183 replies to this topic

[Asesino]

Amaris the Usurper, on 08 November 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

I clearly stated in the text you quote that "Maybe if MWO becomes popular enough, these things can be included in a "hardcore" game mode." Clearly, these are (my attempt at) constructive suggestions for the long term, not demands for changes to the current heat system. Since it is obviously not my idea to ""fix" by adding new stuff," I can only assume that it is yours. In answer to your question, no, I think that your idea is a bad one.

My bad, for some reason I guess I skipped the last paragraph of your post.

[SteelPaladin]

Vermaxx, on 08 November 2012 - 12:05 PM, said:

Then I guess the heat tracker should start applying bad effects when you hit whatever they pick as the 'ok bad heat' plus your equipped heatsink value (1 or 1.4 or whatever the fk they settle on this time).

The reason they probably stuck with 'shutdown at 100%' is because the system has to remember a lot less. It doesn't matter how long it takes you to get there, the game only has to banhammer you at 100%. If they set in a variable bad heat point, then the game has to constantly check your heat versus that and know when to banhammer. Weren't people already saying PGI was trying to streamline the data transfer as much as possible to ease the netcode issue?

If they can do it, they should do it. Lets them add a whole lot of that "immersion" stuff people keep asking for. At least it helps penalize running at the top of your heat gauge all the time.

I honestly thought the heat chart was 20+ sinks over 10. 30 is ridiculous.

You wouldn't really have "variable" bad heat points. A mech's heat chart is locked when you drop (since you can't change equipped heat sinks) so it's just a matter of having every "bad thing" percentage for that mech noted as part of the mech data (the way they already have to, since 100% is different for each mech based on HS) and every time they get the data pulse that includes heat, they compare it against multiple values instead of just one (100%).

I don't know how they wrote their code, so I won't say it couldn't affect net code, but I don't see how it would. Any way I can conceive writing it (if I was writing the code), the increased overhead would be at the processing level (from doing a case/switch type statement instead of a binary if/then for just shutdown).

But yeah, 30 + HS is a little nuts. That's probably the whole reason their internal testers saw DHS at 2 as being crazy. It's not DPS that spiked (the way they said), it's burst. An AWS-9M w/DHS at 2 would have a threshold of 70 heat in MWO, so you could drop an INSANE alpha w/no penalty (other than having to wait to do it again, but the other guy is probably dead anyway).

[TostitoBandito]

Has PGI weighed in on this yet?

[Chemie]

Squid von Torgar, on 08 November 2012 - 05:47 AM, said:

So we just have the same situation but in reverse.

Pre Patch

DHS that come with the engine = 1.0
DHS outside (or extras fitted in engine) 2.0

With latest patch

DHS that come with the engine = 2.0
DHS outside (or extras fitted in engine) =1.4

So yes if you just carry your DHS in the engine you get the full fat 2.0 boost. If you carry a load outside, you get only 1.4 (ontop of the 2.0s in the engine)

Its better than a flat 1.4 penalty but very much favours lighter builds that dont need more than 20 total cooling. Anything else is getting a lesser benefit.

Obviously this its totally different to how we were told they would work. It also makes a total mockery over the example of Jenners coring atlases. As it stands jenners are running around with full DHS provided they dont fit extras.

So pre-patch, to get 10 real DHS, you needed 10 of the 2.0 version outside with 30 crits. Post patch, you get 10 "DHS" (2.0) in the engine with zero crits. So the patch INCREASED the gross heat remove potential of DHS??? Boy, I am sure glad they did all THAT testing!

I would much rather have 10 free at 2.0 than having to add 2.0 via 3 crits each time (i.e. pre-patch you could only add 3 or 4 of the DHS...now you get 10 right out the bat and for most mechs, thats all you need for 20 SHS equivalent)

Edited by Chemie, 08 November 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Kmieciu]

In my opinion heatsinks should not add to the heat threshold at all. I know it`s not realistic, but it would reduce the "burst" damage we all fear.

In other news: I had great time today with a Centurion equipped with 12 double heatsinks. Both PPC adn LPL were managable, but 2xSRM4+artemis were still ways better. 20 damage a shot, less spread than LBX10. 6 tonnes total.
I`m still so used to the firing lag and bad netcode that were before the patch, that most of the misses were due to leading targets too much. It`s really easy to hit people now. (I`ve got 130 ping from Europe)

I`m not seeing singns of unstoppable light mechs. With the improved (rolled back) netcode it`s possible to take down lights with lasers and normal SRMs. I haven`t seen that many Jenners tonight. Lots of trial Commandos, Cicadas and strangely, Ravens. It`s better then before 6/11/2012 when everyone and their dog used a Jenner.

Also LRMs are not overpowered. In a 80 kph mech I was able to find cover every time I got "missiles incoming". Truly, this simple message is a godsend! Haven`t been killed by missiles today.

I saw some Large laser K2`s (now their arms look differently when carrying lasers instead of PPC). I saw Atlasses with ER PPC or ER Large Lasers.

I saw more Hunchbacks with AC20. Maybe it`s because with 8 DHS in the engine they can fire AC20 non-stop, and with the better netcode they can hit stuff with it. I think I got killed once or twice by AC20 and I run at 80 kph.
Ac20 hunch may be even better than a MPULSE laser boat. I`ve seen some people succumb to that idea but almost every one had an XL engine so they died a lot faster than the ones with AC20. Ecpectially since they quickly overheated.

Trial AS7-K are often picked by the new playes, probably the best trial mech so far. Gaussapults are less common, Streakpults as well. Compared to the last 2 patches, everything seems pretty well balanced IMHO.

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 November 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[Asatruer]

TostitoBandito, on 08 November 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Has PGI weighed in on this yet?

Squid von Torgar, on 08 November 2012 - 10:51 AM, said:

The 2.0 DHS in the engine has now been confirmed by PGI.

Quote

Magius (MechWarrior® Online™)
Nov 08 09:45 (PST)

Hello Squid von Torgar,
This is currently as designed. We are trying out different values to test balancing.

Regards,
Magius
GameMaster
MechWarrior® Online™

[jojobear]

Asatruer, on 08 November 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

I feel like an 8-year-old when papa-PGI told me that he ate all my halloween candy, but then all was like "Lol just kidding say hi to Jimmy Kimmel."

[Joehunk]

Of course, "as designed" is exactly what a CSR said about the 1.0 engine heat sinks before Eakman got on and said that was wrong too.

Edited by Joehunk, 08 November 2012 - 05:46 PM.

[Mr 144]

Joehunk, on 08 November 2012 - 05:46 PM, said:

Of course, "as designed" is exactly what a CSR said about the 1.0 engine heat sinks before Eakman got on and said that was wrong too.

Well technically, this is proven true to be working as designed. The question of course, is it designed as intended?

Excellent Find & Follow Through OP. Hoping we get that write up.
/subscibed.

Mr 144

[Sephlock]

What is the minimum engine size for taking advantage of dhs? (that is, how small of an engine can I use and still have dhs be better than singles?)

How many total heatsinks...

Err I guess what I'm asking is, where are the tipping points?

[FiveDigits]

Every DHS in your engine is a true DHS (0.2 HPS dissipation, +2 heat threshhold) - so get as many of those as possible. HSs are stored in the engine at the rate of 1 per 25 engine rating up to 250 rating (100: 4, 200: 8, 250: 10) Beyond 250 you get a free HS slot per 25 rating (1 at 275, 2 at 300, ...). DHSs you place in those slots are the gimped 1.4HS.
The optimal setup right now is a 250 rated engine with no external heat sinks,

Edited by FiveDigits, 08 November 2012 - 06:30 PM.

[shabowie]

Kmieciu, on 08 November 2012 - 03:59 AM, said:

Garth wrote, that with 2.0 DHS he could core an Altas in 3 seconds.

Which goes to show hyperbole and anecdotal tall tale stories we can see are impossible aren't helpful in balance discussions that require math and evidence to arrive at the correct conclusions. At this point I would love to see true universal double heat sinks and see if the PPC and the larger laser weapons become viable.

Edited by shabowie, 08 November 2012 - 06:55 PM.

[Like a Sir]

Posted the same thing in another thread, but this one is more popular...

Now if you think about it, the jenners are still not corring out the atlas in 3 seconds, even though most of their doubles are in the engine, and 4 max on the outside. So if 4 outside were 2.0 instead of 1.4, they would only gain 2.4 heat efficiency...

With that being said, lights and mediums still benefit the most from this, so can we just cut the BS and make them 2.0 across the board, so heavys and assaults that can pack 10-12 doubles outside the engine, will get a big buff as well... Or if PGI was really trying to avoid laser boating that insta killed everyone, make the engine heat sinks 1.4 (or whatever numbers) and the outside ones 2.0... Seems like it would make more sense, in trying to achieve what they say they are trying to achieve.

Oh yeah, also saw a much feared swayback last night running doubles and 2 large lasers in addition to the standard layout, he still overheated hilariously fast and got promptly fried as soon as he did.

[AEgg]

Interesting. It's good that they aren't as useless for heavier builds as all 1.4 would be, but I think that making DHS add less to your maximum heat does solve the problem in a much more user-friendly way. 2.0 in the engine and 1.4 outside of it isn't very clear, and double generally means double.

If DHS reduced double the heat but didn't add to your max heat, they would be a choice rather than simply better or worse for any given build. If the only differences are heat dissipated and crit slots, one or the other will always be better for a build.

[Sephlock]

FiveDigits, on 08 November 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Every DHS in your engine is a true DHS (0.2 HPS dissipation, +2 heat threshhold) - so get as many of those as possible. HSs are stored in the engine at the rate of 1 per 25 engine rating up to 250 rating (100: 4, 200: 8, 250: 10) Beyond 250 you get a free HS slot per 25 rating (1 at 275, 2 at 300, ...). DHSs you place in those slots are the gimped 1.4HS.
The optimal setup right now is a 250 rated engine with no external heat sinks,

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.

[Fooooo]

mwhighlander, on 08 November 2012 - 04:02 AM, said:

I mean, ****. I don't think I can core an atlas in 3 seconds with my Dual AC20 Cat... I mean I can dish out 80 damage in that first 5 seconds of combat, but a fully armored Atlas has what? 112 pts on its CT, no?

Coring an Atlas in 3 seconds with a Jenner is either a vast over exaggeration or we're missing something from that statement.

Your forgetting about the rear of the atlas.......which has nowhere NEAR 100 armor, which would make it somewhat viable to do....maybe 5 seconds or so...as long as you could get all your shots to hit the same spot etc.

25dmg alpha from my cicada atm would take about 2 or 3 alphas to core a 15 armor (30 after doubling) rear torso atlas.....so yea about 5 - 10 seconds with what we have already....

Edited by Fooooo, 08 November 2012 - 10:26 PM.

[Sephlock]

Maybe if he had ammo in a side torso with no case ?

Edited by Sephlock, 08 November 2012 - 10:27 PM.

[Kmieciu]

Keep in mind Atlas has default 28 armor points on the rear center torso and 62 structure "hit points" in the center torso.
So you have to deal 90(+1) points of damage to the back in order to kill it. It`s possible only when it`s not moving at all, because of the large side torsos.

But when an Atlas turns and torso twists, especially with all the mech efficiencies unlocked, it`s really hard to pull of. And a stock Jenner D has 20 armor 22 internal on the center torso. With the lagshield reduced, an Atlas has the capability of killing it in one salvo. Backstabbing an Atlas is a extreme sport, indeed.

Edited by Kmieciu, 08 November 2012 - 11:19 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Fooooo, on 08 November 2012 - 10:23 PM, said:

Your forgetting about the rear of the atlas.......which has nowhere NEAR 100 armor, which would make it somewhat viable to do....maybe 5 seconds or so...as long as you could get all your shots to hit the same spot etc.

25dmg alpha from my cicada atm would take about 2 or 3 alphas to core a 15 armor (30 after doubling) rear torso atlas.....so yea about 5 - 10 seconds with what we have already....

Question is - do you actually need DHS to do it?

2 x 25 damage alpha - what are that - 5 medium lasers? That's 5 x 4 x 2 = 40 heat. With 10 standard heat sinks you'd be able to pull that off (and not overheat, I might add - you lose 1 heat per second, so your net heat after the 2nd volley would be 35.)

Sure, DHS will make it easier, but it seems to me, the problem isn't the heat sinking capability here, but the DOS weapons or mechs can achieve within a short time frame. They need to look at their damage values and their rate of fire more than they need to look at heat.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 08 November 2012 - 11:30 PM.

[Kmieciu]

MustrumRidcully, on 08 November 2012 - 11:29 PM, said:

Sure, DHS will make it easier, but it seems to me, the problem isn't the heat sinking capability here, but the DOS weapons or mechs can achieve within a short time frame. They need to look at their damage values and their rate of fire more than they need to look at heat.

According to my calculations, you need to deal >90 damage to core the stock Atlas through the rear center torso.

With 10 DHS and a heat threshold of 50 you get 2.0 points of heat dissipation per second while 6 medium lasers generate 6.0 points of heat per seconds. That means 50/4 = 12,5 secods till overheating (while stationary). In 12,5 seconds 6 medium lasers can deal 12,5*6*1,25 = 93,75 damage.

TL:DR

It is theoretically possible that a stationary Jenner with 6 ML and 10 Engine DHS will core a stationary Atlas through back armor in 12,5 seconds.

If the heatsinks did not add to the heat threshold (like in TT), it would take 30/4 = 7,5 seconds for the Jenner till overheating.(56,25 points of burst damage). Then the Jenner would not be able to core an Altas before overheating.

Edited by Kmieciu, 09 November 2012 - 12:19 AM.