425 replies to this topic

[xHeero]

10 are included in the engine. The ones that take up engine slots that you manually place take up tonnage, and those would be heatsinks 11 and 12. Those slots just allow you to save critical space.

[JingleHell]

whiteboy007, on 06 November 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

I realize builds like mine are the minority and therefore seem extreme, but it isn't outside the realm of possible. And in that I think you find the problem with DHS. They just aren't efficient enough to warrant the cost and space needed to utilize them. I know you can tell a difference between a build with DHS and SHS. I've felt the difference personally.

However, making DHS less efficient indirectly makes weapons like ERLL's and ERPPC's less effective. Maybe if the damage of PPC's, for example, were higher maybe it would offset the lower rate at which they can be fired.

Just an idea.

My builds have literally not changed at all and yet, it is now harder to overheat.

Now, is it a fact that, like usual there's thresholds where certain items aren't ideal in a build? Yes, welcome to a MechWarrior game. Some mechs are limited by tonnage, others by critical slots. This is not new. You pick and choose the ideal components for your use of your chassis.

[novus]

question.... I keep seeing this 10 heatsinks in an engine thing.... are all engines supposed to have 10 heat sinks?? because according to the mech bay they dont.... the st200 engine only has 8 heatsinks and the smaller engines even less... seems odd because to go from a 200 to a 195 you save 1.5 tons BUT have to add 2 heatsinks just to get your heatsink count and effeciency back up...... seems counter intuitive to get a slower engine but more weight to be as effective.........

and this has been checked I have 6 double heatsinks installed but it only says I have 14 heatsinks instead of the 16 I should have... also when I add engines it will say you need 2 or 4 or whatever extra heatsinks for the engine....

dunno seems not right ... a smaller engine should be lighter and slower... not heavier and slower for the same effeciency

[Tallnob]

JingleHell, on 06 November 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

My builds have literally not changed at all and yet, it is now harder to overheat.

Now, is it a fact that, like usual there's thresholds where certain items aren't ideal in a build? Yes, welcome to a MechWarrior game. Some mechs are limited by tonnage, others by critical slots. This is not new. You pick and choose the ideal components for your use of your chassis.

This is true, but as someone pointed out the DHS will not function without a further increase in efficiency when clan tech hits the game. Currently, they are more useful on builds without endo/ferro, shortages in tonnage but additional crit space. This is generally the 25-50 ton range. I can't fit them on my Cat with endo, I did the math and I'd be losing a sink. The Founders Atlas I run also can't benefit at all. I have put them on my Jenner and Hunchy, and found that on the hunchy I went from 1.13 to 1.23 upgraded the sm to med laser and added a ton of Ac/20 ammo. It's not much, and probably tough to justify 1.5mil but not terrible either.

[AceTimberwolf]

The Counter was bugged from the Beginning. You guys are only worried that your heat efficiency went down when it reality its closer to where it should have been with your heat sinks since before the shs were reading as dhs in the engine so your heat efficiency was higher than it should have been. Of Course us older guys realize this but some of you freak out when you see this. shs in the engine went up and the ones outside of the engine went down. That is all that happened. Stop comparing old and new heat inefficiencies when you don't have a proper perspective on the matter.

Also remember your pilot lab will make your heat management even better thats why they had to be toned down anyways or else it just turns into a mindless FPS with no consequence. I'm sure someone of you would love that tho. Mostly the Americans. アメリカ人は本当に面倒ですよ!

Edited by AceTimberwolf, 06 November 2012 - 04:18 PM.

[Xervitus]

Both of you are wrong

[XBigBenX]

Aratan Aenor, on 06 November 2012 - 02:58 PM, said:

It seems "Double Heat Sinks" has a nicer, if less accurate ring to it than "1.4x Heat Sinks."

Mhh maybee they should only take 2 internal slots to...i really don't understand why they change a over years proved system sure Double HS are efficient...but i ask myself what will they do to Clan-Tech? Clan-Tech is overpowered by definition.

[Ghost Rider LSOV]

AceTimberwolf, on 06 November 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

The Counter was bugged from the Beginning

Yeah, I got worried too when I saw the drop in the bar, but in the game, I didn't see any (big?) difference I think. (Large lasers)

[Corvus Antaka]

So far it seems to strike a good balance and keep both singles & doubles useful. Not convinced they are underpowered right now...they seem well balanced with singles. While TT calls for doubles completely outclassing singles, this would not be good here.

Instead it would be better if the devs now turn to improving the overall heatscale & dissapation itself. Lower the cap, raise dissapation?

Hard to say without more game time...will report back after more testing

[MrJJ]

Dont forget that the initial heat number from last patch was incorrect due to the DHS not working in the first place. I have noticed the number gone down but my efficiency gone up playing.

[AceTimberwolf]

Noganite, on 06 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Wow....PGI needs to quit their dayjobs...L2 MAKE GAMES... I just patched and logged in. I took a look at my founders atlas that has DHS and had a 1.59 heat rating. It is now 1.33 . WTF?!?! Really, this is what happens when you have fanboys making a game... they haven't even got a clue what the frack to do. Stop using the TT rules directly and make something like MW4 or 3 or 2. Use the examples from already established games to make this game. We dont have fracking dice, we have PCs. That DHS issue has royally pissed me off and once again PGI has FAILED. I think I shall now go play something else. FRACK YOU PGI!

Not sure if Serious or Trolling. Anyone care to take a guess? But Like everyone said the 1.59 wasn't your heat efficiency it was just a number generated by taking into account that your engine heatsinks were also doubles.

[JingleHell]

AceTimberwolf, on 06 November 2012 - 04:15 PM, said:

The Counter was bugged from the Beginning. You guys are only worried that your heat efficiency went down when it reality its closer to where it should have been with your heat sinks since before the shs were reading as dhs in the engine so your heat efficiency was higher than it should have been. Of Course us older guys realize this but some of you freak out when you see this. shs in the engine went up and the ones outside of the engine went down. That is all that happened. Stop comparing old and new heat inefficiencies when you don't have a proper perspective on the matter.

Also remember your pilot lab will make your heat management even better thats why they had to be toned down anyways or else it just turns into a mindless FPS with no consequence. I'm sure someone of you would love that tho. Mostly the Americans. アメリカ人は本当に面倒ですよ!

Speaking as an American who approves all of this except the stupid ad hom attack, that would certainly explain the exact observation I was having.

[Ezrekiel]

*sigh* i knew this was too complicated for some ppl...

do me a favor, and if you dont understand how this should work in both TT and MWO then just dont post here. devs know what I mean, trust me

Edited by Ezrekiel, 06 November 2012 - 04:28 PM.

[pesco]

Check the engine weight. It's factored in there.

[Elder Thorn]

Xervitus, on 06 November 2012 - 04:16 PM, said:

Both of you are wrong

Ezrekiel, on 06 November 2012 - 04:27 PM, said:

*sigh* i knew this was too complicated for some ppl...

do me a favor, and if you dont understand how this should work in both TT and MWO then just dont post here. devs know what I mean, trust me

well i for once understood, that they will take up tonnage but not criticals.
Whats wrong about that?

If you, oh great Lord, are so smart, can you explain it, for those of us, that are not blessed with such smartness?

Edit:

pesco, on 06 November 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Check the engine weight. It's factored in there.

thank you, makes sense

Edited by Elder Thorn, 06 November 2012 - 04:33 PM.

[ExavierMacbeth]

You don't get 10 free heat sinks in MWO... You get Engine Rating / 25 free heat sinks with your engine maximum of 10. If your engine is 275+ rating you get the option to load extra heat sinks into the engine without using crit spaces, still costs weight. If your engine is 225- rating you are limited by the engine to 9 or less heat sinks in the engine. Any extras you mount cost crit space & tonnage because your engine just isn't big enough to hold more.

[fxrsniper]

Valder, on 06 November 2012 - 02:53 PM, said:

My Dragon with 16 heatsinks that are double heatsinks went from 1.52 heat efficiency to 1.27 with the patch. If 1.4 happened, it should have become slightly more heat efficient, not less. You guys should NOT shoot all the internal testers in the head, but instead give them a beating.

EDIT: The consensus is that the 1.52 was a bugged value that was saying that everything (including engine internal heatsinks) was all 2.0.

EDIT EDIT: This thread is NOT to discuss the finer points of nerfing over brandy. It was to figure out if the dev's intended implementation is bugged. If you want to talk about 1.4 vs 2.0 being better OP or nerfed or "double means double" go spam general forum.

The heat sinks are showing the correct heat now they are working I even removed one double heat and still have no heat issues

[Shredhead]

Elder Thorn, on 06 November 2012 - 04:32 PM, said:

well i for once understood, that they will take up tonnage but not criticals.
Whats wrong about that?

If you, oh great Lord, are so smart, can you explain it, for those of us, that are not blessed with such smartness?

Edit:




thank you, makes sense

An engine with less than 10 HS inside, like a 200 engine, has the tonnage for the 2 HS you have to build in your mech outside the engine factored in. The bug is, now they're taking the weight twice.
You may appease me with a sacrificial lamb, drugs and wild orgies.

[jeirhart]

All Engines that could hold more than 10 Heat Sinks originally have had the extra HSs removed but can be re-added manually (at player's discretion). The weight of those engines has been reduced according to the number of heat sinks that were made optional. DHS and standard heat sinks take up the same amount of space in the engine and add the same weight so it's suggested that players looking to add DHS to their mech add them to the engine first to save critical space.

[Krazed MF]

DHS. Put that crap back to what it was.

Now.