powerful for builds that only run those engine heatsinks.

And now I just want to see the numbers.

Edited by LaserAngel, 03 November 2012 - 07:45 PM.

[Onyx Rain]

Bubba Wilkins, on 03 November 2012 - 06:09 PM, said:

Unacceptable as it favors small mech builds with ample crit space while crippling large mech builds which rely on engine HS as the bulk of the cooling. Anything less than 2 does not benefit everyone across the board.

2 things first...

1. he edited his suggestion after doing some math to 1.6 - 1.7

2. Current system is 1 for every heat sink that comes with the engine, 2 for the free slots, 2 for the chassis. If you increase the 1 to 1.4, and still give dhs 2 for the free slots and chassis then there is no way you won't see an improvement over what we have now.

Ok...
The point is the current system is broke...pgi even said that...the system they want to replace it with is functionally equivalent to the broke system because even mechs that benefit from the "fix" will barely benefit....and the pulse laser/small laser heat increase will hurt or nullify that for many of those builds what would benefit. Some builds just with the proposed dhs fix will be nerfed from what they are now...add into that the pulse/small laser increased heat and many of those will be nerfed even more.

An example of how 1.4 in the engines, 2 in the free slots and 2 on the chassis will make an assault mech better...

My atlas DC runs 15 hs, 3 dhs on the chassis, 2 dhs in the free slots and 10 working as singles in the engine with the current broken system. Right now with the broken system total hs rating is 20

After the proposed all dhs 1.4 fix it will be 21, so in this case I'll actually be one of the lucky ones who benefit from their crap "fix", but many others won't be so lucky.

If the engine HS were 1.4 rating as he originally proposed, 2 rating in the two free slots of my standard 300, and 3 more dhs of 2 rating as he also originally proposed that would give me a heat rating of 24 total...so, better then the current system, better then the proposed all dhs working at 1.4 fix. (and not OP IMO)

After his edit to his suggestion, going off the minimum 1.6 my total heat rating would be 26. So...even better. (still not OP IMO)

This is all on a 100 ton atlas...so while you may be right in some cases...not all.

It is a fact that even his original suggestion would benefit everyone more then the current system does...and at least would benefit more people probably then the dev's proposed "fix".

That is what I was commenting on in my post you quoted.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Side Note on mech building...
Even on assaults it isn't always a good idea to go up to endo... I'm finding for most builds to get what I want it is best to start with DHS, do that...Then endo after the build is complete and it will fit in the crit slots I have left. In the unlikely event it is possible then do ferro. This order may not hold true for all builds, even assault builds...but in general I've found it useful.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 03 November 2012 - 08:32 PM.

[BR0WN_H0RN3T]

I play mostly Atlas builds and Awesomes with XL engines. This new 1.4 nerf totally screws me over because I can't fit more than 10 DHS into any of my Atlas builds even if I'm running an xl360. WTF PGI: are u telling me that that my 10 DHS which cost me 1.5 million C-Bills per mech is worth the same as 14 single HSs? How is this better than Endo Steel on ANY Assualt mech? You guys need to stop playing mathematics and start playing this monstrosity you've created. You call this OPEN Beta and think the game is 95% stable? This is the buggiest build to date and now you are actually causing paying customers losses with your ridiculous antics.

For the love of god, if you insist on DHSs being worth 1.4x STD HS at least let people mix them in with STD HSs!!! You should pull out your CBill cheques and start paying back your "loyal" customers for wasting their time.

[Comguard]

When I visited the forums today I thought this is a joke...

They were surprised that DHS are so efficient? What have they been doing all the time?

Already know what will happen next year:

People buy Clantech. Realize it has the exactly same values as IS-Tech. They complain. PGI aknowledges the bug, but also reveals they have found another issue. A week later: "We have found out that Clan-Tech ís too powerfull. We were completly surprised by this so will start changing the values until we find one that suits us. Those of you who bought ClanTech or want to test it? Well, good luck."

This is unprofessional behaviour that makes me wonder if they really test their builds. Or have any plan on how to implement their ideas at all.

"Hey, we need to implement DHS. We've been talking about how to implement them months ago in closed beta with the testers, so now it's time - what are your ideas? - chirp, chirp - Ok, then let's just roll them out with arbitrary values."

[wanderer]

What people really fail to realize is that virtually all the chassis we use now are 3025-era tech. That is, the 'Mech was designed to function with SHS, and that with DHS- surprise! The 'Mech gets better. It's the same reason you can plug a Gauss rifle, a weapon unavailable to most MWO chassis when they were built into a 'Mech and get a considerable performance upgrade to an AC/20.

What we're about to see is a serious influx of 3050+ era designs here- 'Mechs built around the double heat sink as it should be, .2 heat removed/second.

I want you all to go run a Trial 'Mech around for a few rounds. Now, imagine how hot that thing would run if you made it's heat sinks only 70% of what they currently are. If you're really wanting to see what the change to DHS will do to newer 'Mechs, when you buy a stock 'Mech, actually pull 30% of it's sinks and try running THAT a round or two, just like that without a single tweak otherwise.

Fun baking yourself, isn't it? No? Not surprised.

That's what the change to DHS does to "modern" 'Mechs and why it's so face-palmingly wrong. Not only is it bad now, it's a kick in the pants for piles of designs in the future.