22 replies to this topic

[WardenWolf]

Bryan has stated that he would prefer we post info about how our mech builds are impacted by DHS, rather than simply start a bunch of complaint threads:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1336815

So, per his request, here are my two main Atlas configurations (I have others still being tweaked, but I had pretty much finalized these two - with single heatsinks before Open Beta, and with planned moves for both to DHS when those became available. I've had to move one back to singles already, and the second will actually be *worse off* with either singles or doubles once the patch hits on November 6th (based on the info here: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1335931)

Configuration 1 with single heatsinks:

Founders Atlas
300 XL Engine
Standard internals
18 tons of standard armor
2 x ERPPCs (one on each arm)
1 x Gauss Rifle (right torso)
1 x AMS (left arm)
1 ton AMS ammo
3 tons GR ammo
33 single heatsinks (10+2 in engine, 21 additional)

Great range, decent damage, but a bit weak due to the XL engine... and definitely runs hot. I had expected DHS to allow me to move to a standard engine and increase heat efficiency a small amount (10-15%). Nothing game-breaking there, right?

Planned Config 1 DHS version:

Founders Atlas
300 Standard Engine
Standard internals
18 tons of standard armor
2 x ERPPCs (one on each arm)
1 x Gauss Rifle (right torso)
2 x Medium Lasers (center torso, as backup weapons)
1 x AMS (left arm)
1 ton AMS ammo
4 tons Gauss ammo
19 double heatsinks (10+2 in engine, 7 additional)

That should have been equal to having 38 single heatsinks, for a little heat efficiency boost. The medium lasers provide backup firepower if both arms / torsos are destroyed. An extra ton of ammo for the GR as well, since I run out sometimes. Still, nothing here appears to be a game-breaking power advantage, right?

Now when I tried the above, what I really ended up with *today* was only 28 single heatsink equivalent - a noticeable drop. I moved back to singles for now (wasting more cbills) and then figured I would go back to DHS once they fixed the in-engine ones. That was going to be soon, right? Well, now with the new DHS rules I would be at 26.6 heat! Even lower than today! What the heck, folks?

Config 2 with single heatsinks:
Atlas RS
300 XL Engine
Standard internals
18 tons of standard armor
4 x Large Pulse Lasers (2 in each arm)
38 Single heatsinks (10+2 in engine, 26 additional)

Moving to double heatsinks was again expected to give me more survivability by going to a standard engine, and I was also going to get a small speed boost. Here is what I run today, thanks to DHS:

Config 2 with double heatsinks:

Atlas RS
323 Standard Engine
Standard internals
18 tons of standard armor
4 x Large Pulse Lasers (2 in each arm)
23 Double heatsinks (10+3 in engine, 10 additional)

This gave me a small *drop* to heat, though close enough I didn't much notice, because of the DHS bug; I had the equal of 36 heatsinks instead of the 38 I had before. However, it was worth it in order to gain survivability with a standard engine. What does November 6th hold for this design, though? A drop to only 32.2 heatsink equivalents, nearly 10% lower than now, *and* my Large Pulse Lasers will generate *more* heat than they do currently. A double-whammy

Can a Dev please address why they feel these changes are fair or reasonable?

Edited by WardenWolf, 02 November 2012 - 02:59 PM.

[WardenWolf]

Update: I just found a full thread about this topic, so I have reposted this info there. Please direct discussion there to keep things cohesive:

http://mwomercs.com/...dhs-and-14-dhs/

[BlackSquirrel]

So going to increase heat, and gimp DHS...

WTF.

Then in the spirit of DHS make them only take up 2 slots if it's not going to be 2.0 heat reduction...

I'm just thinking of how not fun this will be now. This doesn't just impact "Oh my uber build" rather wow i', going to get 3 shots with medium lasers on my dragon before I shut down...

1. This is simply not going to be fun...
2. How long are matches going to take now?
3. Anything besides ML or SL, are already under utilized/not much of an advantage given the weight/heat.
4. Hell i'm about to jump on the guass bandwagon because it's looking to be the supreme viable weapon.

I've had my fun with peoples over reaction to bugs, and a few choices, but this is simply a boneheaded decision, and needs to be fundamentally looked into "The wait what's our motivation again for doing this?" One thing to tone down DHS...(1.4 and 3 slots is still BS) Quite another to simultaneously up heat on half the weapons.

Hows about one thing at a time, because quite frankly this is a HUGE!! Huge game changer.

Edited by BlackSquirrel, 02 November 2012 - 04:36 PM.

[Onyx Rain]

Ok so I think this would be one of the best builds for the Atlas RS and should be possible(and very VIABLE) with DHS if they were fixed so the heat was more in the 1.6-2 range for DHS

4 large lasers
1 gauss with 3 tons of ammo
1 AMS with 1 ton of ammo
2 SRM 6's with 2 tons of ammo
Endo steel (build isn't possible, or at least any better without endo unless I maybe drop to 2 med pulse lasers and fit in more dhs(I forget if that is possible due to weight because of the insane cost of going back to a downgrade after you've upgraded) (Once you pay for it, you shouldn't have to pay every time you switch back and forth...you own both, you should be able to use both at your leisure)
Double heatsinks
standard 300 engine
576/614 armor
14 total heatsinks (4 of which are DHS in the current system, 2 in the engine 2 on the chassi)
Heat rating of 1.13 if the number is to be believed (I swear it is harder to manage the heat at that 1.13 then it was on builds that ran that heat rating before dhs were put in)
18 total cooling? vs 19.8 total cooling when they implement the 1.4 dhs change...barely any better.

I'm getting 1.8 more cooling instead of the 10 extra I'd get if DHS were 2....So I'm getting screwed out of 8.2 extra cooling I should get with DHS when the new system is implemented. DHS were barely worth it in many builds, and while it looks like in this build I'm one of the lucky ones that might still see a slight benefit from the 1.4 change....other builds are actually going to be gimped.

Most seemed feel DHS in the broken system were NOT enough, now they give us a "fixed" system where in some builds it is only very slightly better, and in other builds you are actually worse off then you were before?!?!?!?!?

Anyways because I need endo to get the free weight for the weapons I run out of crit spots to use enough DHS to really bring this build into the realm of viability. (I basically can't use the 2 extra large lasers, or I have to use them instead of firing my srm6's. If I put this in 3 weapon groups of 2 lg+gauss in 2 groups and a 3rd group with the 2 srm6's I can maybe cycle through the 3 groups once before over heating. Chain fire doesn't even help much, I go through the chain once and pretty much overheat if I've fired anything recently before that.

If I drop endo, and manage to get all the weapons on there, even with all the free crit spots I can't fit enough DHS on it to make it viable because I go over weight.

Anyways regardless of it all... I think taking the broken system and repackaging it into a "new" system that is functionally equivalent, barely better, or even worse in some cases and trying to slip it by us "as a fix?!!?!?"....especially when you factor in the changes to pulse weapons (which really need dhs to make them viable in many cases) is just a bad idea.

Don't even do the 1.4 Devs.... Put it in at 1.7-2 and go from there please. Love the game, really trying to be supportive of your work but you lost me on this one.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 02 November 2012 - 09:14 PM.

[Onyx Rain]

A note on my build above...

I realize I could probably change the standard 300 to an xl 300 and drop endo and fit more dhs, but I think that is way to much of a sacrifice to survivability for just a few points more dmg when I can make standard engine atlas builds that are just as fast with better heat efficiency and just a few points shy of the dmg out put of this build.

It MIGHT be worth going to an xl 350-360, dropping endo and backing on 2-3 more dhs and/or ammo for the gauss/srm6....but even then I don't think I'd be fast/survivable enough to make it worth it. Maybe if I could mount an xl 375 or higher, then it would be worth it when I got speed tweak.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 02 November 2012 - 06:36 PM.

[Mongoose Trueborn]

Welcome to LRMs Online. They double LRM damage and reduce the heat of LRMS. Then they scream "cannon" and nerf the crap out of DHS.

Devs favor LRMS and Lights. Nothing more.

[Onyx Rain]

Mongoose Trueborn, on 03 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

Welcome to LRMs Online. They double LRM damage and reduce the heat of LRMS. Then they scream "cannon" and nerf the crap out of DHS.

Devs favor LRMS and Lights. Nothing more.

Ya I don't get it... The community mostly crys out that flamers, machine guns, er large, large pulse, ppc, and erppc need the most work...and finally get around to fixing large pulse a little....and now they are going to nerf it again, along with other pulse, and small laser....and ignore all those other weapons for the most part. Yet they kept screwing with lrms, srms. I'll give them credit on the ballistic changes though...that was good, although I still think the ac20 needs a slight heat reduction and I don't think I'm anywhere near alone in that.

Oh and what about small pulse laser? Those things need a buff. 1 extra ton for .09 extra dps? and more heat then a small....pretty much never worth it. The fix just makes them worse.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 03 November 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Kaptain]

My builds:

Founders Jenner
XL 300
Nearly Full armor (standard)
10 single sinks (engine)
6 DHS (body)
22 Points total

I wanted to( before 1.4 bad news blues):
Move Body DHS to Engine
Add 2 streak 2s and 1 ton ammo (4 tons)
Add AMS or ECM + a bit of armor (2 tons)
20 points of dissipation total.

NOT overpowered IMO at all. It would after all cost well over 6 MILLION more than a stock Jenner.

Founders Hunchback
200 standard
Nearly Full Armor
AC20 and 4 tons ammo (tun out all the time still)
3 Medium Lasers
8 Single Engine Sinks
5 DHS (body)
Endo

I wanted to:
Move the DHS to the engine. 20 points total (vs 18) with one body dhs.
Upgrade to a 225 standard
Add AMS and one ton of AMS ammo

Again, NOT overpowered at all.

Catapult Founders
XL300
2x LRM 15s
4 Tons LRM ammo
4x Medium Lasers
2x Jump Jets (are jump jets ever going to get fixed?)
10 Single Heat Sinks (engine)
4 DHS body
18 points of disipation total

I wanted to:
Move DHS to engine (20 points vs 18)
Increase the Jump Jet count in anticipation that one day down the road jump jets 2 3 and 4 will actually do something.
Add Artemis (2 tons)

How does Having the correct number of jump jets and 2 more points of dissipation break the game? Between, the XL, ES, and DHS we are talking 6.5+ MILLION. It should be better than a stock cat at more than double the price.

Founders Atlas
Standard 300
Nearly Full armor (- the legs)
4 Medium Lasers
1 Guass with 5 tons
1 AC2 with 4 tons
12 single heat sinks (engine)
7 DHS (body)
26 dissipation points total

I wanted to:
Run Endo (5 tons)
add 2 lrm 10s (10 tons)
add 2 tons of lrm 10 ammo
24 points total
Again, I fail to see how adding 2 LRM10s while downgrading my heat efficiency is OP in any way shape or form.

Edited by Kaptain, 04 November 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Rollio]

lol FATLAS founder whining about heat changes
Priceless

[Vapor Trail]

Rollio, on 04 November 2012 - 11:37 AM, said:

lol FATLAS founder whining about heat changes
Priceless

So enlighten us. What's funny?

That someone who was enough of a fan of Battletech to drop thirty, sixty or a hundred and twenty bucks on it, sight unseen, is concerned...

Or that someone who pilots probably the most sensitive class to changes in heat is concerned...

[Rollio]

it's funny on many levels

1. pay 2 win and failing at it ROFLCOPTER @ this
2. paying for beta content quality game (in advance no less and to the tune of no less than $120)
3. having biggest mech and best income rate and it's still not good enough
4. laughable configurations
5. whining about modifications to a ruleset developed for a board game over 20 years ago

seriously there's no shortage of funny stuff on this forum

[WardenWolf]

@Rollio -

1) I'm not 'paying 2 win', nor is that even possible in this game (at least at the moment)

2) I put money toward this game with high hopes that it would bring Mechwarrior back, and I have been very pleased with the game so far. I think it also has a ton of potential. However, this DHS change leaves a bad feeling in my mouth, and really impacts us Assault pilots heavily - so I wanted to put solid info on here for the Devs to check out (as they asked us to). Your mockery is not appreciated or helpful.

3) You know the bigger mechs cost more to repair, right? I don't complain about how much I make, especially with the Founders and Premium boosts currently, but I'm not raking it in hand over fist or anything (nor do I want to). I just want to be able to play mech configurations that have been perfectly viable and not overpowered.

4) The configs I've mentioned were 100% viable in BattleTech and previous MechWarrior titles. One of them is very reasonable right now as well, though it is getting double-nerfed if they continue with current plans. So how exactly are they laughable? Wait, don't answer that - it would probably be a jerky, worthless reply anyways (based on your comments so far).

5) No one is changing the BT ruleset, silly. They are changing the MWO ruleset, which is fine within some level of reason... but 'double' heatsinks that are not truly double is both illogical and misleading. Further, the benefit being reduced without a reduced cost (less crits, for example) is also imbalanced.

Right now the game favors Gauss and LRMS heavily, and streak SRMs to a lesser degree, with large energy weapons about to be make unviable.

[Kaptain]

Almost all of us agree its illogical but the argument for 1.4 is that 1.4 is needed to balance mechs... has any evidence been put forth in this regard? My builds were improved with 2.0 but NOT OP at all.

-Perhaps New players would die too quickly if they have to face mechs with upgrades? That is a match making problem and not a heat problem.
-Perhaps you are afraid the games would finish too quickly? That's a game type and max player problem and not a heat problem.

IMO IS DHS@2.0 is nothing DPS wise in comparison with clan weapon technology

Those of you in support of 1.4 Improved (not double) heat sinks... What build or builds are you concerned about?

[Kaptain]

CYBRN4CR do you feel your builds @ 2.0 would be overpowered?

[Osa Eris Xero]

For lack of somewhere else to put them:

CN9-AL LPL (Current DHS)

RA: LPL, MPL
CT: ML x 2
LT: SSRM2 x 2

ES Structure
Std 225 engine (9 IHS at current measurement)
8 DHS outside of engine

Current Heat Dissipation: 25

Projected heat dissipation: 23.8

And I'm also being told my LPL and MPL are going to generate more heat. The MPL is fine I suppose, but I'm paying a frankly insane tonnage and heat penalty to run a LPL (just for the extra 3 damage, since the CN9s are so mount-limited). Leave it broken as is if you think DHS would be too powerful otherwise, but reducing DHS further is a bloody awful idea.

[Onyx Rain]

Kaptain, on 04 November 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

CYBRN4CR do you feel your builds @ 2.0 would be overpowered?

I had the same concerns when I started building 2 rating dhs builds in my head while playing in mechlab...though I would have liked to test it myself.

There is a guy called "Iceman" I think that had the best solution/compromise I've seen so far.

Initially he said 1.4 but re-did the math and came up with 1.6-1.7 I think... This for the engine heat sinks. 2 for the ones in the free slots and chassis. ... This keeps any current build using DHS from being nerfed by the 1.4 dhs fix and the pulse/small laser fixes from where they are at now, actually buff most if not all. This improves on the current system, and the proposed 1.4 fix (that is really functionally equivalent to the current broken system), and negates much of the negative impact the higher heat pulse/small laser changes will have on builds in either system....and limits the potential for OP builds that basically ignore heat management that might arise from true 2 rating Dhs.

It is basically a compromise between the current system/proposed fix and true double heat sinks and something I think I would be happy with.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 04 November 2012 - 06:49 PM.

[Kaptain]

CYBRNFCR, I agree the builds would be more effective but I feel your concerns would be better addressed with mech collision mechanics being restored and match making system improvements such as... some semblance of match making. Seriously even if it was "total number of games played" or "KDR"... anything is better than ton for ton "match making" imo.

Without collisions and match making, small fast mechs and highly upgraded mechs are going to ruin new players days, I agree there... I just don't think 1.4 DHS is going to properly or adequately address either issue.

Your thoughts?

Edited by Kaptain, 04 November 2012 - 06:52 PM.

[WardenWolf]

My thoughts have always been that the individual DHS at 3 crits, 1 ton, 2 heat dissipation are balanced. What has never been balanced, in my opinion, are the heatsinks in the engines. The fact that you get more dissipation without any added tonnage or crit usage is off. That means, effectively, that the way it is now (before the patch coming this week) is actually about how I would personally like it... at least from a "balance" standpoint. However, I realize that it means you pay for a big upgrade in the engine which doesn't actually net you anything.

UNLESS - hear me out on this - what if there was no engine upgrade? What if the engine simply dissipated [rating / 25] heat, and then you could add single or double heatsinks on top of that in any combination? It isn't TT based, but it might just be balanced. Thoughts?

[Elizander]

They can opt to give different values to DHS in the Engine and those outside. The benefit of having DHS in the engine can be countered with them not being as effective as the ones outside. Perhaps Engine DHS can be at 1.4 heat per / HS and the ones outside that actually take up critical slots can dissipate more heat. If not 2 then something higher than 1.4 to make the critical space worth it?

They can go a little extreme, say like Engine DHS = 1.25 heat and External DHS = 1.75 heat? These are only examples and there is no math behind it, but the points are:

1) Paying and converting to DHS gives you a definite benefit, though a small one (+25% more heat dissipation for engine DHS).
2) External DHS that take up more space will dissipate heat at a more useful rate to make the critical space cost worth it.

[Mr 144]

HBK-4SP:

250XL engine
Endo-Steel Structure
4xML
1xSRM 6 (1 ton ammo)
1x LRM20 (2 tons ammo)
AMS (1 ton ammo)
TAG

SHS Heat: Build not possible/practical

Current DHS Heat: 10 engine + 3 DHS = 16 dissipation (not quite viable)

1.4DHS Heat: 10+3 = 13 * 1.4 = 18.2 dissipation

2.0DHS Heat: 10+3 = 13 * 2.0 = 26 dissipation

Every Crit slot but one is occupied with this build. 18.2 dissipation @ 1.4HS is do-able for me...although it is VERY borderline and requires careful heat mangement. My personal 4xML threshold is 17 SHS for reference.

*IF* 2.0DHS were to be implemented, I would drop the 3 external DHSs and add Artemis to both Launchers, and ECM when implemented for a total of 20 heat dissipation.

Mr 144