38 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

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.

Actually, we figured it out before they did. While users were testing out the engines-don't-DHS bug, they finally nailed down what people had been stating in ancedotal terms with hard data that pulse lasers were generating about the same heat levels as non-pulse.

PGI then tested themselves and went WUPS, SHORT-BURN LASERS MAKE TOO LITTLE HEAT.

[MustrumRidcully]

I like the idea of having DHS and SHS giving different heat capacity. DHS giving effectively half the heat capacity when you reach the same dissipation as SHS could be avery interesting way to balance them out.

(So DHS heat capacity: 15 + # DHS; SHS heat capacity: 30 + # SHS).

I have an even more complex idea, but this is a neat, simplified approach to it.

[Protection]

I've heard mostly good feedback, and the one criticism was from a guy who didn't understand the idea.

Would like to hear more.

[Redmond Spiderhammer]

I definitely would agree to that. In TT heat could be a concern, but it took a bit of effort to overheat to shutdown. MWO shutdown happens way to quickly and too often. I'd like to see the serious gradual effects start kicking in a the point we currently shutdown

Asatruer, on 02 November 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

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.

[Protection]

Again, my philosophy is players should be making meaningful choices that differentiate designs while retaining balance. Not strict upgrades or superiority.

[Protection]

Still seeming like a decent compromise for everyone...

[Idzy]

The thing is everyone seems to have a ****** for not allowing heat neutral builds but they should not only be possible they should be the standard overheating is bad and you shouldn't be doing it. That said its nearly impossible to do and be in anyway effective. Sure I could go with 20 DHS and run 4 medium lasers on a hunchback but I should be able to run 8 med lasers and be heat neutral and then I could compete with a k2 with 2 gauss.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

I'm definitely on board with the choice between a higher increase in heat capacity for singles, and general better heat dissipation per ton for doubles. People seem to fail to realize its VERY hard to stuff a mech full of doubles and use the bigger gun weapons.

Use singles (generally on fatlases) and have the nice benefit on your precious critical slots and a very high heat capacity.

Use Doubles, save weight at the cost of criticals, have cheaper heat dissipation but more susceptible to overheating through alpha-strike due to a much lower heat capacity.

Maybe even take it a step futher and include that any engine HS do not contribute to increased heat capacity. For instance...

..I have a Mech with 14 additional heat sinks, total of 24 heat dissipation over 10. costs 14 tons, 14 criticals but I have a heat cap of 44 now. Spiffy.

But say I convert to double heat sinks. For the sake of the argument, say I had no spare criticals in that shs build above. I add 4 DHS for a total of 28 heat dissipation over 10 at the cost of 4 tons and 12 criticals . Well now unfortunately, I have a heat capacity of 34 (32 if we go with DHS only add .5 per)

Well, with DHS in this manner, I've saved a whopping 11 tons and 2 criticals and gained 4 more heat dissipation!! Very nice, unfortunately, my 'mechs heat capacity just got shot down significantly! While I can cool off a bit faster, If I alpha-strike, I am much more prone to overheating!

I think thats a pretty good trade off. Faster heat dissipation and tonnage at the cost of heat capacity? This still allows those who need the really quick, light heat dissipation to use say an ERPPC or ERLL but still prevent the use of say 4x ERPPC alpha boats sniping everything with impunity.

Edited by mwhighlander, 08 November 2012 - 12:18 AM.

[Protection]

Adding this illustration so people who do not understand my idea have a better picture of what I am suggesting:

[Asatruer]

Protection, on 08 November 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Adding this illustration so people who do not understand my idea have a better picture of what I am suggesting:

I am not sure I completely agree with that approach (I think it is good, but would rather see TT style ill effects as heat goes up), but that is a great graphic.

[Aquilus]

Protection, on 08 November 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Adding this illustration so people who do not understand my idea have a better picture of what I am suggesting:

I approve of this idea.

[Squidhead Jax]

Asatruer, on 08 November 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

I am not sure I completely agree with that approach (I think it is good, but would rather see TT style ill effects as heat goes up), but that is a great graphic.

The two aren't mutually exclusive - I'd suggest both, honestly.

[Window]

Good idea, I think 75 may be a bit too much, perhaps 80 but its a good start.

[Niyata Raastad]

Something (maybe) notable to this is that the triple crit size of double sinks is more of a factor with engine size limits than it was in TT. In both games one of the ways a mech design can counter running out of crit space is to absorb more of them into it's engine.

Currently in the mech lab I end up with a lot more designs that hit a crit cap with tonnage below the max than I might in TT. This decreases the value of DHS already (although admittedly... they are still pretty damn valueable). I do like the idea of assessing the value of double heat sinks and applying some multiple that is not necessarily 2 to their heat dissipation. I could be 1.4 or really anything. I'd also like them to still be largely better in a lot of cases. They are supposed to be and it's an upgrade.

I think the rate vs. capacity trade off could allow DHS to be closer to 2 times heat efficiency because it's another value trade off. A lot of games do this in a pretty fun way. The immediate thing I think of is energy regeneration versus total capacity in a lot of spaceship games. You can set up your spaceship up for endurance or to pound out a larger number of shots and then switch to playing it defensive. It's often a fun twist to keep the player thinking about.

Edited by Niyata Raastad, 08 November 2012 - 05:15 PM.

[Protection]

Again, this is a gameplay compromise that should satisfy a large chunk of the complaints.

[MustrumRidcully]

Protection, on 08 November 2012 - 02:27 PM, said:

Adding this illustration so people who do not understand my idea have a better picture of what I am suggesting:

I like this. Though I'd be careful with how you reduce the heat capacity. I can be overdone. But the general idea seems solid to me. I think a current limitation of the system may be (going just by the itemstats.xml) is that the DHS upgrade has only a multiplier that seems to affect both capacity and dissipation. But the stats for individual heat sinks seem to support differing dissipation and capacity values.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 November 2012 - 11:56 PM.

[EvangelionUnit]

great idea, combined with chain fire this would allow some nice tactics ...

[Wildstreak]

Still believe they should just make Consumables of these heat sinks, they can be mixed with SHS but not DHS.
Since they burn out, making them Consumables sounds right.
Just need to figure out stats.

[Tabrias07]

Great idea. I'd love to see this implemented.

I also made a thread here talking about making weapons DPS/HPS equivalent to TT. http://mwomercs.com/...d-rate-of-fire/ If this were done, many more builds could run heat neutral (3 SHS to dissipate 1 ML)

Edited by Tabrias07, 25 March 2013 - 01:03 PM.