9 replies to this topic

[HanktheTank]

I was doing some math on outfitting a HBK-4P
I used the following setups on my calculations

- 8 medium lasers
- XL 260
- Endo structure
- Armour to 336/338
As I did so I noticed that I could fit the equivalent of 26 standard heat sinks.
Mech comes in at 50 ton


If you do the math for DHS
- 8 med lasers
- XL 260
- Double heat sink upgrade
- Armour to 336/338
You can only fit the equivalent of 25.2 standard heat sinks
Mech comes in at 44.5 ton
And no ability to fit any more DHS's into your mech due to space restrictions.


I understand the move to 1.4x for DHS for the FPS game.
This maybe a one off but I think this shows the fine line that exists the better tech is not necessarily better at all. ( although it should be )

The point I'm trying to make is IF this is consistent across other mechs can we revisit the C-bill cost of switching between DHS and SHS or look to revisit the heat again.

Maybe give us the option to outfit our mech's with everything before buying the upgrades so you can see your stats and fit

If DHS was set at 1.5 would give the setup an effective 27 SHS which may not be worth it cost wise but at least gives you a reason to put it on in the first place.



I like overheating, I really dont want people to spam there needs to be pain for no ammo count. But I also do not want the C-bills I grind to go to waste on a upgrade for heat management that does nothing more than give me weight and critical space.

If I have to do the math everytime I will, but it would be nice to know that the upgrade would do its job as expected.
Or have the option of previewing the mechs loadouts with the upgrades selected before purchase.

[Flapdrol]

Well, the saved tonnage allows you to run a standard engine, double heatsinks + standard engine is MUCH cheaper than an xl + endo, and the standard engine allows you to still be annoying once your gigantic right torso gets taken out.

Edited by Flapdrol, 20 November 2012 - 05:59 AM.

[CatHerder]

Here's my thing about DHS - the whole point of DOUBLE is that you sacrifice space for double the heat management, for the same weight. Currently, and due to balance, it's not like that. However, I think 1.4x is low - it should probably be more like 1.66 or perhaps 1.75. There's a reason it costs 1.5MM C-bills - and for 1.4x, that's a bit steep I think.

Alternatively, they should provide us with the exact formulas for heat calculation, so we can do the math ourselves and determine if SHS or DHS are more appropriate for the use we are planning for them.

Cheers.

[Flapdrol]

Since there's no limit on the price of a mech build, cost is pretty much irrelevant. You can only balance on how good something is. Double heatsinks is already a straight up upgrade on almost any mech. I wouldn't want them to be much better. Maybe nerf heat in general.

[Comassion]

So with DHS you have the same heat capacity, and now that you've run out of crits you can use that tonnage for a bigger engine (holds more DHS inside!), a standard engine (Improved survivability!), or bump up some of those mediums to medium pulses or switch one out for a large and give yourself some range.

Sounds like a solid upgrade to me.

[Amaris the Usurper]

GoatHumper, on 20 November 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Here's my thing about DHS - the whole point of DOUBLE is that you sacrifice space for double the heat management, for the same weight. Currently, and due to balance, it's not like that. However, I think 1.4x is low - it should probably be more like 1.66 or perhaps 1.75. There's a reason it costs 1.5MM C-bills - and for 1.4x, that's a bit steep I think.

Alternatively, they should provide us with the exact formulas for heat calculation, so we can do the math ourselves and determine if SHS or DHS are more appropriate for the use we are planning for them.

Cheers.

It sounds like the OP was able to fit 18 DHS.

In fact, the 10 DHS included with the engine dissipate heat at double rate (contrary to the patch notes). It is only the other heat sinks that operate at 1.4x. We will see what happens after today's patch, though.

Anyway, he would then have the equivalent of 2*10+1.4*8 = 31.2 SHS instead of the nominal 1.4*18 = 25.2 SHS. The real effectiveness of the DHS is then about 31.2/18 = 1.73x. For most DHS builds, effectiveness will be in the 1.66-1.75x ballpark that you describe.

How much of an improvement is this? The mech has a heat dissipation rate of 3.12 heat/second and a threshold of 30+31.2 = 61.2 heat, instead of 2.52 and 30+25.2 = 55.2. The 8 medium lasers generate 8 heat/second on average. The excess is then 4.88 heat/second instead of 5.48 heat/second. It would then take (roughly) 61.2/4.88 = 12.54 seconds of constant firing to overheat instead of 55.2/5.48 = 10.07 seconds, a 25% improvement over all DHS operating at 1.4x. The heat dissipation rate itself is only about 12% better (though a huge improvement over SHS).

See http://mwomercs.com/...-effectiveness/ and http://mwomercs.com/...at-management/.

Edited by Amaris the Usurper, 20 November 2012 - 08:36 AM.

[CatHerder]

Still - if DHS don't do their job at 2x, then call them "Enhanced HS", describe them as doing 1.5x the heat dissipation, and make them occupy 2 slots and weigh 1 ton instead. 3 slots is too steep a space penalty for something that doesn't do what it says it's supposed to...

The game has already strayed from canon enough I think - so what if it affects balance? That's why I @#$!@#$ paid CB/1.5MM for this enhancement to my mech... You want to enjoy the same balance?! EARN THE CASH AND GET ONE YOURSELF!

Isn't that the whole point of the C-bills/MC thing? You can earn or buy (for real $$) your enhancements...so why is balance such a big issue with something you BUY to IMPROVE your mech? That's like someone saying "well, I'll sell you this shotgun but I'll only give you bird shot so it's not unbalanced against the muggers with 9mm you're going to run into"...

As for balance for other things like, for instance, LRM: that's different - one does not buy more or less-accurate LRMs (Artemis notwithstanding), so yes - you have to balance the default version out against cover/AMS (which, I think, have a fairly good balance now).

I also hear people ******** about how this would damage the energy-vs-ballistics balance and everyone would then go for energy weapons. No they won't! Enhance ballistics to make them more attractive in some scenarios (hell, lower their heat threshholds) and it'll be a tough choice - bigger and more decisive punch, or no ammo limitation? Hmmm....choices...choices...

Edited by GoatHumper, 20 November 2012 - 10:09 AM.

[HanktheTank]

I am happy to agree the reduced weight allows different fitting options.

I have now checked in game (pre recent patch) to see the differences.
And look I forgot to record the exact heat for the SHS, which is making me want to downgrade at a cost just to see what it was, but I know the efficiency was higher with SHS but only like one or two points maybe 1% ish.

After reading the way heat was calculated I worked my math on
10 SHS in engine and 16 SHS in criticals at 1x = 26
10 DHS in engine and 8 DHS in criticals at 1.4x = 25.2

Now if it’s calculated differently then I will apologise and will go back and verify my information by paying more C-Bills to properly record each value.
But I know for sure it was higher efficiency with the SHS setup.

My point is we are forced to pay large upgrades before knowing what our setup will look like afterwards or to do math that may or may not be correct based on current implementations or theory’s.

It would be nice to play with the upgrades and modules before you actually pay for them.
That would at least allow you to customise the mech and verify if it’s really what you want.
I don’t mind grinding but more time doing math and fiddling with numbers on paper is less time playing MWO.

DHS values might be hard for the developers to balance fairly and may stay the way they are but I urge us all to look at the way it works with our mechs.
- Is it really worth the cost.
- should we be able to test the upgrades before paying.
- should the developers revisit the values.

EDIT
* The cost I'm looking at is more the upgrade costs that you might then decide you dont want or does not work as well as standard *

Edited by HanktheTank, 21 November 2012 - 03:33 AM.

[Tarl Cabot]

HanktheTank, on 21 November 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

I am happy to agree the reduced weight allows different fitting options.

I have now checked in game (pre recent patch) to see the differences.
And look I forgot to record the exact heat for the SHS, which is making me want to downgrade at a cost just to see what it was, but I know the efficiency was higher with SHS but only like one or two points maybe 1% ish.

After reading the way heat was calculated I worked my math on
10 SHS in engine and 16 SHS in criticals at 1x = 26
10 DHS in engine and 8 DHS in criticals at 1.4x = 25.2

Now if it’s calculated differently then I will apologise and will go back and verify my information by paying more C-Bills to properly record each value.
But I know for sure it was higher efficiency with the SHS setup.

EDIT
* The cost I'm looking at is more the upgrade costs that you might then decide you dont want or does not work as well as standard *

Currently the DHS in the engine, as noted above is 2.0 instead of the 1.4 (the reverse of the original DHS introduction of 1.0 DHS in engine and 2.0 DHS outside of engine). The efficiency in game is currently being calculated with all DHS being 1.4.

10 SHS in engine and 16 SHS in criticals at 1x = 26
10 DHS in engine (at 2.0) and 8 DHS in criticals at 1.4x = 20 + 11.2 = 31.5

[Draxtier]

Have the number crunchers / data miners in the community been able to confirm that DHS are still functioning at an effectiveness of 2.0 in-engine and 1.4 in other slot locations? I've heard speculation that it was changed in the patch, but that talk has all been anecdotal conjecture rather than empirical evidence.

...

Also, I'm 100% in favor of having mech upgrades converted in to a one-time expenditure so that, after you buy the upgrades, you can freely switch between them at no cost, or leave the initial cost high but then allow us to switch between purchased upgrade options for MUCH less than the current costs.

The fact that everything in the loadout tab can be changed freely at no cost, so long as you have the items in your inventory, while everything in the upgrades tab costs an obscene amount of CBills to change, is a poorly designed system which greatly inhibits my ability to customize mechs and forces me to plan everything out in 3rd party tools (excel) well ahead of time, because making a poor design choice with upgrades is prohibitively costly.