532 replies to this topic

[Sasha Volkova]

Rifter, on 05 November 2012 - 07:59 PM, said:

The thing is they are BREAKING THE GAME with the changes lately to DHS, its getting to the point where this isnt mechwarrior anymore. Lets take a look at what they are doing with the heatsinks and use some examples and some very light math from mechs currently in game, this isnt even touching the clan mechs which are more reliant on double heatsinks and will be even more broken than the below example...


We have an awesome AWS-8Q, this is a first gen awesome that uses old tech with no tier two equipment, its the workhorse awesome from the IS. It has 3 PPC's as its main weponry and 28 SHS. This is an all around good mech, not expensive to run or buy or repair and packs a punch, with barely enough heatsinks but it is a workable design.

Then after tier two tech comes in they redesign this mech with tier two tech to combat the clans. They release the AWS-9M. They replace the standard PPC's with ER models and the standard heatsinks with doubles to combat the extra heat of the ER PPC's. It has 20 DHS so 40 SHS worth of cooling which is a substantial upgrade over the 28 SHS of the previous AWS-8Q model but this is NEEDED to cool the much hotter ER PPC's as well as the addition secondary weaponry this mech has. They also add a larger XL engine to boost speed while also reducing weight. This mech is Very expensive to buy and repair due to all the tier two tech and is a clear and definate upgrade over the older model, and you pay for this as its way more expensive to buy.

With the DHS nerfed down to 140% cooling, less than half their intended effectivness that puts the AWS-9M at 28 SHS worth of cooling, the exact same as the AWS-8Q. But remember its got ER PPC's so will run way hotter than the 8Q, like to the point of being useless in battle hotter. So what is supposed to be a clear and expensive upgrade over the 8Q turns out be much much more ineffective and boarderline useless to field. You are paying a huge premium for tier two tech that is WORSE than the tier one mech it is replacing.

When you start to break stock canon designs such as descibed above to the point where tier two tech is WORSE that tier one tech but still alot more expensive you are now in a place where you are just making a mockery of battletech and the lore involved and should stop using the BT/MW name.

If you want to make a big stompy robot game fine im ok with that, i like big stompy robots, but dont try and pawn this crap off as BT because it clearly is NOT in the direction this game has taken. Call it hawken, world of mechs, gundam robots online, whatever you want but dont abuse the BT/MW name like this if you are going to clearly step away from it to the point where stock designs are unplayable and worse than the designs they are supposed to be a upgrade from because you have broken the game mechanics to the point that makes them useless more expensive upgrades.

Just something to think about, and if you think that example is bad i can throw some clan deisngs in there that are alot more broken than that awesome example.

You should add a LR:DR at the buttom so avoid people complaining over a wall of text. It works wonders.

Anyway I read it all and I understand your point of view all too well.
I just started playing this friday and already I am facing this issue on my Laser based Cn9-AL but then I realized the way to ¨fix¨ this problem was to NOT upgrade to the ¨improved¨ heatsinks, and just make use of twice or almost tripple the amount of normal heatsinks (seeing as it has lots of space left for those when they no longer require 3 spaces each) and that makes the ¨newer model¨ both cheaper to repair since it lacks the upgrade, but also makes it perfectly possible to run it with your intended setup in ALOT of the cases.

Still I do understand the logic you put out when you say that new tech should be better than old tech, and I can only agree, but for now just walk around the issue by cheating the system like this and you should be fine, also add the sinks to the legs and stand in water whenever it is safe or possible and that should help cool you even faster.

Also one last thing, the upgraded version is awesome when you run it on a mech that is balistic specced like a Cn9-A since you can often only fit 2 heatsinks in those anyway and the ¨needed¨ cooling aint so much compared to laser based kin. (and often you have the leftover space compared to the laser versions who all run a gazzilion heatsinks)

Edited by 0okami, 19 November 2012 - 05:57 AM.

[Durahl]

PerfectTommy, on 19 November 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

The TT heat sinks never made sense to me anyway.

If you generate heat in real life, a "heat sink" will take a little while to dissipate that heat. Heat transfer from the hot component to the coolant to the radiators/chillers takes time. That is just physics.

-PT

I'm not an Expert on this Field but judging from my experience with a watercooled PC I used to have I can say that heat goes away quite fast if done right. With todays heat generation from CPU/GPU's you can pretty much use your Hardware to cook your food but using a propperly sized Watercooling System would allow me to touch these components shortly after use.

[Windies]

Alexa Steel, on 19 November 2012 - 05:52 AM, said:

Optimizing your build doesnt allways result in a better result than what you achieved before. You could try to optimize just to realize you already reached the best loadout possible. Besides that I agree that optimizing your builds can be quite challenging, but again I have no trouble optimizing my builds.
@Antagonist: I wasnt trying to question his facts, I just wanted to state that there are drawbacks.

op·ti·mize

1. To make as perfect or effective as possible.
2. Computer Science To increase the computing speed and efficiency of (a program), as by rewriting instructions.
3. To make the most of.

If you don't produce results greater than your previous attempt, it's not optimzing. Also just because you feel that you have optimized your builds does not mean that there are better ways.

Edited by Windies, 19 November 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Alexa Steel]

Windies, on 19 November 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

op·ti·mize

1. To make as perfect or effective as possible.
2. Computer Science To increase the computing speed and efficiency of (a program), as by rewriting instructions.
3. To make the most of.

If you don't produce results greater than your previous attempt, it's not optimzing. Also just because you feel that you have optimized your builds does not mean that there are better ways.

TRYING to optimize MIGHT not yield a better result, because there MIGHT be nothing to optimize in the current environment.
Never said that.

[MaddMaxx]

Windies, on 19 November 2012 - 07:04 AM, said:

op·ti·mize

1. To make as perfect or effective as possible.
2. Computer Science To increase the computing speed and efficiency of (a program), as by rewriting instructions.
3. To make the most of.

If you don't produce results greater than your previous attempt, it's not optimzing. Also just because you feel that you have optimized your builds does not mean that there are better ways.

An "optimized" build is very subjective to begin with. Is it optimized for DPS, HDPS (heat dissipation/sec) a relative of DPS. Does clicking on/off one more time on any one specific armor section make that design more "optimal?

An truly "optimized" build is one that the Pilot, who drives it, feels they will do their best work in. Once that is found, tweaking is something that makes them feel as if they are attempting to "re-optimize" an already "optimized" build for themselves. And the MechLab is just FUN to play with. LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 19 November 2012 - 07:56 AM.

[Diablobo]

One of the main reasons that everyone complains about the trial mechs being so bad is because they overheat so badly. Stock mechs usually already had heat issues to begin with in TT, but in this game they are three times worse.
I totally agree with the OP....if you are going to use the same stock mech designs with heat issues to start with and then triple their heat....you're gonna have a bad time.

[Josef Nader]

I would agree that we shouldn't be -too- concerned about stock designs working in real-time, as they were intended for a turn-based game with completely different rules and concerns than a real time game. However, we are forcing new players to play these super-inefficient stock designs against efficiently built custom jobs. That's -really- rough on new players.

I'm fine with PGI changing the TT rules to fit the real time scenario. They should also optimize the stock TT mechs to make them work in their new system so trial players aren't completely bent over the table by those that can afford to build working mechs.

[Squidhead Jax]

Josef Nader, on 19 November 2012 - 09:34 AM, said:

I'm fine with PGI changing the TT rules to fit the real time scenario. They should also optimize the stock TT mechs to make them work in their new system so trial players aren't completely bent over the table by those that can afford to build working mechs.

This. While it would mean the death of some beloved (by me at least) classic designs like the AWS-8Q, if they're not going to balance the game around TT 'mech configurations, they need to reconfigure the stock (and thus trial) 'mechs.

I would, of course, prefer balance that accommodates tabletop-effective configurations.

Edited by Squidhead Jax, 19 November 2012 - 10:37 AM.

[Icedpyre]

Helmer, on 05 November 2012 - 08:10 PM, said:

When developing MWO PGI started with the exact TableTop stats . As someone who has been testing since the early Friends and Family stages, I felt that the game (with a 1 - 1 TT translation) was simply not fun.
Small lasers on a fast moving 'mech was an instant win button, LRMs were grossly ineffective, and Autocannons were next to useless.

Although I can respect the opinion that perhaps PGI has strayed too far from the TT values, I feel that almost every single change has been for the better.

This is pretty much my sentiment. I've been testing since early April, which as I understand it, is fairly early in the testing. At that point, the weapons were BRUTAL. People could fire flamers endlessly, medium lasers were essentially the be-all weapon that filled every role. In other words, the translation from TT was TERRIBLE. PGI HAD to stray from the absolute TT values, in order to make a game that was commercially and effectively viable for both oldschool MW/BT fans, and people who just like "stompy robot" games. I am a very longtime fan of FASA's work. I have many books, pcgames, figurines, bootlegged cartoons, action figures, and posters. I for one feel that PGI is doing a FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANTASTIC job so far.

Also....keep in mind that while heatsink dissipation may be lowered, weapon HEAT values in many cases have also been lowered. In early beta, using a PPC or large laser was pretty much a massive handicap due to the heat production. I remember having to load up 39 heatsinks to get my twin ER large laser firing more than one salvo without shutting down.

Rifter, on 05 November 2012 - 08:26 PM, said:

Thats exactly the point, clan mechs are SUPPOSED TO WIPE THE FLOOR with IS designs, its supposed to be 5 clan(star) against 8 IS mechs and get a even fight. If you are going to stick with the BT/MW name then you need to stick with the lore, why else use the name.

Changing the mechanics is fine but there is a line that can be crossed, and IMO PGI has now crossed it.

I will not question this statement on one condition. PROVIDE ONE EXAMPLE, of how game matching will work, if teams are defaulted 8 on 8, and clan mechs are only supposed to get 5 for an equal match. Presuming of course that pugs will not be made of entirely IS and/or Clan mechs. When you have "PUG" matches occurring frequently, and you KNOW people will be using both IS and clan tech/mechs....how the heck is PGI supposed to have match-making be remotely successful? It's hard enough to get good matches as it is, WITHOUT clan tech in the mix at all.

[Icedpyre]

Durahl, on 19 November 2012 - 06:57 AM, said:

I'm not an Expert on this Field but judging from my experience with a watercooled PC I used to have I can say that heat goes away quite fast if done right. With todays heat generation from CPU/GPU's you can pretty much use your Hardware to cook your food but using a propperly sized Watercooling System would allow me to touch these components shortly after use.

YOU CAN NOT COMPARE REAL LIFE PHYSICS TO BATTLETECH. In a game where a "long range missile" can't go over a kilometer, yet modern missiles could fire into SPACE....physics will never be comparable. Your computer right now, is most likely more powerful than the computers in the battletech universe. Yet they have faster than light travel. Your statement simply has no bearing on BT. Comparing fantasy physics to real physics invalidates the entire FANTASY world created. /rant

[Yeach]

Alexa Steel, on 19 November 2012 - 04:58 AM, said:

You are stating problems that were present in the TT aswell, even WITH DHS. Medium Lasers were allways better than most weapons and Gauss guns were allways "unfair".

MustrumRidcully, on 19 November 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

This is one of the things that I have no trouble throwing out in a video game. I don't think it's likely that the medium laser is displayed in the lore as overpowered - it's a workhorse weapon. At 1 ton weight and 1 crit, it's always easy to add to a mech.

I agree with MustrumRidcully... something needs to be adjusted.

Lets use a Hunchback P with 8 Medium lasers
In MWO there is convergence all medium lasers fired hit the exact same spot (with the possible exception of arm-mounted lasers); in TT chances are the medium lasers would hit more than one separate spots.

This is the balancing factor in TT that does NOT exist in MWO.
To counter-that, PGI added heat to the medium lasers.

My opinion is that they have not added enough heat to lasers.
Use the AC20 vs 4 medium lasers argument. (both 20 damage to one spot?)
(AC20 = 7 heat, MLaser = 3 heat)

For heat neutral (AC20)
AC20 + 2 ammo + 7 HS = 23 tons

In current TT (4 Medium Laser)
4 ML + 12 HS = 16 tons << 23 tons

Accounting for the increase accuracy of group fire medium lasers, IMO we should add more heat; say lets increase heat to 5 for ML
4 ML + 20 HS = 24 tons ~ 23 tons which is MORE balanced.

What is the net effect;
stock Jenner JF-7D are now even more heat however sarna does mention that Jenner's do not have enough heatsinks and prone to overheating.

Either this or lower the damage of medium lasers
http://mwomercs.com/...econds-or-less/

[Lightfoot]

Diablobo, on 19 November 2012 - 05:19 AM, said:

I don't know how I can say it more clearly. The firing rates are tripled with almost the exact same heat values. The heat dissipation rates haven't been tripled though. This game is just TT with triple the heat.
RIDICULOUS.

Yep, I said this so often during the closed beta I figured at some point (DHS was the promised time of the FIX) they would fix it. Then DHS comes along and we get another Heat Nerf. PGI, let's play the Battletech game with the BALANCED 3 weapon types. Energy, Ballistics, and Missles, each no better and no worse than the other.

[Rifter]

Icedpyre, on 19 November 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

I will not question this statement on one condition. PROVIDE ONE EXAMPLE, of how game matching will work, if teams are defaulted 8 on 8, and clan mechs are only supposed to get 5 for an equal match. Presuming of course that pugs will not be made of entirely IS and/or Clan mechs. When you have "PUG" matches occurring frequently, and you KNOW people will be using both IS and clan tech/mechs....how the heck is PGI supposed to have match-making be remotely successful? It's hard enough to get good matches as it is, WITHOUT clan tech in the mix at all.

They will either have to have uneven numbers, come up with a BV system(this would also help matchmaking) or have only clan v clan and IS v IS.

Whatever they go with that had better have a plan or its going to turn into clanwarrior online and no one will field IS mechs.

Obviously PGI must have some kinda plan for this as the chose this timeline, they could have avoided all of this by going 3025 but they chose 3049 so i can only hope they have some kinda plan to balance the clans.

[Faldrin]

A lot of the post in this thread go on about balance and the way DHS should be 2.0 like TT but 2.0 would make them OP to hell. A 8Q like the OP used can fit 5 LL with SHS can Alpha 3-4 times with the right build for 45 damage each alpha before over heating. With true DHS you could get 6-8 I would say with out over heating due not being able to get as many in the Mech. This is why a lot of the systems have to be changed for a easy to aim none random BT game I.e. no dice to decide where the hits go.

With 5 LL I can get 90 damage on one target at 100+ range at one point. That's any Mechs armour in that point gone as it is.now. If I could do 8 alphas in a row that will be 3 heavy or assault mechs dead in 25 seconds as they ain't what you would call hard to hit.

Oh the 8Q is by far my favorite assault mech in game so far.

If we used a Jenner 7-F 6 med laser with true DHS you could kill any Mech in 3 seconds by hitting the rear armour in 3-6 seconds. As true DHS would be able to cool down and get 3 alphas off before over heating.

To the Op this is why changes need to be made to TT systems as players can aim in this game!

Edited by Faldrin, 19 November 2012 - 08:44 PM.

[Xyberviri]

I seem to recal DHS being 2x as effective and required 2x the space and were only 1 ton

[Faldrin]

Xyberviri, on 19 November 2012 - 08:50 PM, said:

I seem to recal DHS being 2x as effective and required 2x the space and were only 1 ton

Sure that was Clan DHS that only took up 2 crit space IS was 3

[Xerxys]

Tempered, on 05 November 2012 - 08:31 PM, said:

@OP
Don't you think you're being a bit overly dramatic? You can not translate a turn based pen and paper game into first person mech simulator without making some changes. It just doesn't work. The core ideas are all still there in MWO.

You are correct, but with a greater than 50% hit to the heat dissipation they should make up for it by only doubling the space required to field them. The main reason for double heat sinks, IMO, is so you don't have to field nearly as many heat sinks to make a build work. You can instead allocate the weight difference into armor/ammo or whatever you choose. I highly doubt that with double efficiency you'd be able to spam fire energy weapons. It still takes time to dissipate the heat so you will overheat regardless of how many DHS you run. If PGI puts the efficiency below 75% I think they should make up for it by dropping one space from the requirements to field them. Since we don't have to follow TT rules strictly then make up for the change in another way. After all, if they can change something to make it drastically less efficient than it is supposed to be then amends need to be made as well.

Edited by Xerxys, 19 November 2012 - 09:49 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Icedpyre, on 19 November 2012 - 01:59 PM, said:

I will not question this statement on one condition. PROVIDE ONE EXAMPLE, of how game matching will work, if teams are defaulted 8 on 8, and clan mechs are only supposed to get 5 for an equal match. Presuming of course that pugs will not be made of entirely IS and/or Clan mechs. When you have "PUG" matches occurring frequently, and you KNOW people will be using both IS and clan tech/mechs....how the heck is PGI supposed to have match-making be remotely successful? It's hard enough to get good matches as it is, WITHOUT clan tech in the mix at all.

That's an easy one - allow for uneven teams and match by some sort of "battle value" (not necessarily the same values as in TT, but similar concept).

Alternatively, don't allow both IS and Clan mechs to be on the same team and always drop 5v8.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Ghost Bear, on 05 November 2012 - 08:17 PM, said:

I stopped reading after the DHS phrase.

What part of "it broke the game, heat was no longer an issue" do you not get?

The lying *** part I think which is all of it

[Xerxys]

Faldrin, on 19 November 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

A lot of the post in this thread go on about balance and the way DHS should be 2.0 like TT but 2.0 would make them OP to hell. A 8Q like the OP used can fit 5 LL with SHS can Alpha 3-4 times with the right build for 45 damage each alpha before over heating. With true DHS you could get 6-8 I would say with out over heating due not being able to get as many in the Mech. This is why a lot of the systems have to be changed for a easy to aim none random BT game I.e. no dice to decide where the hits go.

With 5 LL I can get 90 damage on one target at 100+ range at one point. That's any Mechs armour in that point gone as it is.now. If I could do 8 alphas in a row that will be 3 heavy or assault mechs dead in 25 seconds as they ain't what you would call hard to hit.

Oh the 8Q is by far my favorite assault mech in game so far.

If we used a Jenner 7-F 6 med laser with true DHS you could kill any Mech in 3 seconds by hitting the rear armour in 3-6 seconds. As true DHS would be able to cool down and get 3 alphas off before over heating.

To the Op this is why changes need to be made to TT systems as players can aim in this game!

Heat dissipates over time. Only so much heat can be dissipated in the time frame you're referring to. Now lets look at the major drawback to running these: x3 critical slots per DHS. That alone limits the number you could possibly field on any given chassis.

They're not as OP as you people make them out to be. You would never be able to fit enough DHS to allow these alpha strikes that you speak of. I have them on my hunchback and can only field 5 DHS over the initial 10. I simply don't have enough critical space available in enough areas to allow any more than that. TT conversion actually would work in this instance. It's the clan DHS that is going to be OP if they only take up 2 critical slots, but the lore would fit. The balance is there, but people are imagining all the critical slots being filled with weapons or DHS.

I have several areas on my mech that only have 2 spaces available so I can't fit another DHS. The originator of this post is absolutely correct on most of what he says about this IMO. TT should only be converted where it can be and only altered when necessary to make it work in a game like this. Dropping off anything from the x2 heat dissipation the part should have needs to be countered by reducing the critical slots required to field it.