6 replies to this topic

[Veive]

So we have all seen the rage over double heat sinks.
I understand the need to rebalance them, but by the same token I understand the frustration at the massive nerf that reducing the heat reduction invokes.

I just wanted to ask: have the devs tried simulations where DHS weigh more?
I figure if you up the weight to 1.4 tons including the built in engine heatsinks that would have a similar net affect hopefully without evoking the vitriolic reactions from players.

It would also allow later variants that are based around double heatsinks doing double dissipation to operate with minimal tweaking.

Hopefully this will save the devs some work later!

Cheers,
Veive

[WardenWolf]

Changing the weight of anything means the stock variants no longer 'work'. A stock mech that used DHS would have less of them because of tonnage limits, which is effectively the same as letting them have the full number of heatsinks but each one being less effective.

[Veive]

WardenWolf, on 06 November 2012 - 10:48 AM, said:

Changing the weight of anything means the stock variants no longer 'work'. A stock mech that used DHS would have less of them because of tonnage limits, which is effectively the same as letting them have the full number of heatsinks but each one being less effective.

Ah, but if they leave DHS as it is now what do they have to do?
Increase weight limits and crit slots for more heatsinks.
Adjust or remove weapon hardpoints to limit possible loadouts so the extra crit slots and weight don't break the game.
Pray they don't make a mistake on any of the adjustments or players will cry foul until it's fixed and again once it is fixed.

In either case weight will need to be added to later chassis.

With heavier DHS you can't get a medium mech running around with 2 ac10s.

Cheers,

Veive

[MustrumRidcully]

What they may be able to do is lower the Crit space and the Heat Bonus. 2 Crits for 1.4 heat may be more reasonable and while it still ruins any stock mechs that were build around dissipation rates of Double Heat Sinks and the heat generation of the table top, it could at least allow some heat-intensive builds to work again.

Let's not forget that plenty of the heat intensive weapons are not actually more damaging - ER PPC and ER Lasers just have better ranges, they don't deal more damage. (Only once we add CLan tech we also get more damage).

But... It's all pointless in the end. They need to rebalance all weapon stats for their selected rate of fire. Until they don't understand and do that, the game will remain as imbalanced as it is.

[Veive]

MustrumRidcully, on 06 November 2012 - 11:21 AM, said:

What they may be able to do is lower the Crit space and the Heat Bonus. 2 Crits for 1.4 heat may be more reasonable and while it still ruins any stock mechs that were build around dissipation rates of Double Heat Sinks and the heat generation of the table top, it could at least allow some heat-intensive builds to work again.

Let's not forget that plenty of the heat intensive weapons are not actually more damaging - ER PPC and ER Lasers just have better ranges, they don't deal more damage. (Only once we add CLan tech we also get more damage).

But... It's all pointless in the end. They need to rebalance all weapon stats for their selected rate of fire. Until they don't understand and do that, the game will remain as imbalanced as it is.

This I can agree with.

I went through the mwo wiki to figure up DPS rates for weapons.

Counting refresh/reload and for lasers the time it takes to deal the damage there's some interesting stuff.

A small laser is 1 dps.

A large is a bit over 2.

An ac2 is 4.

An ac20 is 5.

An lrm 20 is 7.

Of course it's not taking into account things like shots missing or an AMS shooting down missiles.

Still, I think it's telling.

Don't get me wrong, I love the game.

I just think that the devs need to take a good hard look ay weapons in terms of damage output.

Cheers,
Veive

[Adrienne Vorton]

to reach a heatsink value of 30 (shs) you´ll need:

30-14(10X1.4 engine)= 16/1.4= 11 "D"HS = 11 tons and 33! critslots...
you spare 9 tons for using 13 critslots more... (if you CAN use 33 slots that is^^ )
(0.7 tons/ slot )
same with 40? okay...

40-14(engine, you get it)= 26/1.4= 18 "D"HS = 18 tons/ 54! critslots
12 tons spared, needs 24 slots more...
(0.5 tons per slot )


best value i found so far: 24
24-14 = 10/ 1.4 = PI^^ (7.14285714...) "D"HS... 7 tons, 21 critslots
7 tons spared, 7 slots needed... (1 ton per slot) )

just saying^^ have your own thoughts on this

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 06 November 2012 - 12:33 PM.

[WardenWolf]

Veive, on 06 November 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

With heavier DHS you can't get a medium mech running around with 2 ac10s.

Dual AC10s is not exactly high heat... I don't think it would be that bad off with just 1.4x 'DHS' in the engine alone.

But what about a medium that wanted to mount two PPCs? That is perfectly reasonable armament (heck, there are Clan *light* mechs with that loadout) which is basically impossible because of heat right now.

Veive, on 06 November 2012 - 11:36 AM, said:

A small laser is 1 dps.

A large is a bit over 2.

An ac2 is 4.

An ac20 is 5.

An lrm 20 is 7.

I've always wondered on what planet AC2s should be as powerful as they are now. Don't get me wrong, in TT they were nearly junk... but more DPS than a large laser, for about the same tonnage but with no heat? Crazy talk!