13 replies to this topic

[PapaKilo]

I'm pissed off about the damn heat situation in this game. First, the devs ramp up the heat by increasing the rate of fire. Then, they cripple our primary weapon against that heat. "Double" heat sinks that are only 40% more effective than singles? Terrible.

When I hear "double" I expect double.

Double-barrel shotgun = two barrels
Double-wide trailer = twice as wide as a normal one
Double cheeseburger = twice the beef patties and cheese
Etc.

Since we're getting pathetically weak heat sinks that are both an insult to the word double as well as an insult to tabletop double heat sinks, I propose we change the name to "Improved Heat Sinks" instead. That way, there would be no expectation of them having double the performance of single heat sinks.

[Malcolm Decker]

Honestly I can't agree with you more. I didn't want to complain, for the most part Piranha has given us a great game, but this... this is too much. To be such stricklers for classic battletech, going so far as to remove our free heatsinks and make us pay to hide them in the engine (nice touch for CBT realism). Yet when it comes to the most important detail of all about double heatsinks (IE they are DOUBLE meaning TWO as in a PAIR) they completely throw battletech, common sense, and simple arithmetic out the window in favor of a random number that makes them worse then single heatsinks in almost every configuration.

Excuse the caps but THEY AREN'T EVEN ONE-AND-A-HALF HEATSINKS!!!!

So tell me, why would I trade 3 criticals and 1.5 million cbills for a heatsink that is marginally more efficient than strapping a big fan on your mech? 3 criticals is already a large price to pay for a double since you can't get them in your CT or legs, but 3 criticals for less than a 50% increase makes singles better every time. The only thing that will recieve a (marginal) benefit is a light mech that is running nothing but engine heatsinks, however small lasers and pulse lasers are being heated up even more in the next patch, so expect yet another nerf.

Heres some numbers showing how broken the heat system is and how much more broken it will be on tuesday. The Awesome 9M is a perfectly useable build in Battletech but it is useless in MWO. Even buffing double heatsinks to actually work as two heatsinks would leave this mech too hot to be practical:

Current build with 21 DHS = 32 HS equivalent (10 engine + 11(22) DHS)

Engine heatsinks fixed (double) 21DHS = 42 HS equivalent (10(20) engine + 11(22) DHS)

Post-Tuesday build with 21 1.4-HS = 29.4 HS equivalent

PGI, why don't you stop trying to sugar coat it by calling it a "fix" and just tell us you are nerfing double heatsinks. It looks like energy-based mechs like the awesome will just never be useable. If you can't beat em join em. I'm gonna build an LRM spam Atlas and mindlessly click buttons until non-gauss direct fire combat becomes worthwhile.

Edited by Malcolm Decker, 04 November 2012 - 11:38 AM.

[VYCanis]

I disagree, i really do and i will tell you why

Double heatsinks were broken in the tabletop, broken as hell

All i had to do was say i'm using doubles and BOOM, my mech magically has 10 extra engine sinks with absolutely no downsides aside from extra cost. And when adding more beyond that, the weight savings from making the switch in most cases was always a step up from using singles.

Heat management and incendiary weapons became a comical anecdote of yesteryear for most builds, and the ones that actually rely on large amounts of doubles often were deathstars on two legs.

If the doubles were kept the same as in TT, there would be almost no reason to ever use singles ever again

is 1.4 doubles the best way of balancing them? maybe not. There might be other ways of doing it. But i don't lament doubles getting bumped down to something close to reasonable compared to their cheaper cousins. Not at all.

[Lentil]

Agreed. "Enhanced Heat Sinks" or "Improved Heat Sinks" would make more sense.
Interesting view VYCanis. Of course, in my opinion, TT never really got 'mech customization balanced properly. The game was about choosing the correct 'mech off the factory line and using as well as you could. My group of friends rarely (if ever) played with custom 'mechs. The 'stock' 'mechs had their pluses and minuses making the game interesting.

As I've discussed with some of those friends, the stock 'mechs don't work in simulation because a pilot can't really handle the varied weapon ranges/firing rates, lead distances, etc. effectively in real-time combat. I digress.

DHS always was vastly superior to SHS, but the Clan 'mechs in particular rely on this to work properly. Considering how under-cooled it was even in TT, I have no idea how the Novacat will even function in the current physics.

The 1.4x factor, if it comes to pass, may be about right in the current economics. I'll wait and see. Light 'mechs will get the benefits they need, while bigger 'mechs won't. This is how it should be, since the larger 'mechs get much more benefit from ES/FF.

[Lima Zulu]

The only possible use of so-called "double" heatsinks is when you haven't enough crits/tonns to use any extra HS outside an engine. If you need more than 10-15 "double" heatsink, better take load os single HS and ES of FF to free up some tonns. But I still have no idea what would happen with Puma Prime (2 ER PPC, 9 DHS) or Nova Prime (12 ER MBL, 14 DHS) with 1.4 "double" heatsink value

[VYCanis]

Lima Zulu, on 04 November 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

But I still have no idea what would happen with Puma Prime (2 ER PPC, 9 DHS) or Nova Prime (12 ER MBL, 14 DHS) with 1.4 "double" heatsink value

keep in mind both of those cERPPCs hit like gauss rifles with no min range, and each of those cER medium lasers is only slightly less powerful than an IS large laser, with about the same range as one. and the clanner dhs only take up 2x the crit space rather than 3

So they'd probably still be able to carve up mechs like a hot knife through a butter urbie, just maybe not as easily as before.

[Corvus Antaka]

values may very well need to be adjusted...but both DHS & singles need to be viable, vs in btech where singles become worthless once doubles arrive.

[PapaKilo]

I want to know what builds the devs used internally to come up with the idea that full-strength double heat sinks are OP.

Take a box-stock JR7-D Jenner, for example.

In tabletop, converting from singles to doubles made the 'Mech completely heat-free. You could jump full distance and alpha-strike all you wanted with no heat concerns. It would generate 20 heat per turn, and then dissipate 20 heat per turn. Unless you had engine hits, you were exactly neutral.

In MW:O, even with full-strength doubles you still wouldn't be anywhere near heat-neutral with that Jenner. It would only take a few alpha-strikes to overheat it.

I have a JR7-D Jenner build with four small lasers and one SRM-4 for weapons. In tabletop, it would be exactly heat-neutral with only 12 single heat sinks even while jumping full distance and alpha-striking every turn. I have converted that same build to have 14 (ten engine plus four outside) doubles in MW:O, which gives it 1.79 heat efficiency. I can still cause heat-shutdown on the 'Mech even in Frozen City.

And that's just a Jenner with four small or medium lasers and an SRM-4.

Something else the devs don't seem to understand: Give players a heat-neutral 'Mech in MW:O, and most of us won't run it like that. We'll add more weapons to it, or replace existing weapons with hotter ones. We want 'Mechs to be fairly close to neutral, but we will sacrifice full neutrality to have more/bigger weapons on them.

[PapaKilo]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 04 November 2012 - 04:36 PM, said:

values may very well need to be adjusted...but both DHS & singles need to be viable, vs in btech where singles become worthless once doubles arrive.

Singles already are viable ... on 'Mechs that can't spare the critical slots to mount an effective number of doubles. The balancing act is between heat, weight, and criticals ... not between singles and doubles.

Just like in the 20's and 30's when monoplanes replaced biplanes, or at the end of World War II, when jet fighters began replacing prop fighters ... the newfangled thing comes in with better performance, and the old reliable thing gets left behind.

[VYCanis]

look at it from this perspective

you are a newbie who can only afford singles, your opponent did nothing to his mech, sacrificed nothing, simply switched to doubles, simply because he had more cash and had crits to spare, which most mechs that aren't assault do.

Now in a straight up fight, suddenly all the heat management you've been learning the hard way about, doesn't seem to apply to your opponent. your opponent on 2.0 doubles just blasts away without a care in the world while you struggle to avoid redlining into shutdown. and then you die

play again, same thing happens, play again, same thing happens

eventually newbie gets the cash, goes screw this, and buys doubles too.

Imagine this happening all over the community. Because frankly "why wouldn't you use doubles?"


Singles SHOULD be a viable option, not just something you have to resort to in order to fit endo and ferro at the same time. Or for newbs to struggle and grind to get rid of.

As it stands, 1.4 doubles would give a 40% improvement on engine sinks, but you pay out the nose for everything else. So you can easily sink more, just not to an absurd degree.

Personally though i think bumping them up to 1.6 or 1.7, but having them affect how easily you show up on radar or how long missile locks take would also be fair.

If they were set to 2.0, then there should be even more serious risks to their use, survivability-wise. much like the choice between standard engines and XLs.

Cause really just throwing in doubles at full power into this game would be the same as getting rid of the side torso XL kills. Suddenly everyone with the cbills junks their old standards and buys XLs.

Edited by VYCanis, 04 November 2012 - 05:42 PM.

[ArmyOfWon]

I prefer to use the term "Square Root 2" Heat Sinks.

[PapaKilo]

VYCanis, on 04 November 2012 - 05:41 PM, said:

Post about adding vulnerability to Improved Heat Sinks

There's no need to add further vulnerability to Improved Heat Sinks. Once criticals are properly implemented, they are already three times more vulnerable to critical hits.

And Improved Heat Sinks DO NOT need to be balanced versus singles. The combination of heat, criticals, and weight are enough of a balancing factor. The singles should be completely outclassed by full-strength doubles. They were designed to be that way. And really, we need that weapon against the heat monster that the devs have created.

Guess what is going to be rendered completely obsolete when the Clans come? All Inner Sphere stuff. Clan stuff shouln't be balanced against Inner Sphere stuff. Same thing applies here.

[Greers]

The more heat-efficient our Mechs become the faster the combat. I feared DHS and I'm still right, while we get these reduced DHS. A Jenner could be deadly to an Assault. Now it's even deadlier! As an Assault you gain nothing from DHS, so all DHS do is reduce the effectiveness of Assaults and boost Lights to great effect, Mediums to good effect, Heavies to some effect.

I'm OK, with the state of DHS!

[Jack Zero]

Lentil, on 04 November 2012 - 12:56 PM, said:

Agreed. "Enhanced Heat Sinks" or "Improved Heat Sinks" would make more sense.
Interesting view VYCanis. Of course, in my opinion, TT never really got 'mech customization balanced properly. The game was about choosing the correct 'mech off the factory line and using as well as you could. My group of friends rarely (if ever) played with custom 'mechs. The 'stock' 'mechs had their pluses and minuses making the game interesting.

As I've discussed with some of those friends, the stock 'mechs don't work in simulation because a pilot can't really handle the varied weapon ranges/firing rates, lead distances, etc. effectively in real-time combat. I digress.

DHS always was vastly superior to SHS, but the Clan 'mechs in particular rely on this to work properly. Considering how under-cooled it was even in TT, I have no idea how the Novacat will even function in the current physics.

The 1.4x factor, if it comes to pass, may be about right in the current economics. I'll wait and see. Light 'mechs will get the benefits they need, while bigger 'mechs won't. This is how it should be, since the larger 'mechs get much more benefit from ES/FF.

I disagree. That might be true for mediums, but larger mechs (heavy/assault) get less benefit from FF/ES because they lack enough critical spaces to mount both or even one and even if you manage to fit ES or FF in, they lack the hardpoints and critspace to effectively use the additional tonnage.

Also, real DHS would be needed to make PPCs viable at all compared to the Gauss Rifle.
Yes, this means that it doesn't make much sense to use SHS for many mechs but so what? They are also expensive as hell and as long as the mechs don't become imbalanced I see no problem.
There are almost no advantages to choose a AC5 instead of a UAC5... should the UAC5 be gimped to a UAC3 as well?