38 replies to this topic

[Protection]

Okay, not wasting too much time, but lets run over the issues once more:

• Good gameplay ought give players meaningful choices rather than strict upgrades - double heatsinks are currently either a direct upgrade or a direct downgrade, depending on implementation and quantity
  
• Double heatsinks ought to give double heat dissipation. Hence "double."
  
• Trial mechs almost all have serious heat problems and are barely usable, largely for that reason (they suck in other ways as well, but those are the big ones)

As for how heatsinks currently work:

• Standard heatsinks currently have a cooling rate of 0.10. Double heatsinks currently cool 0.20 (external only, engine double heatsinks still only cool 0.10).
  
• The planned "correction" is to make both engine double heatsinks and external double heatsinks cool 0.14. (ie/ √2)

This is obviously a problem.

So here is the solution (it was mentioned in one of Prosperity Park's old threads, so I don't really claim credit):

• 1) Standard Heatsinks have a higher heat capacity before the mech shuts down. Assuming the current "maximum before shutdown" is 30 (based on Tabletop), single heatsinks should have their maximum increased to, say, 50. This way, single heatsink mechs still dissipate heat very slowly (the 0.10 rate from before), but can pull off a larger series of burst fire without shutting down.
  
• 2) Double Heatsinks get full double dissipation (0.20) but the maximun heat capacity before shutdown is decreased, to say 25. This way, the mech can sustain fire for much longer periods of time, but short instances of heavy burst fire risk a momentary shutdown, which could be very dangerous. But would cool off very quickly when managed properly.

Obviously these numbers will need some tweaking and experimenting, but this will give players a meaningful choice on heatsinks, make trial mechs a little more viable, and make double heatsinks, well, double.

EDIT:



The two examples on the right are my idea. The double heatsinks are great, because your heat goes down much much faster, so you cool off quicker and can alpha again sooner. The singles are also viable, because, while they cool down slowly, they allow you to do more alphas for more burst damage in a short duration, but get into problems in sustained engagements,

Edited by Protection, 08 November 2012 - 02:29 PM.

[Vlad Ward]

This is already in the game to some degree.

Total heat capacity isn't a flat 30. It's 30 + number of heat sinks. Since you tend to have way more SHS than DHS, you have a higher heat capacity with SHS already.

[Redshift2k5]

Vlad Ward, on 02 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

This is already in the game to some degree.

Total heat capacity isn't a flat 30. It's 30 + number of heat sinks. Since you tend to have way more SHS than DHS, you have a higher heat capacity with SHS already.

singles add +1 to the heat capacity. doubles add +2

Edited by Redshift2k5, 02 November 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Protection]

Vlad Ward, on 02 November 2012 - 03:34 PM, said:

This is already in the game to some degree.

Total heat capacity isn't a flat 30. It's 30 + number of heat sinks. Since you tend to have way more SHS than DHS, you have a higher heat capacity with SHS already.

But lets boost the cap for singles, shrink the cap for doubles. Difficult and meaningful choice for players is a good thing.

[Vassago Rain]

Redshift2k5, on 02 November 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

singles add +1 to the heat capacity. doubles add +2

It's almost like we didn't completely datamine the game a long time ago.

[Vlad Ward]

Vassago Rain, on 02 November 2012 - 03:39 PM, said:

It's almost like we didn't completely datamine the game a long time ago.

Because those client-side files in the server-authoritative game clearly helped the community determine that pulse lasers have been broken for the past 6 months.

[Vassago Rain]

Vlad Ward, on 02 November 2012 - 03:40 PM, said:

Because those client-side files in the server-authoritative game clearly helped the community determine that pulse lasers have been broken for the past 6 months.

If something's been broken for half a year, and had every other weapon based around how broken it is, is it really broken? I think not.

Maybe they should have fixed something that matters, but no. Can't have that.

[Squidhead Jax]

Redshift2k5, on 02 November 2012 - 03:37 PM, said:

singles add +1 to the heat capacity. doubles add +2

*scratches chin*
Perhaps something could be salvaged from this if they choose to forge ahead with the kneecapped DHS... make them increase heat capacity more. Since they're square-root-of-double dissipation right now, maybe square-of-double capacity (x4) to actually work out to double? Heh.

[Vermaxx]

I like the idea, at least it gives me true doubles and not a slap in the face.

Singles could add two to the heat track, doubles could add one. Thusly, the single heat sink mech would support way more heat than it could vent quickly.

A double sink mech would vent much more heat than it could hold.

Pick your poison, slow and steady but LOOOOOONG cooldown times; or short and sweet but gorram she is going to feel it in the morning!

[JudgeDeathCZ]

Protection, on 02 November 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

• The planned "correction" is to make both engine double heatsinks and external double heatsinks cool 0.14. (ie/ [color=#333333]√2)[/color]

And u got this where please?

[Vlad Ward]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 02 November 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

[/list]And u got this where please?

Command Chair.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

oh i see now thx
Ye it should be rly lower bcuz..u know builds like swybacks with only 10 DHS in engine running 8 MLas surely will be funny for them but not for others

[MCXL]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 02 November 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

[/list]And u got this where please?

http://mwomercs.com/...heat-sinks-dhs/

Second post.

[Asatruer]

JudgeDeathCZ, on 02 November 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

[/list]And u got this where please?

Here

[Asatruer]

I would rather see them implement a more gradual gradient of bad effects from heat rather than the current binary (on/off) one they currently have, it would allow for there to be a drawback from producing a lot of heat in a short amount of time, and still allow all types of heat sinks to dissipate heat at a better rate.

[Khobai]

All this does is make SHS outright better than DHS. Twice the heat capacity is much better than twice the dissipation especially when SHS only use up one-third of the crit slots.

[Squidhead Jax]

Khobai, on 02 November 2012 - 05:59 PM, said:

All this does is make SHS outright better than DHS. Twice the heat capacity is much better than twice the dissipation especially when SHS only use up one-third of the crit slots.

At only 1.4 dissipation rate, certainly.

At 2x, not as much. It makes it easier to approach heat neutrality, but also makes it closer to a necessity.

[Matthew Ace]

They should really make DHS dissipate twice as fast, but adding between 1-1.5 per DHS to Heat Scale instead (From what I read, each DHS is currently adding +2 to heat scale).

Would also be nice to see heat level penalties at varying levels of heat instead of only automatic shutdown at 100%.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 03 November 2012 - 08:21 PM.

[Grimmenstein]

In my opinion, TT used the heat scale to penalize players based on how hot they were at any given point in time. This heat scale gradient penalty should definitely be implemented. I think that a good balance between single and double heatsinks would be to scale the gradient based on the total number of heatsinks. Double heat dissipation for DHS. You will likely never be able to justify using DHS on an assault, but having lots of SHS would scale your penalty gradient so that you would suffer less from running hotter.

Essentially your mech would start slowing down at 20%. DHS would not stop you from breaching 20% any faster, SHS would given the investment in more heat sinks. On a 3 crit for 1 DHS you can't fit enough heatsinks to skew the scale very much. where as 1 crit X 3 for SHS You begin to see a difference. You could also adjust how many heat sinks you can fit in the engine based on volume instead of weight. In effect making larger engines carry more bulk in SHS such that you can fit 2 SHS per 25 engine rating, but only 1 DHS.

This allows DHS to remove heat more efficently, while balancing that with more probability of penalties (I.E. Ammo Explosions at 80% total heat.) while also keeping SHS a viable option for larger mechs, that can afford the weight in heatsinks, But couldn't afford the bulk for DHS.

This also balances your burst versus continuous damage. Having DHS would allow you to handle a higher DPS weapon, but limit your burst capability. SHS conversely would allow more alpha stikes, but would require longer cooldown times.

These ideas came to me as I read this topic and wrote this post, so pardon me if they may seem a little half baked.

Edited by Grimmenstein, 04 November 2012 - 03:28 AM.

[Draco Argentum]

Vassago Rain, on 02 November 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

If something's been broken for half a year, and had every other weapon based around how broken it is, is it really broken? I think not.

Maybe they should have fixed something that matters, but no. Can't have that.

That wasn't his point. The point is that for months people trusted the values datamine from the xml. And that was wrong. Every datamined value is now suspect and needs in game test data to back it up.