425 replies to this topic

[SilverlightPony]

All 'Mech engines require a minimum of 10 heatsinks—it doesn't matter if they're singles or doubles, you need 10 of them. The engine has one built in (of whichever type the 'Mech is set up to use) for every 25 points of engine rating.

If you're running smaller than a 250-rated engine, you'll need to put at least one heatsink somewhere else on the 'Mech (the weight that these heatsinks take up has already been deducted from the weight of the engine to counteract it).

If you're running a 275 or larger, you can put at least one extra heatsink inside the engine, but you don't have to.

This is the way it's supposed to be.

What they fixed was a bug with the ones built in to the engines; the MechLab "Heat Efficiency" scale was calculating as if they were doubles, but they weren't acting like doubles in gameplay. Now, if your 'Mech is set up for DHS, ALL your heatsinks, both the ones built in to the engine and the ones you add, have 1.4 times the heat dissipation of "single" heatsinks.

[MustrumRidcully]

Watchit, on 06 November 2012 - 08:09 PM, said:

Lots of people were complaining about streak boats though.

Anyway "Canon stats" would include the random targeting of SSRMs sooooooo... yeah.

Yup. Though they shouldn't miss. That was their key feature - Streak SRMs would never fire if they would miss.

[SpiralRazor]

No, we dont want the old ones back. The devs said that was a temp implementation anyway. But the current spread value is just a touch to high.

[telomere]

Here was my suggestion which I submitted in a feedback ticket.

Quote

Streak SRMs - scale accuracy based on quantity mounted
Streaks will be changed so that they don't all seek the centre torso. This would make them almost useless when used in small quantities on light mechs such as the Jenner 7D or the Commando 2D, as the time and ammo load needed to take down another mech would increase greatly. Also, your telemetry data might show a bias towards people using streaks to get around the current netcode issues, which will somewhat artificially inflate their popularity.

My suggestion is another scaling one. It is to to make the first SSRM2 behave exactly as currently implemented, i.e. always seek centre torso. The second SSRM2 mounted would have (e.g.) 25% chance to lock on to a component other than CT, the third SSRM2 would have a 50% chance to lock onto a different component, the fourth would have a 75% chance, and so on. This would keep SSRMs viable in small quantities on e.g. the Commando, Jenner, Hunchback and Centurion, while also toning down the power of the 6x SSRM2 Catapult A1 which seems to generate a large amount of complaints.

Looks like they have indeed been made useless in small quantities, and we'll have to find something else to use on our lights. At least they've supposedly improved the netcode so hitting with other weapons won't be as impossible as it was before.

[IC3B3RG]

I am glad to hear Streaks no longer only hit Center Torso, however like cannon they should lock and hit or not fire at all.
The only thing that should stop a launched streak from hitting is breaking line-of-sight or some other physical cover.

[Obadiah333]

Huh, only 1 poster defending their OP streak cat. I figured there would be more. Guess everyone just switched over to the unbelievably powered LRM's instead. Good trade off.

[impar]

Streaks are now broken and no longer justify their weight increase and the increased ammo price over SRM.

From Sarna:

Quote

The Streak Missile Launcher is a specialized version of the standard Short Range Missile launcher which withholds fire until it receives a solid lock ensuring all missiles will hit.
in, http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Streak

They no longer hit.
Firing at the back of a stationary Atlas from a 100m distance, about 1/3 of the missiles failed to hit the Atlas at all, the missiles just went through the sides of mech, no impact on torso, arms or legs at all. The SRM are now more precise against a stationary target than the S-SRM.

[IC3B3RG]

Really, what's the point of having DOUBLE Heatsinks if they aren't DOUBLE heatsinks? DOUBLE means DOUBLE the effectiveness, not 1.4x effectiveness. If your going to change the effectiveness, then change the name to reflect the performance and don't lie to people that would assume DOUBLE means DOUBLE.

I have never cared for Inner Sphere Double Heatsinks because they are slot hogs (3 slots per) and only really effective if you have slots to fit them in. Whether they are worth the effort really requires more math than a lot of players are willing to do. If someone has bothered the do the math, has the slotage, and finds them to have a performance increase, let them have it.

In my opinion the only time ISDH are/were worth the effort is when they are in the engine only, and the rules automatically had ten heatsinks in every engine regardless of size. Not this weird weight/rating/heatsink count sliding scale I'm not really familiar with.

[wuselfuzz]

impar, on 07 November 2012 - 01:42 AM, said:

They no longer hit.
Firing at the back of a stationary Atlas from a 100m distance, about 1/3 of the missiles failed to hit the Atlas at all, the missiles just went through the sides of mech, no impact on torso, arms or legs at all. The SRM are now more precise against a stationary target than the S-SRM.

I wonder if that's a general problem now. I swear I've seen one of my AC/20 rounds travel straight through the center of an enemy mech yesterday. Maybe the hitbox/netcode changes are messed up.

[MustrumRidcully]

WaKK0, on 06 November 2012 - 03:02 PM, said:

Having the same problems... my three commandos all running 170 standards with 4 double heat sinks went from

• COM-1D was 2.0 --> now 1.68
  
• COM-2D was 2.41 --> now 2.02
  
• COM-1B was 1.73 --> now 1.43

These are all running mixes of streak SRM2s, tag, and medium lasers.


What the heck is going on??

If you're talking about the heat efficiency indicator in the mech lab.
It is pretty much a useless value. Not because it calculates something wrongly or heat sinks are wonky. Just because what it is calculating has little relevance to how a mech plays. The problem is that they are basing heat efficiency on the ratio between heat you can generate and heat you can dissipate. But the ratio doesn't matter - the absolute difference matters. And so, one mech with a heat efficiency of 1.5 could overheat in 15 seconds, another in 45.

[Stuii OCAU]

So,
I understand why PUGs want the grouping for other to be no more than 2 or better yet 1
However, this game has a massively team based side. I'm a casual gamer, and enjoy the social aspect.
Now I have 3 people to talk to instead of 7 and have never been more bored in this game.

There are a bunch of TS options, clan options and more.

If you're going to nerf team-play because people can't talk, why not finish your voip integration?

[Egomane]

You do know that in two week, you can again play with 7 team mates?

Me and my friends had great fun yesterday, when we launched against each other. We stayed in the same TS channel the whole time and laughed a lot. Sure, for competitive play this is not the best solution, but you only have to wait 14 days, to get back to that. Better then ever!

Edited by Egomane, 07 November 2012 - 03:26 AM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

the intention of the rework on ssrm´s was (so they said anyway) to make them hit on different locations other than only on the center/hip(depending on angle)...

the intention was not to make them miss alot, which contradicts to their intentional design...

wuselfuzz, on 07 November 2012 - 01:58 AM, said:

I wonder if that's a general problem now. I swear I've seen one of my AC/20 rounds travel straight through the center of an enemy mech yesterday. Maybe the hitbox/netcode changes are messed up.

possible

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 07 November 2012 - 02:42 AM.

[Corrado]

Valder, on 06 November 2012 - 03:15 PM, said:

You're rite guy! =D
turrible

my epeen is bigger

[DONTOR]

poor babies the weapons that dont need skill to hit got nerfed Im so sad now.....

[Gaussguy]

Well i use mostly jenners and they seem to be about the same or maybe a bit better than before, but i was only using 15 doubles. I think the Awesome and some of the other energy based chassis prolly took the biggest hit. The Awesomes had issues fitting as many doubles as u needed with the 3 crit slot needed (maybe would work if the doubles used floating crits like the armor). i havent tried loading out an Awesome since the patch, so havent seen how bad it is now. But looking at the heat effeciency on the 9M and the effectiveness of LRMs, i dont see the energy based awesomes being that useful now.

[Corrado]

streaks nerf? i'd say finally. you like the autoaim? keep streaks... you like play a game that require both hands and a bit of aiming skills? drop streaks.

[DONTOR]

1.4? fine make it take up only 2 crit slots then

[o0Marduk0o]

IronGoat, on 06 November 2012 - 08:04 PM, said:

GOD PGI STOP F*CKING AROUND AND GO BACK TO STRAIGHT CANON STATS!!!!!

ANOTHER balancing issue NO ONE was actually complaining about

i love that they balance things the majority think are fine but DONT fix things we all b*tch about..

Nobody complained about Streaks with 100% centre torso hit-rate? What are you smoking man?

[o0Marduk0o]

And a 8-man premade facing pugs is more rewarding? Don't make me laugh man. I will never understand how people can play 8-mans with a so little chance to ever face a opposing premade - boring easy-mode without learning effect.
Well, it has a good side, your premades won't get any better when they have no challenging opponents, which results in good xp/cash for better groups.