Jump to content

Dhs Effectiveness


183 replies to this topic

#61 o0Marduk0o

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 4,231 posts
  • LocationBerlin, Germany

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:16 AM

View PostFiveDigits, on 08 November 2012 - 06:17 AM, said:

What irks me is that we have to discuss this at all. A DHS Jenner with a 250 rated engine and no external HSs works as it should be, dissipating heat at the rate of 20 SHS equivalents. It works like that now. Does this make heat a non-issue on said Jenner? Is this Jenner able to "core an Atlas in 3 seconds"?

No.



Heat is a non-issue for Jenner's, yes.

Concerning the issue with coring an Atlas in 3sec, it's a matter of your setup, you have 6 energy slots.^^ The rear armor is lower but don't know what he means.

#62 Amaris the Usurper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 100 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:18 AM

View PostCalmon, on 08 November 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

Did someone test SHS in Engine. Are there working as 2.0 as well probably?

According to the first two tests (Hunchback and Catapult) in my original post, they appear to be working as expected, i.e., near 0.1 heat/second.

#63 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:20 AM

View Postmwhighlander, on 08 November 2012 - 03:26 AM, said:

I think in another related thread, there could be a huge compensator factor to balance out DHS and SHS so that actual 2.0 DHS do not remove the total need for heat management, and this was through the changing in how heat sinks affect the heat cap of mechs.

The simple premise was that engine heat sinks do no add to the heat cap, say given example base of 30.

Every single heat sink would add 1 to this cap threshold (heat containment of course adds X% to this cap)
Every Double heat sink, only adds .5 to this cap. However, due to the nature of DHS, its natural that most DHS built 'mechs are not going to have a large abundance of DHS on the 'mech due to lack of critical space.

The instance example I gave to help show how significant this was, is say I have a 'mech build, one utilizing true DHS and one with SHS. For this build, I also have no additional critical spaces available.

On the SHS build, I have 14 additional SHS, giving 24 heat per 10, 14 crits occupied and 14 tons dedicated. This brings the heat capacity up to 44.

On the DHS build, I have 4 additional DHS, giving 28 heat per 10, 12 crits occupied and 4 tons dedicated. This however despite the massive tonnage savings cuts my heat threashold down to a mere 32.

The advantage here gives a choice rather than a straight upgrade. While I do gain a very significant amount of tonnage and some cooling through DHS, I now have ~3/4 the heat capacity meaning I am more susceptible to overheating through alpha striking. DHS are still a very attractive alternative for smaller mechs, but for larger ones like an Awesome or Atlas that may have the tonange but not crits, could benefit much more from having an abundance of SHS to give them a much higher heat capacity.

At the same time, this allows the use of 1-2 ER weapons to be used effectively, but prevent say a 4 ERPPC awesome from constantly alpha striking. With DHS, it could fire that volley more often, but with SHS, it could afford to fire more alpha strikes in faster succession without hitting its capacity, therefore making a trade-off design that does not eliminate heat management but still sticks with the intended nature of DHS.


Now, think about this, if they added the penalties for having over 50% heat, instead of only worrying about if I am at 100% or not. Mech slowing down, torso/arm movement slowed down, energy weapons dealing less, ballistic weapons increased CD, missile weapons needing longer to lock or spreading more more or increasing in CD, internal damage from overheating can cause a critical hit like from a weapon (random ammo explosion chances for completely overheating!).

Edited by Zyllos, 08 November 2012 - 07:22 AM.


#64 EnigmaNL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 379 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:27 AM

View PostZyllos, on 08 November 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:


Now, think about this, if they added the penalties for having over 50% heat, instead of only worrying about if I am at 100% or not. Mech slowing down, torso/arm movement slowed down, energy weapons dealing less, ballistic weapons increased CD, missile weapons needing longer to lock or spreading more more or increasing in CD, internal damage from overheating can cause a critical hit like from a weapon (random ammo explosion chances for completely overheating!).


That makes no sense, why would heat buildup be centered around the ammo storage?

#65 buckX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 250 posts
  • LocationShut down on a heat vent

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:29 AM

The "problem" with DHS is really obvious, and it's directly related to PGI's decision to lower RoF without changing the dissipation on heat sinks. In MWO, more heat sinks = more dps. There's essentially never a time when that isn't the case. Removing weapons to add more heat sinks is almost always the dps maximizing strategy with any normal build.

In the TT, you can have as many heatsinks as your mech needs, essentially. You might not quite make it heat neutral, because you know you won't be firing constantly, but you get pretty close. When DHS hits the scene, Awesome heat dissipation goes from the standard 28 all the way up to 40. That's great. Does it make their damage skyrocket? Not really. They still don't have the weight to carry a ton of extra weaponry. What it does is allow them to add a bit of damage (2 SSRM2s and a MPL), and upgrade the SL to a SPL, and the PPCs to ERPPCs. So some gain in weaponry from the weight savings, but in terms of how it uses all that extra heat, it's mostly to purchase additional range. For lights, the response is to simply stop buying heatsinks. The Jenner with 4 ML and an SRM4 would need 15 heatsinks to be heat neutral, so it would be spending several tons of them. With DHS, the engine heatsinks totally cover it, so it's merely an upgrade to the tune of a few tons freed up.

The entire problem with DHS balance for different weight classes (and SHS vs. weapon tonnage) is tied to the fact that mechs run so hot that heatsinks are no longer something you choose based on loadout, they're something that are a rough measure of your mech's damage.

Edited by buckX, 08 November 2012 - 07:31 AM.


#66 TheUnderking

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 181 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:42 AM

This might explain why my Dragon with 2 LL, UAC5, SRM6 and 12 DHS never has heat issues. So if I've got this right, I'm dissipating 2.28 (0.2*10+0.14*2) heat/second?

#67 Bubba Wilkins

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 688 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:44 AM

View PostTheUnderking, on 08 November 2012 - 07:42 AM, said:

This might explain why my Dragon with 2 LL, UAC5, SRM6 and 12 DHS never has heat issues. So if I've got this right, I'm dissipating 2.28 (0.2*10+0.14*2) heat/second?


Assuming you have the pilot tab bonus, your probably doing even better.

#68 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:45 AM

View PostKhobai, on 08 November 2012 - 06:59 AM, said:


The issue with DHS isnt with big mechs its with light mechs. But the solution is simply to give light mechs less crit slots. A light mech should not have as many crit slots as an assault mech. FASA released rules in maxtech for rectifying that imbalance.


Wow, I never noticed that. I took a look at the book and noticed, Light mechs have -8 critical slots, mediums -4, heavies -2, and assaults are unchanged.

#69 Zyllos

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,818 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:48 AM

View PostEnigmaNL, on 08 November 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:


That makes no sense, why would heat buildup be centered around the ammo storage?


I think your looking into it too much.

In the TT, having high heat can cause ammo explosions. In MWO, high heat (only over 100% for whatever reason), your internals randomly start taking damage. I am saying they should start to have chances to cause critical hits (unless it is already like this, but I have never seen heat over 100% cause any destruction of weapons). Of course, I think if you go over 100% and you let it shutdown, you do not take damage, which is incorrect.

#70 EnigmaNL

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 379 posts
  • LocationNetherlands

Posted 08 November 2012 - 07:56 AM

View PostZyllos, on 08 November 2012 - 07:48 AM, said:


I think your looking into it too much.

In the TT, having high heat can cause ammo explosions. In MWO, high heat (only over 100% for whatever reason), your internals randomly start taking damage. I am saying they should start to have chances to cause critical hits (unless it is already like this, but I have never seen heat over 100% cause any destruction of weapons). Of course, I think if you go over 100% and you let it shutdown, you do not take damage, which is incorrect.


If any penalties would be implemented they should at least make sense, ammo blowing up would be ridiculous in my opinion.

You can already blow up if you overheat too far over the heat limit.

In my opinion the heat system is fine as it is, penalties wouldn't be much fun and would cripple certain high heat weapon builds which would turn into everybody using the same type of mech builds.

View PostEnigmaNL, on 08 November 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Excuse me for asking, but which XML file is everybody talking about? I've searched for XML files in my MWO folder but only found ones pertaining to my profile. The less than stellar search engine on this forum won't let me find it!


Can anybody tell me? I really can't find it ;)

Edited by EnigmaNL, 08 November 2012 - 07:58 AM.


#71 Tuonela

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 344 posts
  • LocationNew York

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:11 AM

View PostApoc1138, on 08 November 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

I think they did add a heat bonus (or should that be detriment) for lasers boated on the same location, so this could be where your 0.969 figure is coming from... either that or the server / client relationship is adding some lag in to heat as well as everything else

interesting... this makes DHS' worth while

as you say it is either poorly communicated or a bug, I sincerely hope for one that it has just been poorly communicated as this makes DHS' viable




because using your method would still be a massive bonus for light mechs more so than any other mechs (who need more crits for bigger weapons)


Uh, what? Lights NEED the engine heatsinks to be double, you can't fit double heatsinks anywhere on a decent light build. Making only the outside HS double would benefit bigger mechs WAY more than lights.

#72 Imagine Dragons

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Giant Helper
  • Giant Helper
  • 1,324 posts
  • LocationLV-223

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:11 AM

The damage isnt random, its applied to areas with HS in them.

#73 Hikyuu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 238 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:14 AM

View PostFiveDigits, on 08 November 2012 - 03:09 AM, said:

Nice job, both in testing and in finding the stats in the XML!

Now give us

<Module id="3000" name="HeatSink_MkI" CType="CHeatSinkStats">
<ModuleStats slots="1" tons="1" health="10"/>
<Loc nameTag="@HeatSink_MkI" descTag="@HeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="3"/>
<HeatSinkStats cooling="0.1" heatbase="-1.0"/>
<EffectList>
<Effect name="SteamEffect" asset="mech_effects.heatsinks.steam_a"/>
</EffectList>
<Audio OnDestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed"/>
</Module>
<Module id="3001" name="DoubleHeatSink_MkI" CType="CHeatSinkStats" DestroyedDialogue="BB_Mech_HeatSink_Destroyed">
<ModuleStats slots="3" tons="1" health="10"/>
<Loc nameTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI" descTag="@DoubleHeatSink_MkI_desc" iconTag="2"/>
<HeatSinkStats cooling="0.2" heatbase="-1.0"/>

please PGI!


are you still really complaining? really? REALLY? DID YOU READ HIS POST AT ALL? F**KING DHS ARE AWESOME

#74 Aym

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,041 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:15 AM

View PostSquid von Torgar, on 08 November 2012 - 06:26 AM, said:

However this fix actually does make Lights OP due to the fact that Assaults are still reliant on 1.4 sinks.

No one is complaining lights are OP now, with improved net code and knock down I think Lights may fairly benefit with a slight engine heat sink buff.

#75 Krivvan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,318 posts
  • LocationUSA/Canada

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:18 AM

I'll post what I said in the other thread here:

Do we actually know if that variable/attribute actually changes anything, or does nothing reference it anymore? There are quite a few attributes in there that are now obsolete.

I mean, didn't it say 2.0 last patch too? When it was actually 1.0?

Addendum: Also seems like that block is just for the mechlab's upgrade tab. Doesn't it have another attribute for actual in-game performance?


And I know the game uses the XML files, I'm talking about that one specific variable.


Not saying you're wrong, just want confirmation.

EDIT: Ok, just noticed he had the old file too, that's better evidence.

Edited by Krivvan, 08 November 2012 - 08:20 AM.


#76 Hikyuu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 238 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:22 AM

View PostbuckX, on 08 November 2012 - 07:29 AM, said:

The "problem" with DHS is really obvious, and it's directly related to PGI's decision to lower RoF without changing the dissipation on heat sinks. In MWO, more heat sinks = more dps. There's essentially never a time when that isn't the case. Removing weapons to add more heat sinks is almost always the dps maximizing strategy with any normal build.

In the TT, you can have as many heatsinks as your mech needs, essentially. You might not quite make it heat neutral, because you know you won't be firing constantly, but you get pretty close. When DHS hits the scene, Awesome heat dissipation goes from the standard 28 all the way up to 40. That's great. Does it make their damage skyrocket? Not really. They still don't have the weight to carry a ton of extra weaponry. What it does is allow them to add a bit of damage (2 SSRM2s and a MPL), and upgrade the SL to a SPL, and the PPCs to ERPPCs. So some gain in weaponry from the weight savings, but in terms of how it uses all that extra heat, it's mostly to purchase additional range. For lights, the response is to simply stop buying heatsinks. The Jenner with 4 ML and an SRM4 would need 15 heatsinks to be heat neutral, so it would be spending several tons of them. With DHS, the engine heatsinks totally cover it, so it's merely an upgrade to the tune of a few tons freed up.

The entire problem with DHS balance for different weight classes (and SHS vs. weapon tonnage) is tied to the fact that mechs run so hot that heatsinks are no longer something you choose based on loadout, they're something that are a rough measure of your mech's damage.


right, because heat is a balancing mechanic to the game.

trying to balance MWO to TT systems is a baaad idea because it's a video game, not a dice roller. essentially your whole post is why DHS got reduced in power, to still apply heat as a mechanic to the game. heat neurtrality is something they don't want to occur unless the pilot forsakes firepower to do so. (IE. taking off heavy heat, higher damage weapons).

DHS's are great now, theyre still advantageous, at the cost of being able to add ANYTHING ELSE to your mech (especially if you use FF or ES, you're looking at 3-4 weapons at best unless you run all small and medium lasers, and even then...) theyre less useful in assault mechs, but depending on your build, you'd probably want standards anyway so you can max out armor with FF, or reduce weight with ES to fit more gauss ammo, if you're the Awesome, the DHS are good because you're usually boating lasers, and don't need these shifts in mech tonnage.

I personally like and welcome our new double heat overlords.

#77 Krivvan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Littlest Helper
  • Littlest Helper
  • 4,318 posts
  • LocationUSA/Canada

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:23 AM

View PostSquid von Torgar, on 08 November 2012 - 06:21 AM, said:


Thing is we arent seeing "incredible overpowered" lights. During my tests heat was still and issue, just not as much as it was before. It didnt mean I could ignore it.

This goes against the feedback PGI gave us of lights coring atlas's in seconds. We have had 3 days and nobody has once complained about OP lights (or mediums for that matter, which also benefit massively).


Actually to be honest, I stopped having to worry about heat now.

#78 SteelPaladin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 715 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:27 AM

View PostEnigmaNL, on 08 November 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:


That makes no sense, why would heat buildup be centered around the ammo storage?


It's not. It's not really "centered" anywhere. By the time you are reaching ammo explosion potential, the whole mech is stupid hot. Peak energy for a fusion reaction sits pretty close to 10 billion degrees. Only a very tiny percentage of that is slipping past the reactor shielding as the mech heats up, but it's enough to risk cooking off ammo in its bays.

#79 Vermaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 3,012 posts
  • LocationBuenos Aires

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:27 AM

View PostKrivvan, on 08 November 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Actually to be honest, I stopped having to worry about heat now.

Yeah, a Jenner with 6 small, or 4 small and an SSRM probably has zero heat problems. Even if they take endo and FF, though I'm not sure if FF is actually useful on a Jenner since they don't really need that weight for anything.

#80 3rdworld

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,562 posts

Posted 08 November 2012 - 08:27 AM

This is turning into a joke.





5 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 5 guests, 0 anonymous users