425 replies to this topic

[Zolthar]

I reverted back to single HS on my AWESOME, because I had lots of Spare tonnage, but not anough crit slots...

So I switched back to singles. and managed to boost my Heat Efficiency from 1.09(DHS) to 1.13(HS)...

3 Crit Slot for DHS is overkill imo, I recommand reducing it to 2 Crit slot, that way we can at least put DHS in the legs...


And why call them Double, since they double nothing 1.4x the efficiency of the normal, and 3x Crit slot usage...

Edited by Zolthar, 12 November 2012 - 08:07 AM.

[StandingCow]

It's fine the way it is imo.

[Nachocheese]

DHS should take up 2 slots, than the coolrate would be fine, Clan DHS should get a higher coolrate than since they take up 2 slots anyways.

[AsakuraZero]

the magic number is 1.7. for DHS i will repeat this till the kingdom come.

with that i can use LL on my brawler build

[Adrienne Vorton]

1. yes they are good now, you can still overheat but the disipation is much faster with my current setups...
2. keep them as they are now, they just "feel" right

AsakuraZero, on 12 November 2012 - 08:32 AM, said:

the magic number is 1.7. for DHS i will repeat this till the kingdom come.

with that i can use LL on my brawler build

you kill my 2-sentences-answer but okay...

i can use 2 LL and 2 LPLS on my awesome +2 ssrm´s on top... that´s quite some pewpew to be honest, after all we don´t drive clanmechs yet...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 12 November 2012 - 08:36 AM.

[Dreadp1r4te]

Having tested a variety of 'Mechs and builds, I can conclude that 1.4 is just not enough. I'd like at least 1.5, hopefully 1.6, but seriously for the cost, crit usage, and existing poor implementation of heat, we really need 2.0.

[Adrienne Vorton]

Dreadp1r4te, on 12 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Having tested a variety of 'Mechs and builds, I can conclude that 1.4 is just not enough. I'd like at least 1.5, hopefully 1.6, but seriously for the cost, crit usage, and existing poor implementation of heat, we really need 2.0.

no we don´t...honestly... did your "tries" contain 4 er-ppc´s?

i have 2 Lpls + 2 mediums in my catapult with 10 + 10 DHS, and i can almost spam them even on caustic valley with only short interrupts... with 2.0 on all DHS i could just lock my left mousebutton and set my fingers to rest...

with view on the upcoming clanstuff that would mean PPC boating at it´s finest... seriously, i for my part could take a pass on that... it will be getting ugly soon enough...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 12 November 2012 - 08:49 AM.

[Corrado]

for now, DHS are only viable on light to medium mechs with lots of critical slots (few hardpoints) and maybe in the awesome 9M with a really big engine (mine mounts DHS and a 375XL and i have enough space for ammo i don't use and not enough to use the endo steel... or to mount other DHS)

yes. 3 slots for 40% more cooling is silly. they should be either tuned up to 1.7 or at 1.4 with critical space reduced to 2.

Edited by Corrado, 12 November 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[Mechrophilia]

Interesting disciussion. Maybe they should reduce DHS' slots to two, but also reduce their efficiency some more, like 1.2 or 1.25. (These are just random ideas, btw). I agree that the current implementation of DHS seems a little bit off, but I also see why they don't wan't DHS to be that efficient.

If heat becomes trivial, gross DPS output will increse dramatically while armor protection will remain the same. The result will be battles that are over in just a few shots (we all remember Mechwarrior 4). In my opinion, a longer battle, where combatants actually get time to trade shots, then manuver a little bit and trade some more shots, is far more desirable than a short battle. That's my take on it anyway.

IronCossack, on 06 November 2012 - 02:56 PM, said:

They need to rename them from "Double Heat sinks" then.

I think you're right. They may have to call them "Improved Heat Sinks" or something similar.

[Targetloc]

HBK-4P.

Sold the original engine while it was still equipped in the mech.

Dragged in a new 220 STD engine. Pop-up warns "This engine requires 2 heatsinks."


Mech has 2 HS in CT and many more in other sections.

Save mech. No engine.


Edit loadout again. Drag out 2 heatsinks. Drag them back in. Drag engine back in. Save.


Mech lab sidebar still shows no engine.


Exit game. Restart game.

Readd engine. Remove 2 heatsinks. Replace 2 heatsinks. Save mech. Mech now has engine.

[Marzepans]

Since this doesn't appear in this particular sub-forum, maybe that explains why it appears to be being ignored.

[AlanEsh]

If this is a bug, here's my adamant request that it doesn't change. DHS are nearly useless at 1.4 rating.

[Ghosth]

The problem is this makes small mechs that use a 260 engine or bigger more powerful than a larger mech.

So your back to Jenner's coring Atlas's in a few salvos.

Ten true double heat sinks in the engine is much more effective at cooling a light or medium mechs heat load than say a Catapult or an Awesome. And with the rest of the heat sinks at 1.4 you really can't add enough to make up for it.

The good news is the dev's should be looking at the data coming in and see that true DHS in the engine are not so terrible. While it has changed gameplay, its not totally out of whack.

It all depends on where they want to see the balance.
If they want to see lights and mediums dominate then leave it exactly as it is.

If they want Heavys and Assaults to be more in the mix they need to bring the DHS that get put in the chassis up to 2.0 as well.
Otherwise your going to see many more light/medium mechs than heavy/assault.

[Redshift2k5]

I'd love to see your evidence that leads them to appear as 2.0.

[WardenWolf]

Redshift2k5, on 13 November 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

I'd love to see your evidence that leads them to appear as 2.0.

This is not my work, but he has great testing and proof:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1413036

Also, I *have* done some minimal testing on my own and I can say that 33 single heatsinks is almost exactly equal to 19 DHS - which only makes any sense of the ten in the engine are working at 2x effectiveness.

Oh, and to the Devs: for the love of all that is good and holy, please do *not* nerf DHS. We can all see that they are not overpowered right now, so please either move up the ones outside the engine to 2x as well - or at least don't reduce the in-engine ones :/

[Sprouticus]

Ghosth, on 13 November 2012 - 10:46 AM, said:

The problem is this makes small mechs that use a 260 engine or bigger more powerful than a larger mech.

So your back to Jenner's coring Atlas's in a few salvos.

Ten true double heat sinks in the engine is much more effective at cooling a light or medium mechs heat load than say a Catapult or an Awesome. And with the rest of the heat sinks at 1.4 you really can't add enough to make up for it.

The good news is the dev's should be looking at the data coming in and see that true DHS in the engine are not so terrible. While it has changed gameplay, its not totally out of whack.

It all depends on where they want to see the balance.
If they want to see lights and mediums dominate then leave it exactly as it is.

If they want Heavys and Assaults to be more in the mix they need to bring the DHS that get put in the chassis up to 2.0 as well.
Otherwise your going to see many more light/medium mechs than heavy/assault.

I see what your saying, but I dont think it is a fair comparrison. Last patch heat was STRONG in favor of larger mechs. This one is fairly strongly in favor of lighter mechs.Obviosuly pure DHS would flatten that out


For instance

Jenner with 15 SHS = 15*0.1= 1.5 HPS
Jenner with 15 DHS(last patch) = (10*0.1)+(7*0.2)= 2.0 HPS
Jenner with 15 DHS(current system) = (10*0.2)+(5*0.14)= 2.7 HPS
Jenner with 15 DHS(pure DHS system) = (15*0.2)= 3.0 HPS

Using SHS as a baseline, you do roughly 35% more damage with the current build than the initial 'bugged' implementation. Which personally I dont think was bugged. But thats another story.

Catapult with 21 SHS =(21*0.1)= 2.1 HPS
Catapult with 21 DHS(last patch)= (10*0.1) + (11*0.2) = 3.2 HPS
Catapult with 21 DHS(current)= (10*0.2) + (11*0.1) = 3.1 HPS
Catapult with 21 DHS (pure DHS) = (21*0.2) = 4.2 HPS


Here is the thing about these numbers. They dont tell the whole story. In many cases, it is easier for a larger mech to keep Time on Target high compared to light mechs (who have to run around to avoid fire a lot more and end up having large gaps between cooldown and the next time they fire.

This mitigates the advantages light mechs have in cooling IMO.


Last comment. I dont hink PGI is balancing on light vs heavy. Or at leats not exlcusively. IMO they are balancing more on total DPS. They want matchs to last X ammount of time. They want engagements between mechs to last Y ammount of time. By raising the heat maximum, you lower the avg time for both X and Y

This game is numbers heavy as it is (by number heavy I mean that number of players make a huge difference in performance). By raising DPS you exaserbate the issue. You will end up with MORE 8-0 and 8-1 matchs, not less.

[Marzepans]

Redshift2k5, on 13 November 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

I'd love to see your evidence that leads them to appear as 2.0.

The evidence is all over the forums and very easy to verify for yourself.

[Big Bad Wulf]

I agree, DHS should also include the one's in the engine. DHS were intruduced to meet the clan threat comming this march if the timeline is followed. I am wondering how much complaining we will hear when you get hit by ER PPC that does 15 damage and no minimum range or LRM's with no minimum range and so forth.

My 1cent is that listening is good, but too much spoils the game. I say stay true to the game. I personally liked how the game has stayed close to the table top gam as it possibly can.

[shabowie]

All DHS should be 2.0 cooling per 10s.

But as to the OPs question somebody already emailed the developers and they said the current system, which is default engine heat sinks (engine rating divided by 25 up to 10) at 2.0 and engine mounted over ten or externally mounted at 1.4 is WAD.

Doesn't appear to be reflected in the efficiency part of the mechlab though.

Edited by shabowie, 13 November 2012 - 01:05 PM.

[Marzepans]

shabowie, on 13 November 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

All DHS should be 2.0 cooling per 10s.

But as to the OPs question somebody already emailed the developers and they said the current system, which is default engine heat sinks (engine rating divided by 25 up to 10) at 2.0 and engine mounted over ten or externally mounted at 1.4 is WAD.

Doesn't appear to be reflected in the efficiency part of the mechlab though.

I've seen the comment. The reason I put it up in this particular forum is that DHS do not function as per the patch notes and the description of the new implementation.