183 replies to this topic

[shabowie]

In an Atlas with engine 10 DHS plus a few 1.4HS engine slotted or externally mounted dual large lasers feel viable now, haven't played around with PPCs at all, I suspect they still would be heat gimped.

Also I feel like any balance discussion centered around a pilot so bad that they and their teammates allow multiple alpha strikes into the rear of an Atlas is missing the forest for the trees.

Stupid should hurt.

Teammates should shoot lights off each others backs, the guy targeted should be spinning and changing his direction, making the beam hit different areas and starting to get his own shots off, putting his back to things, etc. Knockdown and tripping mechanics should see a comeback making things even more dynamic.

Multiple Alpha strikes into a single rear section of a fat dumb and happy Atlas just isn't a realistic metric.

PS the efficiency bar doesn't reflect that 10 true DHS are equal to 20 SHS but in game it's noticeable.

Edited by shabowie, 09 November 2012 - 01:52 AM.

[FiveDigits]

Sephlock, on 08 November 2012 - 09:35 PM, said:

Then aren't DHS always inferior? Because according to the latest mwomechbay.jar, a 250 engine with DHS and with no additional heat sinks can't even keep 2 small lasers cool continuously, which doesn't bode well for any build that isn't something along the Libes of a 1 Llas 1 Gauss hunchie.

You took my answer out of its context. I answered the question which was the optimal setup to make use of the (now) 0.2 HPS dissipation engine heat sinks. Of course 10 DHS are not the optimal setup for every build. It covers the heat sinking needs of most Lights and some Mediums. If you need more heat sinks then you need more heat sinks. It is just that the 0.14 HPS DHS outside the engine are less effective (in terms of heat containment per ton and crit slots spent).

[Kmieciu]

I think the true engine DHS add more variety to the builds. I even saw a Commando packing a PPC yesterday.

[Wildflame]

Guess that explains why my Jenner with 6 MLas was coring out slow LRM boats with barely a care for heat generation during the Reign of Artemis this week. I wondered why my heat dissipation was so good.

[Marzepans]

Are the Devs sheepishly ignoring this thread or have they commented already and I've missed it?

[Apoc1138]

shabowie, on 09 November 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

In an Atlas with engine 10 DHS plus a few 1.4HS engine slotted or externally mounted dual large lasers feel viable now, haven't played around with PPCs at all, I suspect they still would be heat gimped.

I have a dual PPC atlas build that disagrees with you
if they realise that they weren't adjusting engine 2.0 sinks and that the average they meant to use was 1.8 all round then my build only gets better
most of my build would work on an awesome as well... possibly better as it's a bit more maneuverable...

Edited by Apoc1138, 09 November 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Adeptis]

Would like to see official commentary on this. I know GM Magius (poor ******* works his *** off) stated that this is working as designed. Can we get confirmation?
(Personally, I'm fine with this on paper, though I haven't gotten to test it in practice. It's always reassuring to have a developer declare the intent of the design, however.)

[DirePhoenix]

Any hope for balancing things to anything that resembles tabletop got thrown out as soon as they increased firing rates beyond even Solaris VII rules.

• Faster firing shots = 'mechs dying too fast
  
• 'Mechs dying too fast = double armor values
  
• Double armor values = 'mechs overheating too much attempting to burn down targets as fast as possible because of the faster firing rates

And then we get to the heat mechanics. This is the part that really baffles me. Because in the tabletop rules that MWO is supposed to be based on, heat sinks don't effect heat capacity at all. There is no "storage" of heat. Every 'Mech has a mandantory shutdown at 30 heat regardless of if it has 10 SHS or 20 DHS. Heat sinks are supposed to effect heat dissipation rate. That is, how fast you can get rid of that heat you're generating by doing anything. And yes, that means if your alpha strike takes you over 30 heat, you shut down. You can override the shutdown to your own detriment, but if you have more heat sinks than another 'mech that overheats similarly, you dump that heat and come back online faster.

Here, it seems that heat sinks affect heat capacity much more than heat dissipation rate. My 'mechs with many heat sinks don't seem to be dissipating heat any faster than my 'mechs with fewer heat sinks, they just take longer to build up to max heat. The important difference is that my 'mechs with more heat sinks, while taking longer to reach high heat levels, they're not getting rid of that heat any faster. They stay at those high heat levels longer. It's like the heat sinks are re-sizing the heat scale more than they're affecting how fast I can dump the heat.

[Squid von Torgar]

Quote

And then we get to the heat mechanics. This is the part that really baffles me. Because in the tabletop rules that MWO is supposed to be based on, heat sinks don't effect heat capacity at all. There is no "storage" of heat. Every 'Mech has a mandantory shutdown at 30 heat regardless of if it has 10 SHS or 20 DHS. Heat sinks are supposed to effect heat dissipation rate. That is, how fast you can get rid of that heat you're generating by doing anything. And yes, that means if your alpha strike takes you over 30 heat, you shut down. You can override the shutdown to your own detriment, but if you have more heat sinks than another 'mech that overheats similarly, you dump that heat and come back online faster.

I agree that a heat system more faithful to TT would of been better. That said the decision has been made and I dont think we can expect a total overhaul anytime in the foresable future.

Quote

Here, it seems that heat sinks affect heat capacity much more than heat dissipation rate. My 'mechs with many heat sinks don't seem to be dissipating heat any faster than my 'mechs with fewer heat sinks, they just take longer to build up to max heat. The important difference is that my 'mechs with more heat sinks, while taking longer to reach high heat levels, [/color]they're not getting rid of that heat any faster. They stay at those high heat levels longer. It's like the heat sinks are re-sizing the heat scale more than they're affecting how fast I can dump the heat.

Heat sinks in MWO do both. They certainly do decrease the dissipation time. You do need a lot to see a difference though.
Remember each SHS increases dissipation by 0.1 second. DHS (in the engine) by 0.2 and finally DHS outside of engine or bought as extras by 0.14

So to see a difference you need to stack considerable amounts.

Edited by Squid von Torgar, 09 November 2012 - 07:44 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think there was a logical reason for adding heat sinks to heat capacity. (But it may have been misguided). In the table top, a mech with, say, 4 PPCs could fire them all in one turn if he had sufficient heat sinks to negate the heat (say, 20 DHS).

In a real time game, what would happen if you were to fire all your weapons at once would be that you'd overheat immediately if your capacity was only 30. Because the sinks would need a few seconds to negate enough heat, evne if your mech was heat neutral!

So they stacked the heat sinks on the capacity to replicate the effect. But maybe that was a mistake? Maybe what really happens in Battletech is that a Mech pilot fires its weapon in a staggered manner - e.g. first 2 PPCs for 20 heat, then wait 5 seconds to negate 20 heat, and then fire another 2 PPCs for another 20 heat, and wait another 5 seconds to negate that heat.

This is a bit where I'd like the game to go - forcing people to stagger their shots (without lowering the weapons actual ROF, just delaying the first shots of some weapons a bit to allow for heat to recover). But I am not sure if a cap of 30 wouldn'T be abit "too tight", so to speak. Especially as we advance the timeline and get to mechs like the Nova or Supernova.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 09 November 2012 - 07:48 AM.

[FiveDigits]

Also note that with threashhold and dissipation rate increasing proportionally to each other you don't see your heat bar drop faster.
You are dissipating heat faster, but there's also more of it.

[Squidhead Jax]

DirePhoenix, on 09 November 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

This is the part that really baffles me. Because in the tabletop rules that MWO is supposed to be based on, heat sinks don't effect heat capacity at all. There is no "storage" of heat. Every 'Mech has a mandantory shutdown at 30 heat regardless of if it has 10 SHS or 20 DHS.

I'd say that the TT rules suggest that both carry and dissipation are augmented. A 20DHS stock AWS-9M can fire all 3 ERPPCs and its MPULSE for 49 heat and come out of the round only suffering -1 speed and -1 accuracy with no risk of shutdown. Because the rules only exist every 10s, we can't rule out the 'mech being able toignore an instantaneous heat spike of 49 and only suffer ill effects once the system has been unable to purge itself 10s later.

Arguably, weapons shouldn't deliver their heat to the system instantly either, in which case heat becomes a matter of competing flow rates and carry gets reduced as a factor.

But instant-heat weapons are more intuitive to understand and manage, and the carry factor can be manipulated per the suggestions of the MathWarriors to better balance the system as it stands.

[Apoc1138]

you make an interesting point... they tripled firing rates and doubled armour so why not double heat capacity to 60 as a fixed point, same as TT, and then tune heat and DHS' from there without dissipation rate affecting heat cap

or, as they stated DHS were too effective on lights, hence the nerf... set heat cap based on weight class, so lights 45, med 50, heavy 55 and assault 60

[Marzepans]

So, the original plan is to have DHS function as true doubles. The implementation of this gets messed up and we end up with only the ones outside the engine functioning as doubles. PGI reckon this error might be worth keeping so we are told all DHS will operate at 1.4 times the efficiency of a single but they mess that up too and we end up with Engine HS functioning as doubles but the rest at 1.4. Then a GM has the audacity to tell us it's working as intended?

[Squid von Torgar]

Well the ones outside the engine are working at 1.4.

As far as I can see the issue about us not knowing this is due to some patch notes. The patch features quite a few other things that werent mentioned in the patch notes.

Now I appreciate that DHS is a big bone of contention at the moment. But really thats all there is to it.

I would still like some official word so that we can clear up once and for all whether this is a intended feature

[Bubba Wilkins]

I'm just gonna leave this here:

[PYR0MANCER]

dubplate, on 08 November 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

You realize they do internal testing as well, and would be getting factual data that way right?

You realize that thier internal testing has missed very important things the last two patches... It is, unfortunately, unreliable...

[Amaris the Usurper]

MustrumRidcully, on 09 November 2012 - 07:47 AM, said:

I think there was a logical reason for adding heat sinks to heat capacity. (But it may have been misguided). In the table top, a mech with, say, 4 PPCs could fire them all in one turn if he had sufficient heat sinks to negate the heat (say, 20 DHS).

In a real time game, what would happen if you were to fire all your weapons at once would be that you'd overheat immediately if your capacity was only 30. Because the sinks would need a few seconds to negate enough heat, evne if your mech was heat neutral!

So they stacked the heat sinks on the capacity to replicate the effect. But maybe that was a mistake? Maybe what really happens in Battletech is that a Mech pilot fires its weapon in a staggered manner - e.g. first 2 PPCs for 20 heat, then wait 5 seconds to negate 20 heat, and then fire another 2 PPCs for another 20 heat, and wait another 5 seconds to negate that heat.

This is a bit where I'd like the game to go - forcing people to stagger their shots (without lowering the weapons actual ROF, just delaying the first shots of some weapons a bit to allow for heat to recover). But I am not sure if a cap of 30 wouldn'T be abit "too tight", so to speak. Especially as we advance the timeline and get to mechs like the Nova or Supernova.

This is a very important point. You are probably correct about why the devs made the heat threshold depend on the number of HS. I discussed this a little bit in my earlier (Decoding the Heat Mechanic) thread and reached essentially the same conclusion.

No one would expect an AWS-8Q Awesome to overheat instantaneously upon firing its 3 PPCs (30 heat in TT), even though this is enough to reach the heat threshold. Instead, the heat would first appear in the PPCs, which have been carefully designed to withstand the heat of their own firing, and would not suffer any ill effects. Over the next 10 seconds (TT turn length), most of the 30 heat would gradually be exchanged into the environment by the mech's 28 heat sinks, while a small remainder (2 heat) would bleed into the mech itself.

To summarize, after firing, the PPCs bleed their heat into the mech continuously, and the heat sinks dissipate this heat continuously. There is not a sudden appearance of 30 points of heat (spread throughout the internal systems), which is then gradually dissipated by the heat sinks. It is only the heat production rate in excess of the heat dissipation rate which is felt. Thus, we should expect the heat level to gradually increase from 0 to 2 after firing the PPCs.

The fundamental problem in MWO is that heat bleeds out of weapons instantaneously upon firing or is spread over the (much less than 10 second) beam duration for lasers. This has resulted in the extra heat threshold mechanic to prevent shutdown after alpha striking. Unfortunately, it also allows mechs with many heat sinks to "front load" excess heat onto the scale for a much longer time than would have been possible with a uniform heat threshold of 30. Since most weapons in MWO can fire much faster than once per 10 seconds (but otherwise have comparable damage and heat production), these mechs have an advantage that would not be present in TT. Consequently, many canon designs will strike new MWO players as poorly thought out.

A simple fix would be to

• use a uniform value of 30 for the heat threshold, and
  
• have all weapons produce their total heat at a uniform rate over the 10 seconds subsequent to firing.

For example, if a medium laser produces 4 heat in total, it would now generate heat at a rate of 0.4 heat/second over 10 seconds, in the same way a SHS continuously dissipates 0.1 heat/second. On a stock Jenner (10 SHS), after firing my 4 medium lasers (16 total heat), I would see my heat level rise at a rate of 1.6-1 = 0.6 heat/second for 10 seconds, up to a maximum of 6 (20% of threshold). The heat would then dissipate at a rate of 1 heat/second over the next 6 seconds. The total process would obviously take 16 seconds, as would be expected with 10 SHS.

This system seems (to me) fair, equitable, and easy to understand. It would eliminate the "front loading" problem without affecting the heat-neutral DPS a given design can put out. It would also eliminate the annoying spike in heat level after firing a weapon, which is against common sense.

I may start another thread on this topic, but for the moment I would appreciate your input. Can you think of any disadvantages?

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 09 November 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[Bubba Wilkins]

Amaris the Usurper, on 09 November 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

This is a very important point. You are probably correct about why the devs made the heat threshold depend on the number of HS. I discussed this a little bit in my earlier (Decoding the Heat Mechanic) thread and reached essentially the same conclusion.

No one would expect an AWS-8Q Awesome to overheat instantaneously upon firing its 3 PPCs (30 heat in TT), even though this is enough to reach the heat threshold. Instead, the heat would first appear in the PPCs, which have been carefully designed to withstand the heat of their own firing, and would not suffer any ill effects. Over the next 10 seconds (TT turn length), most of the 30 heat would gradually be exchanged into the environment by the mech's 28 heat sinks, while a small remainder (2 heat) would bleed into the mech itself.

To summarize, after firing, the PPCs bleed their heat into the mech continuously, and the heat sinks dissipate this heat continuously. There is not a sudden appearance of 30 points of heat (spread throughout the internal systems), which is then gradually dissipated by the heat sinks. It is only the heat production rate in excess of the heat dissipation rate which is felt. Thus, we should expect the heat level to gradually increase from 0 to 2 after firing the PPCs.

The fundamental problem in MWO is that heat bleeds out of weapons instantaneously upon firing or is spread over the (much less than 10 second) beam duration for lasers. This has resulted in the extra heat threshold mechanic to prevent shutdown after alpha striking. Unfortunately, it also allows mechs with many heat sinks to "front load" excess heat onto the scale for a much longer time than would have been possible with a uniform heat threshold of 30. Since most weapons in MWO can fire much faster than once per 10 seconds (but otherwise have comparable damage and heat production), these mechs have an advantage that would not be present in TT. Consequently, many canon designs will strike new MWO players as poorly thought out.

A simple fix would be to

• use a uniform value of 30 for the heat threshold, and
  
• have all weapons produce their total heat at a uniform rate over the 10 seconds subsequent to firing.

For example, if a medium laser produces 4 heat in total, it would now generate heat at a rate of 0.4 heat/second over 10 seconds, in the same way a SHS continuously dissipates 0.1 heat/second. On a stock Jenner (10 SHS), after firing my 4 medium lasers (16 total heat), I would see my heat level rise at a rate of 1.6-1 = 0.6 heat/second for 10 seconds, up to a maximum of 6 (20% of threshold). The heat would then dissipate at a rate of 1 heat/second over the next 6 seconds. The total process would obviously take 16 seconds, as would be expected with 10 SHS.


This system seems (to me) fair, equitable, and easy to understand. It would eliminate the "front loading" problem without affecting the heat-neutral DPS a given design can put out. It would also eliminate the annoying spike in heat level after firing a weapon, which is against common sense.

I may start another thread on this topic, but for the moment I would appreciate your input. Can you think of any disadvantages?

The heat produced by weapons firing is reflection of the load on the engine core, not the weapon itself.

[Amaris the Usurper]

Bubba Wilkins, on 09 November 2012 - 12:06 PM, said:

The heat produced by weapons firing is reflection of the load on the engine core, not the weapon itself.

I'm not much of an expert on how fusion reactors (don't) work, but here goes.

The energy liberated by nuclear fusion in the engine would be converted into electrical work with less than 100% efficiency. Thus, heat would be generated there, and more load would imply more heat. At the same time, the electrical work would be converted into various forms of useful energy by lasers and PPCs, again imperfectly, so heat would also be generated there. Furthermore, autocannons and missiles are driven by gasdynamic combustion processes, which produce a great deal of waste heat.

In other words, if you want to consider engine heat, just view the engine as another heat source, and apply the same argument as in my earlier post. The heat sinks are there to protect the internals from waste heat generated by the major systems. The waste heat is discharged gradually, not instantaneously.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 09 November 2012 - 01:03 PM.