234 replies to this topic

[Sandpit]

Squid von Torgar, on 12 November 2012 - 01:10 AM, said:

Since the last patch, and contrary to the patch notes and any word from PGI, we have fully working DHS in our engines (If upgraded).

The patch notes are clear and the revelation that DHS in the engine are working at their full 2.0 value was exposed by the community. In the current implementation any DHS that are contained in the Engine (Not including the optional extra DHS that you can fit in engine slots) are providing a cooling rate of 2.0 / 0.2. Any additional DHS work at 1.4 / 0.14. This goes against the announced function of DHS, which had them all working at 1.4

PGI stated that having play tested 2.0 DHS they were totally OP. Garth himself revealed that his Jenner fitted with DHS was able to core an Atlas in 3 seconds.

Its nearly a week since we got the patch and I have yet to read a single post on the MWO forums of DHS being perceived as OP. If DHS were really OP where is the hordes of post flaming about their OPness?
There are none.

As DHS work in MWO currently they provide the biggest boost to mechs that just rely on engine DHS. That is lights and mediums. Having said that its obvious that all mechs benefit from DHS. However to reiterate (as this is an important point) its the light that gets the most love.

I have yet to see any Jenners coring Atlai in under 5 seconds. The prediction of Laser-boats dominating the game hasn't come true. If anything we are seeing more diverse builds that add variety in game and provide the players with more choices in the mech lab.

Given the above, perhaps its time for PGI to release fully working DHS (All DHS providing the full 2.0 / 0.2 value).

The reasons for not doing so as cited by PGI so far have been seen to be unfounded. The community so far has only applauded the Ninja Buff that DHS have received. As a community perhaps its time for us to test 2.0 DHS and put to rest the issue that they will be OP. From my understanding to change the DHS is a quick job, in the event that 2.0 DHS are found to be OP it can be wound back to its current value.

If 2.0 DHS are implemented then larger mechs (Primarily Assaults) will be put on par with lights/Meds. Several core builds will now be valid and also energy weapons will be able to compete with the almighty Gauss.

So why not let us test them and use them?

So why not post this in an existing thread?

[Marzepans]

fxrsniper, on 12 November 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Your point is what I made a statement you turned it into an attack

Yoiu claimed most of your clan agreed that all DHS were functioning a 1.4 efficiency. I said either you were lying or most of your clan are idiots. I stand by that because it is obvious that DHS are not all functioning at 1.4 efficiency.

[Squid von Torgar]

Quote

pc´s need love from Pgi, but mpls builds with 0.2 headsinks are too strong. And against the gauss, did u see how big and heavy the gauss is? And the gauss has a very low dps for such a big gun.

A 9M can fit a max of 6 MPL. Due to the space it can carry a max of 20 DHS. Once again it can fire 3 times before shutting down, thats for 108 damage at a range of 180m. (note being lasers you need to hold them on target to get all that damage on a single location). Even with fully working DHS at 2.0 it takes 22 seconds before it can cool down.

Our good old friend the guassapult can still fire 5 times during that time for 150 damage (Note it can do this at a range of 660m)

[fxrsniper]

Marzepans, on 12 November 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yoiu claimed most of your clan agreed that all DHS were functioning a 1.4 efficiency. I said either you were lying or most of your clan are idiots. I stand by that because it is obvious that DHS are not all functioning at 1.4 efficiency.

My builds versus before DHS say otherwise I document all builds

[Amechwarrior]

Sandpit, on 12 November 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

So why not post this in an existing thread?

His point was that the forums are not in flames over "OMG THESE JENNARS ARE KILLING EVERYTHING WITH 6MEDUM LAZRS!!!1"

That's sadly a good metric to see what is broken or unbalanced with this community. The more repetitive threads, the more likely someone is doing something that the pubbies don't like. Pubs know if they whine about it enough, PGI will fix it. Look at engine restrictions, 4man groups, the constant LRM tuning, etc.

The fact that the forums are quietly embracing the true engine DHS without complaining about overpowered light 'mechs is a sign they don't mind them, even in this environment of no tackles and bad hit detection. This proves PGI's reasoning wrong that overly weaponized lights would ruin the game.

EDIT: Enough about this HHOD crap already. It brings nothing to the thread and we already know they can't math. Just let it go.

Edited by Amechwarrior, 12 November 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[Marzepans]

fxrsniper, on 12 November 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

My builds versus before DHS say otherwise I document all builds

Really? Would you be so kind as to share your build with us?

[Belorion]

on the flip side, no one is complaining that dhs are up. Other than this one thread.

[Bubba Wilkins]

Marzepans, on 12 November 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

Really? Would you be so kind as to share your build with us?

With the different ambient and skill modifiers in play, it can be hard to tell. It took my several hours of testing and several more playing with the spreadsheet to figure it out myself.

[DEHK]

I'd like to break the bickering here breifly for the word "OPness"

but yeah, 1.4 is not overpowered and screws over heavies and assaults.

[TruePoindexter]

*shrugs* I'll be blunt and point out that I find DHS at 1.4 fine. On my Hunchbacks they let me create highly heat efficient optimized builds working within the weight/space limitations. Are DHS viable on assaults and heavies? Yes and no - SHS can in some cases be the preferred choice. On mediums and lights though it is almost always a bonus.

There's more to balance than just heat generation and DPS. Firing rate and behavior are also important. Comparisons between a short range laser boat and a long range sniper aren't really valid.

[PapaKilo]

Belorion, on 12 November 2012 - 11:49 AM, said:

on the flip side, no one is complaining that dhs are up. Other than this one thread.

People who read the patch notes were expecting 1.4 Improved Heat Sinks. The current game performance is better than they expected. Why would they complain about them being underpowered?

Most people don't read the forums, so they don't know that the engine heat sinks are actually rated at 2.0 right now (when you purchase the DHS upgrade, of course).

I never thought true 2.0 Double Heat Sinks would unbalance anything. As soon as I heard that the devs did some testing and found 2.0 DHS OP I thought "What the hell kind of fail builds are they using to get DHS to appear OP?" So far I've been proven right.

I want them to go all the way though, and give us 2.0 Doubles across the board.

TruePoindexter, on 12 November 2012 - 11:55 AM, said:

*shrugs* I'll be blunt and point out that I find DHS at 1.4 fine.

But you don't get 1.4 Improved Heat Sinks right now. The in-engine heat sinks are rated at 2.0 when you do the DHS upgrade. So right now you're fine with mostly 2.0 heat sinks, not 1.4s.

Edited by PapaKilo, 12 November 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[fxrsniper]

Amechwarrior, on 12 November 2012 - 11:41 AM, said:

His point was that the forums are not in flames over "OMG THESE JENNARS ARE KILLING EVERYTHING WITH 6MEDUM LAZRS!!!1"

That's sadly a good metric to see what is broken or unbalanced with this community. The more repetitive threads, the more likely someone is doing something that the pubbies don't like. Pubs know if they whine about it enough, PGI will fix it. Look at engine restrictions, 4man groups, the constant LRM tuning, etc.

The fact that the forums are quietly embracing the true engine DHS without complaining about overpowered light 'mechs is a sign they don't mind them, even in this environment of no tackles and bad hit detection. This proves PGI's reasoning wrong that overly weaponized lights would ruin the game.

EDIT: Enough about this HHOD crap already. It brings nothing to the thread and we already know they can't math. Just let it go.

Excuse you to you know nothing about us get over your self and stop bashing

[TigrisMorte]

So what your saying is, that the TT math and all research behind it is about right and that in fact if the entire conversion had actually used the TT values as damage/heat/movement over time things would work out.
double rate of fire? halve heat and damage.

Math is Math. Who could have known?

[fxrsniper]

SO do the math then I just built 2 Atlas's with same weapons, same engine both at 1.37 heat efficiency 1 with DHS the other with 21 singles .DHS atlas 13 in engine 1 in each arm. By you guys calculation that is 2.0x13=26 singles 2x1.4 for arms=2.8 that's 28.8 singles. The other atlas has 21 singles for the exact same efficiency. Screenshots if needed

Edited by fxrsniper, 12 November 2012 - 12:42 PM.

[Pugnacious Stoat]

The problem with the current system isn't that heat is too high across the board. Rather, it's that configurations using only a few heat intesive weapons are strongly favored over those that use a lot of them. With no heat sinks outside of the engine, upgrading to double heat sinks provides a big boost in heat efficiency at no cost of criticals or tons. If you mount just enough energy weapons to fully take advantage of the engine DHS, without needing to add on any more heat sinks, you're in the sweet spot. You get the benefits of energy weapons, without giving up anything to deal with the heat they produce. That leaves you with plenty of crits and tons that you can fill with low heat weaponry.

The moment you start adding more energy weapons than the engine alone can handle, however, each bit of extra firepower has a higher tonnage cost, and a much higher crit cost, due to the large number of less-efficient external double heat sinks that you have to add. (I'm assuming that you wouldn't be using single heat sinks, because that would mean giving up the free boost to engine heat sink effectiveness, which is also a bad deal). So, if your configuration uses large numbers of energy weapons (and/or missile weapons, to a lesser degree), you're generally going to get less out of your mech than someone who uses only a few of them.

Example: My Hunchback 4H mounts a gauss rifle and three medium pulse lasers. To cool it, I require only one double heat sink outside of the engine, which costs me one ton and three crits. My 4SP uses 4 medium lasers, and 2 srm6's. To cool that, I use six double heat sinks outside of the engine, at a total cost of six tons and eighteen crits, which prevents me from using endo steel. 1.5 times the heat per alpha strike (assuming the MWO wiki has the right heat values for each weapon), requiring 6 times as much tonnage and space to manage. If anything, the 4H runs cooler, as well. You can probably guess which configuration I like more. Whatever level of effectiveness we end up with for double heat sinks in general, the heat sinks outside of the engine must be at least as effective as those within it, or the variety of competitive builds in the game will suffer.

[Munkhausen]

Hmmh - technically there still should be some reason for using singles as well. Easiest way would be to make DHS dissipate heat around 1.5-1.6 both centrally and peripherally. That would mean some assaults and extremely energy heavy heavies would still have to consider using SHS. 2.0 would with current heat mechanics mean that no one would anymore use them.

Reasoning:

AWE with ppc load (ultimate example quickly thought lots of tonnage and load of heat - in this example fitted with 300 engine - it must be 9M ) can get around 30 shs and would have space for around 18 DHS including engine heat sinks. 18 DHS cost 18 tons compared to 30 tons of shs - that will save 12 tons. Too bad there is nothing to use that tonnage in. With current system that dhs load dissipates heat around 32 shs worth of heat. If engine hs were also 1.4 would that number be 25 making shs better. 30shs/18dhs = 1.67shs/dhs making this number the coarse estimation of dhs-power that would make dhs useless in almost all configs except for those that have max 2 free crits in all locatios before sinks. (So rare that can be forgotten) I would based on this make assumption that 1.5-1.6shs/dhs would be quite good power for dhs to still have some uses even for shs.

And 1.4 dhs still isn't useless for many lighter mechs with little tonnage and loads of space.

Edit: if assumed smaller engine dhs get worse so maybe 1.7 would still be better. LArge engines with current system favor dhs hugely. (With erroneuous 2.0 central dhs even more)

Edited by Munkhausen, 12 November 2012 - 01:02 PM.

[wanderer]

fxrsniper, on 12 November 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

SO do the math then I just built 2 Atlas's with same weapons, same engine both at 1.37 heat efficiency 1 with DHS the other with 21 singles .DHS atlas 13 in engine 1 in each arm. By you guys calculation that is 2.0x13=26 singles 2x1.4 for arms=2.8 that's 28.8 singles. The other atlas has 21 singles for the exact same efficiency. Screenshots if needed

The heat efficiency bar is out of whack, because it considers all DHS as 1.4 regardless of actual performance.
15 x 1.4 = 21, namely.

Put the 'Mech on the field and you'll notice the difference when firing. Mechlab doesn't take the accidental 2.0 DHS into account when calculating efficiency.

[fxrsniper]

wanderer, on 12 November 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

The heat efficiency bar is out of whack, because it considers all DHS as 1.4 regardless of actual performance.
15 x 1.4 = 21, namely.

Put the 'Mech on the field and you'll notice the difference when firing. Mechlab doesn't take the accidental 2.0 DHS into account when calculating efficiency.

Thats my point my heat at 21 singles is the same as mine with the DHS at the same heat efficiency

Edited by fxrsniper, 12 November 2012 - 01:07 PM.

[Bubba Wilkins]

fxrsniper, on 12 November 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

SO do the math then I just built 2 Atlas's with same weapons, same engine both at 1.37 heat efficiency 1 with DHS the other with 21 singles .DHS atlas 13 in engine 1 in each arm. By you guys calculation that is 2.0x13=26 singles 2x1.4 for arms=2.8 that's 28.8 singles. The other atlas has 21 singles for the exact same efficiency. Screenshots if needed

1.37 efficiency rating means nothing. We don't know how that value is derived or whether its counting the DHS in the engines at 2.0.

But your maths are wrong regardless. Only the 10 DHS internal to the engine count at 2.0. The additional engine slots and crit placed DHS count at 1.4.

so your builds are effectively:
21H/10s SHS or 27H/10s DHS
since all other factors are equal, you gained more cooling and 8 tons.

fxrsniper, on 12 November 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

Thats my point my heat at 21 singles is the same as mine with the DHS at the same heat efficiency

The efficiency bar is busted. Ignore it.

Edited by Bubba Wilkins, 12 November 2012 - 01:12 PM.

[Marzepans]

fxrsniper, on 12 November 2012 - 12:41 PM, said:

SO do the math then I just built 2 Atlas's with same weapons, same engine both at 1.37 heat efficiency 1 with DHS the other with 21 singles .DHS atlas 13 in engine 1 in each arm. By you guys calculation that is 2.0x13=26 singles 2x1.4 for arms=2.8 that's 28.8 singles. The other atlas has 21 singles for the exact same efficiency. Screenshots if needed

What I gather from this post is that you didn't even read the thread you are attempting to troll. Only the first ten DHS in the engine count as 2.0. Any additional DHS added are functioning as 1.4