53 replies to this topic

[Shalune]

Thanks for the post. To me it sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. I was already concerned that DHS would just become mandatory across all builds. Nothing should be mandatory short of a basic engine and armor, for the game to succeed in the mech bay every other piece of mech design should be a real decision with pros and cons to weigh.

SpiralRazor, on 05 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Exactly this.. Honestly Russ, that was a bit of sophistry... Are your employees incapable of posting some math, like many of us here on the forums can do?

I'll say what the devs - perhaps - cannot. Being perfectly blunt, this is a waste of time.

Effectively what you are asking is for the developers to share almost every bit of data and reasoning they are already using to do their jobs with us. Whether you like the decisions they are making or not these are professional game designers. They don't make major changes at the toss of a hat. All of the arguments you have seen here on the forum have happened in some form in their offices and they've reached the conclusion that X or Y is the best direction for now. Getting feedback from the community is invaluable, but acting like we're being slighted by not being treated as fellow members of the design team is ludicrous.

Edited by Shalune, 05 November 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[Riffleman]

Thats ok though, because TRIPPLE heat sins are in the works*
Only 30 dollars per chassis.








* tripple heat sink value 1.9 single heat sinks.

[Keifomofutu]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 November 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

I know, dev time is worth a lot, but it would help if we'd actually see someone pop in, give a well-reasoned reply instead of just "we're doing X because we believe it'll work".

Heck, it would help to know they actually are aware and have looked into some of the big balance analsys posts plenty of posters made over the past few weeks. IT would help even more if we knew why they are invalid...

I'd just like to hear from the devs which build specifically is the one they are most afraid of dominating under DHS. I still say its a 9Ml swayback.
Its not any assault though. They get the least benefit from DHS.

Edited by Keifomofutu, 05 November 2012 - 12:09 PM.

[CeeKay Boques]

How do you guys know what "Dual Heat Sinks" should be? From BT? All Table values have been altered to meet the "real time/real world" game play of MWO. Double armor, reduced ammo values and ranges. Any sort of number crunching doesn't matter. Its all about gameplay, something that PGI Devs are playing on 2 to 3 patches in front of us.

[Purplefluffybunny]

Anyone who thinks that one can take a table top mechanic, such as DHS, and simply lift it across to a real time video game in a one-to-one fashion, is living in cloud cuckoo land. 1.4 is a good place to start the balancing process.

Edited by Purplefluffybunny, 05 November 2012 - 12:14 PM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Khobai, on 05 November 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

For DHS to outperform SHS for the majority of builds, they need to dissipate at least 0.17 heat per second.

funny enough i came to the same number with some lazy-noob math^^

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 05 November 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Imagine Dragons]

Disappointed... But I have to agree that too little time has passed to change...

[WardenWolf]

Technoviking, on 05 November 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

How do you guys know what "Dual Heat Sinks" should be? From BT? All Table values have been altered to meet the "real time/real world" game play of MWO. Double armor, reduced ammo values and ranges. Any sort of number crunching doesn't matter. Its all about gameplay, something that PGI Devs are playing on 2 to 3 patches in front of us.

Well, the name is "Double Heat Sink" - which implies, via the math that is *the English language*, twice the effectiveness. If they feel the need to balance further then so be it, but in the interest of new and old players alike being able to understand what they are seeing I recommend a name-change: Advanced Heatsinks, Improved Heatsinks, etc

[wanderer]

Technoviking, on 05 November 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

How do you guys know what "Dual Heat Sinks" should be? From BT? All Table values have been altered to meet the "real time/real world" game play of MWO. Double armor, reduced ammo values and ranges. Any sort of number crunching doesn't matter. Its all about gameplay, something that PGI Devs are playing on 2 to 3 patches in front of us.

Actually, heat sinks weren't changed a bit from TT.

DHS, on the other hand...now they are.

[wanderer]

Purplefluffybunny, on 05 November 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks that one can take a table top mechanic, such as DHS, and simply lift it across to a real time video game in a one-to-one fashion, is living in cloud cuckoo land. 1.4 is a good place to start the balancing process.

Let's try this again.

DHS are not meant to balance vs SHS. They are meant to be the new "standard".

SHS are literally retro-tech. The game should have been balanced around double heat sinks from the start, and at this point, they're nerfing them into the ground to the point that most later designs will be crippled, useless junk in their stock configurations.

Take a Trial 'Mech out for a spin. Think it runs hot? Now buy one.

Remove 30% of it's heat sinks and go play with it again without changing anything else. Bet it runs horribly.

That's what happens to DHS-based designs from now on. Heck, strip 30% of your heat removal from any design you like and watch what happens to it. It's performance drops into the toilet.

[CeeKay Boques]

WardenWolf, on 05 November 2012 - 12:18 PM, said:

Well, the name is "Double Heat Sink" - which implies, via the math that is *the English language*, twice the effectiveness. If they feel the need to balance further then so be it, but in the interest of new and old players alike being able to understand what they are seeing I recommend a name-change: Advanced Heatsinks, Improved Heatsinks, etc

Sure, or we could take all the heat of weapons and play with that instead.

Double Heat Sinks, often abbreviated DHS and colloquially also referred to as Freezers throughout the Inner Sphere after the NAIS code name.

Awesome, so we can fix all this complaining with the old standby, semantics? Alright!

[Purplefluffybunny]

wanderer, on 05 November 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Let's try this again.

DHS are not meant to balance vs SHS. They are meant to be the new "standard".

I don't even mention SHS nor make a comparison. Again, I view your opinion as one locked into the BT TT mentality.

[Draco Argentum]

Purplefluffybunny, on 05 November 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Anyone who thinks that one can take a table top mechanic, such as DHS, and simply lift it across to a real time video game in a one-to-one fashion, is living in cloud cuckoo land. 1.4 is a good place to start the balancing process.

No it isn't. We can use match to show that PPCs aren't as good as AC10s with SHS and still aren't as good with DHS. The same applies to pretty well all high heat energy weapons.

Now its partly the fault of BattleTech's rotten balance where there are so many components that are flat upgrades. But we're largely stuck with that since the TT fans won't let us have completely different rules. Look at all the DHS must = 2 because thats what it used to be posts. The only sensible compromise if to allow the level 2 tech to remain as flat upgrades then balance the game under the assumpton that everyone uses level two tech.

Well that or create a new IP from scratch so we can have good rules. I just don't have the cash on hand to do that though.

[Joe Mallad]

Konflict, on 05 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Here's the problem, and its a big problem, with this testing. We are spending our own $'s MC/CBills on these DHS setups so they can get data. and if it doesn't work we have to spend our own $'s MC/CBills to revert back. They should have a test server open and copy our accounts there so we can test with that.

this is probably the #1 issue we ALL have ight now. I dont mind the testing of the math to get DHS right but until they are working where the Devs feel they need to be... we as the player base should not have to pay as we have had to just to TEST them. I really dislike that they want us to TEST all these new things but have to spend MC/CBills to do so.

[Lootee]

Balance and tweak my arse. Anyone willing to place a bet whether they would make the DHS dissipate 3.0 or 4.0 when they find out ERLL and ERPPCs (especially that AWS-9M) are still completely unusable?

Didn't think so.

Edited by PanchoTortilla, 05 November 2012 - 07:36 PM.

[lizardmech]

I don't mind if they play around with DHS values and other things. What I'm frustrated about is the poor balance choices. The 1.4 DHS change has handed the most popular OP builds a 40% heat buff because they typically run very few non-engine heatsinks. Meanwhile the already underpowered assault mech energy builds get nerfed forcing me to sell my Assault mechs and go back to abusing the gausscat or streakcat.

[New Breed]

That Nov 3 comment is pretty cute

Yeah, Damn those laser boats would be everywhere.

Wait.. what about streak and guass cats?

[anonymous175]

Can't wait until Double Douchesinks are in tomorrow so we can stop reading the same **** about DHS and read about how OP artemis is tomorrow!

[Valaska]

For sure, nice read by the way really cool how he's contacting and speaking with you.

[rythex]

All i got from this thread is that its ok to boat small lasers, LRM's, Gauss and SSRM's but not energy weapons..

And thats whats happening... so dense.