234 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

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

Except it isn't. I've done the same experiment when the patch hit on a Hunchback, expecting the same results when I scaled for 1.4 DHS.

I slapped 14 SHS on an -SP with a 200 rated engine and test fired it on Forest by firing up 4 ML's (16 heat). 1.4 heat sinked per second.

Then I put 10 DHS on the same -SP and test fired the same way. The 'Mech cooled faster. If all DHS = 1.4, the heat removal would have been identical.

The DHS version was, in fact cooling at 8 x2 + 2 x1.4 = about 1.9 heat sinked per second (1.88, but close enough). Not a huge difference, but noticeable under testing.

[Lightfoot]

I agree.

Assault 'mechs like the Awesome can only carry Energy and some missiles, but because of their weight Class-Assault they are forced to carry large energy weapons which generate too much heat for single heatsinks. Too compete with Ballistic and Missile configs, large Energy weapons need working DHS. If not, give the Awesome Ballistic hardpoints.

[fxrsniper]

Marzepans, on 12 November 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

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

From what I've gathered from you is you have no clue what you're talking so im done talking to you im not the troll, but its obvious you are here "Just remember you don't matter"

wanderer, on 12 November 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Except it isn't. I've done the same experiment when the patch hit on a Hunchback, expecting the same results when I scaled for 1.4 DHS.

I slapped 14 SHS on an -SP with a 200 rated engine and test fired it on Forest by firing up 4 ML's (16 heat). 1.4 heat sinked per second.

Then I put 10 DHS on the same -SP and test fired the same way. The 'Mech cooled faster. If all DHS = 1.4, the heat removal would have been identical.

The DHS version was, in fact cooling at 8 x2 + 2 x1.4 = about 1.9 heat sinked per second (1.88, but close enough). Not a huge difference, but noticeable under testing.

Im getting different results as well as many others, but doesn't matter its working better than singles with less, that's my main concern

[Dracol]

To those who want all DHS to be at 2.0 , have you considered the 15% bonus from the mastered coolrun?
2.0 vrs 2.3 heat dissipation..... how would that factor into your calculations?

What if dhs were 1.74 base, 2.0 with mastered coolrun?

As they are now (2.0 for engine/1.4 no engine). They are comparable to a 1.74 model when you run 10 in engine and 8 external
less then those and the current model is more efficient
more then those and a 1.74 model is more efficient

[wanderer]

fxrsniper, on 12 November 2012 - 01:25 PM, said:

Im getting different results as well as many others, but doesn't matter its working better than singles with less, that's my main concern

How much so is critical. The further DHS get from 2.0, the bigger a hammer gets dropped on heavies and assaults.

I'm in the "up max heat by 1 per sink (SHS or DHS), cooling rate = .1 per second per SHS, .2 per second per DHS regardless of location" camp here. Better cooling vs. higher alpha tolerance, IMHO is a tradeoff that keeps the spirit of how DHS work intact while giving SHS a reason for effectiveness.

[Insidious Johnson]

nerf dhs! BUFF SHS!

[Matist]

Dracol, on 12 November 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

To those who want all DHS to be at 2.0 , have you considered the 15% bonus from the mastered coolrun?
2.0 vrs 2.3 heat dissipation..... how would that factor into your calculations?

What if dhs were 1.74 base, 2.0 with mastered coolrun?

I think that'd be reasonable, except I believe there's also an exp skill that allows for more rapid fire which probably puts more heat into the system. I'm not sure if that should be a factor too in how they balance out.

Personally I'd rather they scrap coolrun and some of the other exp skills and worked out a better system. But that'd be another subject.

[Amechwarrior]

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

Post a video proving your point in game and them maybe we will take your flawed data seriously. The video I posted earlier was done by taking a 250 rate engine, 2xERPPCs (no beam duration time), no pilot perks and simply switching from SHS to DHS. No external variables to muck up the math. Prove your version right, show us the evidence in game.

[shabowie]

Yes, I agree we need ALL DHS to be 2.0 value.

To the debate about efficiency, I have noticed that mechs using DHS dissipate heat much faster than they should according to their efficiency value when compared to a similar mech load out using singles. I suspect that that indicator in the mech lab is not factoring the value of DHS properly. It may "think" DHS are all 1.4 value.

In actual play mechs with DHS are cooling much more rapidly than a SHS design that shows a higher heat efficiency in the mech lab.

Edited by shabowie, 12 November 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[FiveDigits]

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

Sadly you did not pay attention to what was deducted:

• Only the true internal heat sinks - max. 10 in a engine rated >= 250 - are 2.0 / 0.2 DHS
  
• DHS in engine slots for engines rated >= 275 are 1.4 / 0.14 DHS
  
• external DHS are 1.4 / 0.14 DHS

For your example of an Atlas with "13 engine heat sinks" this means:

• 10 true DHS in the engine: 10 * 0.2 = 20 SHS equivalents
  
• 3 1.4 DHS in engine slots: 3 * 1.4 = 4.2 SHS equivalents
  
• 2 external 1.4 DHS: 2 * 1.4 = 2.8 SHS equivalents

Thats 20 + 4.2 + 2.8 = 27 SHS equivalents. If the mech lab displays the same heat efficiency for this build as for 21 SHS then that is a display bug based on the 15 * 1.4 = 21 calculation that was proven wrong by tests run in game.

[Squid von Torgar]

Quote

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

Yes the heat efficency bar in mechlab assumes the DHS are all working at 1.4. However empirical evidence from game shows a very different story. Dont get me wrong, at first I was sceptical. Then I tested myself and it was obvious that heatsinks in the engine were working at 2.0. This can also be read in the XML files.

My own test using the Jenner (with only Engine HS) both done on forest colony

Quote

I just tested this using the Jenner D


SHS fire 4 ML time to cool down = 16.2 seconds
DHS (9 in engine, 1 outside) time to cool down = 8.6 seconds.

here is the original thread if you require more info

http://mwomercs.com/...-effectiveness/

If you still dont belive us test it yourself in the game.

Edited by Squid von Torgar, 12 November 2012 - 02:57 PM.

[Squid von Torgar]

Hows those tests going?

[Teralitha]

wanderer, on 12 November 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:

Except it isn't. I've done the same experiment when the patch hit on a Hunchback, expecting the same results when I scaled for 1.4 DHS.

I slapped 14 SHS on an -SP with a 200 rated engine and test fired it on Forest by firing up 4 ML's (16 heat). 1.4 heat sinked per second.

Then I put 10 DHS on the same -SP and test fired the same way. The 'Mech cooled faster. If all DHS = 1.4, the heat removal would have been identical.

The DHS version was, in fact cooling at 8 x2 + 2 x1.4 = about 1.9 heat sinked per second (1.88, but close enough). Not a huge difference, but noticeable under testing.

Because of the increased heat threshhold, it only appeared to cool faster.

[Operant]

Why are they called double heat sinks? They cool 1.4x and use 3 crit slots.

???????????

[Squid von Torgar]

Quote

Why are they called double heat sinks? They cool 1.4x and use 3 crit slots.

The clue is in the question

[MWHawke]

Funny thing is you punish those who add more DHS OUTSIDE the engine by requiring 3 slots each. The ones that are given free in the engine works at double efficiency.

For all of you complaining about DHS being too uber, I would just like to point out that they are of limited use to bigger mechs due to the fact that they use 3 slots. Bigger mechs are SUPPOSED to have more firepower and at least give them the ability to use them. Bear in mind, their movement is already slow and are not as agile as lights.

If you are talking about lights taking on heavies one on one, bear in mind also that that's not supposed to happen unless you are an extremely good pilot. Even then, most of the times, lights take on heavier mechs in groups of threes.

Punishing DHS so that lights can take on heavies one on one is quite against the natural order of things. If you are going to run straight up to a heavy in a light mech and expect to survive, well, think again. That is NOT the purpose of light mechs.

[Dethl0k]

its because most of us quit, thats why u havent heard much...

[Asmosis]

MWHawke, on 12 November 2012 - 05:51 PM, said:

Punishing DHS so that lights can take on heavies one on one is quite against the natural order of things. If you are going to run straight up to a heavy in a light mech and expect to survive, well, think again. That is NOT the purpose of light mechs.

um no. fast light units taking out slow heavy units IS the natural order of things. Go take a look at EVE online. Assult class mechs bring brute force to take down anything slow enough not to evade them. one on one, a light *should* kill an assult mech assuming they are equally skilled.

However, put two assult mechs vs 4 light mechs and the two assults should win, provided they use proper positioning.

[Dethl0k]

this isnt eve online this is MW a light shouldnt be able to kill assualts 1v1 if same skill but i dont think it has got that bad but this game is on its way with all the carebears wanting everything even and balanced

[wanderer]

Teralitha, on 12 November 2012 - 04:02 PM, said:

Because of the increased heat threshhold, it only appeared to cool faster.

If DHS equaled 1.4, the threshold would have been identical. 14 SHS x1 = 10 DHS x 1.4. Remember, threshold currently goes up the same amount as the sink cools. A SHS is .1/sec cooling and 1.0 heat threshold. A 1.4 DHS is +1.4 heat threshold. A 2.0 DHS is 2.0 heat threshold.

It was not. Ergo, engine sinks are cooling the 'Mech faster than 1.4 DHS would allow- and even with a higher threshold, I was measuring heat from firing to zero.

Edited by wanderer, 12 November 2012 - 06:56 PM.