13 replies to this topic

[The Cheese]

So there's been two main crowds of people with views on the DHS 1.4 change. There's the "don't knock it till you try it" crowd, usually shadowed by the "do the math" crowd.

The "do the math" crowd is correct. That is to say that the DHS will (barring any bugs) perform to specification 100% of the time. It will dissipate just as much heat as it's supposed to. This is not a variable point.

The "try it first" crowd is ALSO correct. That is to say that not all in-game situations are ideal, and much of the time, it might not even matter that the DHS is providing a lower heat dissipation rate than some people want. This IS a variable point, as it all depends on the situation.

The point is, the numbers don't lie, but they're not the only thing that needs to be considered when talking about how a given component will act in concert with the rest of a build. Immediately discounting the other person's view without thinking about this doesn't help anyone.

[Devils Advocate]

I can tell you with absolute certainty (using math) that my awesomes are being nerfed for using high heat and trying to compensate with double heat sinks, while lighter mechs with larger engines are being buffed for not using them. Anecdotal evidence is arbitrary; I've already played the game with the previous settings, which were close to these numbers for me today. I'm not sure what this 'hey sometimes things might not go like the math says' argument is supposed to mean.

[Ockow]

Why don't you go post in one of the 100's of DHS post goin right now. we don't need a new one. there 4 on the front page right now.

[Broceratops]

awesome will stop sucking once they let them use 300+ engines so they can pack 2-4 freebie heat sinks like an atlas. right now the engine limitation on them hurts a lot

not real sure why they cant use 300 engines while both an atlas and a jenner can. its not like they're going to go too fast or anything

Edited by Broceratops, 06 November 2012 - 02:46 PM.

[Particle Man]

Devils Advocate, on 06 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

I can tell you with absolute certainty (using math) that my awesomes are being nerfed for using high heat and trying to compensate with double heat sinks, while lighter mechs with larger engines are being buffed for not using them. Anecdotal evidence is arbitrary; I've already played the game with the previous settings, which were close to these numbers for me today. I'm not sure what this 'hey sometimes things might not go like the math says' argument is supposed to mean.

so use weapons that generate less heat. You cant load it up with large lasers either, but you make due anyway

[Enervation]

i'm not too concerned either way. if the math is solid, design your mech around the math.
pgi is bound to change it again at some point in the near future, in the mean time take your math expertice to the mechlab and make something that can **** 40% more

[Bubba Wilkins]

Particle Man, on 06 November 2012 - 02:46 PM, said:

so use weapons that generate less heat. You cant load it up with large lasers either, but you make due anyway

Hence why most of the Assault builds are actually more in line with a Heavy or Medium chassis.

[Particle Man]

Bubba Wilkins, on 06 November 2012 - 02:48 PM, said:

Hence why most of the Assault builds are actually more in line with a Heavy or Medium chassis.

except with more armor and more slots for other weapons. There are very few dedicated boat variants (like the aws-q or hbk-4p) and only 1 of them is on an assault

[MCXL]

People don't understand the REAL numbers of this game, and complain about the symptoms over the cause.

Wanna know more? Read my thread about the heat system and the changes PGI has made.

If you think this game doesn't feel like a Mechwarrior game to you, check out the post linked in my sig.

[The Cheese]

Devils Advocate, on 06 November 2012 - 02:43 PM, said:

I'm not sure what this 'hey sometimes things might not go like the math says' argument is supposed to mean.

No one is saying that "it might not go like the math says". They're saying that the math isn't the only that needs to be considered. Example: If I don't fire for an extra second after the cooldown on a weapon is up (a common occurrence), then it doesn't matter that they're not dissipating heat as fast as I'd like, because there's been more time to dissipate the heat that I've generated. Arbitrary? Yes. Irrelevant? I'd argue that it's not.

If someone is actually saying that math is wrong, then they've got bigger issues than this forum can deal with.

Ockow, on 06 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Why don't you go post in one of the 100's of DHS post goin right now.

Because this isn't just about the DHS commotion. I just used that because it's the flavour of the month topic to talk about.

[Jennest]

The Cheese, on 06 November 2012 - 03:01 PM, said:

Example: If I don't fire for an extra second after the cooldown on a weapon is up (a common occurrence), then it doesn't matter that they're not dissipating heat as fast as I'd like, because there's been more time to dissipate the heat that I've generated.

Does having double heat sinks with 1.4x dissipation make that scenario more common than having double heat sinks with 2x dissipation?

You can't just say math doesn't cover everything because ~variables~. You have to point out what the math doesn't actually cover. When someone illustrates how these 1.4 heat sinks are worse for a particular build than single heat sinks, the only way to counter that is by proving his math is wrong. There aren't any external factors there.

[Asmosis]

You can "try it now" by removing 1-2 heatsinks and keeping everything else the same if your using 17+ DHS currently.

You dont need to "try it now" after the DHS change since you can "try it now" right now. Unless they are planning on changing how heat disipation itself is handled, there is nothing new to try.

It is MIND-BOGGILING people can look at a build that will drop from 30 heat reduction to 28 heat reduction and say "hey you dont know it'll be worse until you try it" seriously? you think 28 will somehow disipate more heat than 30 effective heat sinks? really? what planet do you live on.

Edited by Asmosis, 06 November 2012 - 03:38 PM.

[Like a Sir]

Broceratops, on 06 November 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

awesome will stop sucking once they let them use 300+ engines so they can pack 2-4 freebie heat sinks like an atlas. right now the engine limitation on them hurts a lot

not real sure why they cant use 300 engines while both an atlas and a jenner can. its not like they're going to go too fast or anything

Yeah... About that, I have 385 XL in my 9M, we could put them in that variant since it came out in closed beta... Fun to play, but DHS are not cutting it...

[The Cheese]

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

Does having double heat sinks with 1.4x dissipation make that scenario more common than having double heat sinks with 2x dissipation?

The actual dissipation rate doesn't affect the rate of occurrence for this particular scenario at all. There is still that extra second or so for the heat to be dissipated.

Jennest, on 06 November 2012 - 03:11 PM, said:

You can't just say math doesn't cover everything because ~variables~. You have to point out what the math doesn't actually cover. When someone illustrates how these 1.4 heat sinks are worse for a particular build than single heat sinks, the only way to counter that is by proving his math is wrong. There aren't any external factors there.

I don't think you're quite getting what I'm saying. You are 100% right in saying that crunching the numbers is an undeniable way of proving a point about a build, however that is still assuming that there, as you say, are no external factors. That's simply not the case when you actually use the mech in the field. There are a multitude of external factors which will affect how the dissipation rate impacts your game.

Asmosis, on 06 November 2012 - 03:36 PM, said:

It is MIND-BOGGILING people can look at a build that will drop from 30 heat reduction to 28 heat reduction and say "hey you dont know it'll be worse until you try it" seriously? you think 28 will somehow disipate more heat than 30 effective heat sinks? really? what planet do you live on.

Again, no one is saying that a lower heat dissipation rating will be more effective than a higher one, just that the actual dissipation rate isn't everything. Also, "worse" is a highly subjective term to use. Sure, it might not be as effective at a particular job as it would have been if the rate were higher, but it might still excel at another. How the build is used is just one of the factors that can affect how the dissipation rate is viewed.

Edited by The Cheese, 06 November 2012 - 04:20 PM.