4 replies to this topic

[Dreadp1r4te]

Dear PGI: Before you roll out this next patch, please THINK about the numbers you are giving us. The issue with DHS is that energy-weapon centric builds have trouble competing with lower-heat alternatives like LRMs and Gauss builds. Now, let's run a quick sample of numbers here so I can show you the issue.

With our current system of EHS being single and CHS (critical heat sinks) being double, we get one set of numbers. With your changes, reducing all DHS efficiency to 1.4 times the cooling power of a SHS, we get another set.

(prepatch) 10 EHS + 5 DHS = (10 x .1) + (5 x .2) = 2 Heat Per Second
(postpatch) 10 DEHS + 5 DHS = (.1 x 1.4)15 = 2.1 Heat Per Second

Okay, so we have a whopping 4% increase in efficiency over our current system. That's an improvement, I guess... But lets dig a little deeper. Some energy builds will require alot more heatsinks than that if they expect to be viable, so let's try a 20 heat sink build and see what we get!

(prepatch) 10 EHS + 10 DHS = (10 x .1) + (10 x .2) = 3 HP/S
(postpatch) 10 DEHS + 10 DHS = (.1 x 1.4)20 = 2.8 HP/S

Sweet! Even more sinkage, right? Right? Why are you looking at me funny? Oh, I see, you think I fudged up the math there, huh... Well, truth is I didn't. With the new system of all DHS having 1.4 times the cooling power of existing single heatsinks, Double Heatsinks will be LESS efficient then they currently are at higher numbers.

While I'm trying my best to have faith in the developers, I cannot honestly see how this solution is a fair implementation of DHS, nor even an accurate fix for their initial bug.
DHS were supposed to be one of the huge milestones in Battletech history, making more powerful builds feasible as heat became infinitely more manageable. And honestly, the IS forces are going to need that to compete with Clan tech when they get here, so I strongly urge against this implementation of DHS. Please, please use the original value of double efficiency, so that we may get away from this Gauss Rifling/LRMing nightmare we have now.

In addition to this, I also noted the following:

Quote

Heat Bug

Testing revealed a long standing issue with how heat was calculated for some weapons.
Total Generated was used as Heat Per Second.
The fix now calculates Heat Per Second based on Total Generated Heat.
This affects Small, Medium, Large Pulse Laser, and Small Lasers. They will now produce more heat when fired and work as originally intended.

Fixes for both issues will be in the November 6th Patch

This I don't quite understand. Having extensive playtime with both Dual PPCs and Dual LPLAS, running the same number of heatsinks, I can tell you they are generating the correct amount of heat IF the PPC is generating the correct amount of heat as well. Both weapons (canonically) generate 10 heat, so they can be safely used to compare eachother given that their game stats are stated to be the same. I suspect you may be looking at this issue backwards; in reality, its the standard variant of Medium and Large lasers that is generating too much heat, as 2x LLAS generates effectively MORE heat than 2x LPLAS do. I think this has something to do with the function of the longer beam duration for LLAS as compared to LPLAS; it may warrant some looking into. I'd start with the code that handles how the lasers generate heat during their firing duration; it isn't generated all at once, it's generated gradually the same way the damage output is gradual. If I had to hazard a guess I'd say that when the heat difference was applied, the programmer simply forgot the duration was different. Some math to test this:

MPLAS = 5 heat over .75 seconds = 1 heat every .15 seconds
MLAS = 4 heat over 1 second = 1 heat every .25 seconds

Now, assuming the MPLAS heat generation of 1 per .15 seconds for 5 heat over .75 seconds was accidentally applied to the MLAS, we'd get:

1 heat every .15 seconds, for 1 second = 6.666~ heat

...which would very easily explain why MLAS feel like they generate more heat than MPLAS and the same for LLAS and LPLAS.

Just something for you guys to consider. ;D

Edited by Dreadp1r4te, 05 November 2012 - 04:15 AM.

[skamage]

Your numbers are off. Pre-patch DHS are at .1

That's why they are fixing it.

Edited by skamage, 05 November 2012 - 04:04 AM.

[Noth]

skamage, on 05 November 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Your numbers are off. Pre-patch DHS are at .1

That's why they are fixing it.

only the engine DHS are at .1. The DHS outside the engine are 2.0 currently.

[Dreadp1r4te]

skamage, on 05 November 2012 - 04:03 AM, said:

Your numbers are off. Pre-patch DHS are at .1

That's why they are fixing it.

An excellent riposte, but I shall counter with:

Noth, on 05 November 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

only the engine DHS are at .1. The DHS outside the engine are 2.0 currently.

trollface.jpg

[PanzerMagier]

Exactly what I was about post. DHS are LESS effective than SHS when you're stacking a high number of them.

Personally, I run a QUAD ER PPC atlas with 40 SHS. It's my favorite build. However, it is slightly impractical since the 40 SHS don't quite dissipate the heat fast enough for me to fire a practical amount of shots over a respective amount of time.

Naturally I thought DHS will come to the rescue and help me out with my problem. If the heat dissipation stays at 1.4, this will not be true.

The changes PGI implements now will definitely have an impact on the future of this game. Myself being a guy who LOVES laser bristled mechs, would be appalled to see DHS remain useless as they are now and of course this will have an effect on how much I am willing to spend.


Tl;DR I don't feel like spending a penny more on this game if heat will always be such an Unnecessary limiting factor when trying to build interesting and creative mech variants.

Edited by PanzerMagier, 05 November 2012 - 04:42 AM.