322 replies to this topic

[Jeff K Notagoon]

SpiralRazor, on 30 November 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

And now in the news, DHS, a tech level 2 item, are better then SHS, a tech level 1 item...

In the newer news: tech levels don't exist in MWO. PGI has even said they don't want SHS to be completely replaced in every situation. Source: THIS THREAD

[unwary]

PGI could make DHS efficiency be mech specific All lights have 1.6x, Mediums 1.75x, Heavies 1;9x, Assault 2x

[Clay Pigeon]

Lord Jay, on 30 November 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

If they set all DHS to a base of 1.74, they would become true 2.0 DHS with pilot skills when you Elite a chassis.

We also should reduce SHS efficiency so they only become 1.0 with pilot skills.

[Monky]

unwary, on 30 November 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

PGI could make DHS efficiency be mech specific All lights have 1.6x, Mediums 1.75x, Heavies 1;9x, Assault 2x

This is an interesting idea, but I think it would only pan out with a coinciding buff to Ferro Fibrous armor as well.

[Solis Obscuri]

Garth Erlam, on 30 November 2012 - 09:00 AM, said:

Those games also had (not all, but some) PPC's that did 30 damage, lights no-one used, and 'coolant flushing.' Also, in every previous game DHS > SHS in every situation, and we want to avoid that.

TBH, I have yet to find a situation in this game where I gain any advantage by using SHS.

[Mechsniper]

Need a buff to DHS. Agree with OP.

[ArmandTulsen]

Shadowsword8, on 30 November 2012 - 10:35 AM, said:

Why are we even speaking about previous MW games? They do not impact the gameplay in MWO, thus they are irrelevant.

Yeah, let's just go ahead and ignore history. Who needs that **** anyway?

[RangerXT]

They should change the name from double heatsinks if they aren't going to make them double. They take up 3 slots and do 1.4, in no way you shape that is the term "double" fitting.

[shabowie]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 30 November 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

PGI has even said they don't want SHS to be completely replaced in every situation.

This whole thread is players saying that PGI is wrong.

Considering most designs with SHS are unplayable they need to rethink their position. Mechs with DHS are currently playable. Maybe raise SHS up to close to that, then boost DHS even more.

It's basically impossible to make something that reduces the heat on your mech more efficiently in almost every situation not completely replace the inferior solution. It's a fool's errand.

Edited by shabowie, 01 December 2012 - 06:14 PM.

[ArmandTulsen]

Why don't they simply change the value to 2.0 and let it play out for a month? If it's so terrible as some people are QQing, then lower it.

Edited by ArmandTulsen, 01 December 2012 - 06:17 PM.

[LethalMezzle]

Err...no.

Double Heat Sinks at the moment are almost always a straight upgrade for Lights and Mediums. If I use Double Heat Sinks I make my Jenner and Hunchback significantly more effective with no downsides. That is not good balance.

Now, Double Heat Sinks would actually be a neat trade-off if crit space was more limited (hence why for Assaults they may be more of a side-grade), but for Lighter mechs Double Heat Sinks are a complete no-brainer. You have way more crit space than you need.

And as for 'but it's Tier 2 tech it's supposed to be better!'. Well yeah - in the canon they are, but this is an interpretation of the canon we're talking about, it does not have to be entirely accurate. I think it's worth sacrificing accuracy for game balance. DHS being better might be fine if there was some kind of BV system in place, but at the moment, we don't have anything like that.

One major problem with this is that most stock/trial mechs mount SHS. People who don't have the C-Bills to afford DHS are going to be at a disadvantage until they can save up to buy DHS, and considering how difficult the experience is for new players already, this is not helping.

If you want high-heat weapons to be viable, buff them instead.

[wanderer]

Vassago Rain, on 30 November 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

PGI are like Bioware, and demands that they be considered right, even when everybody knows they're wong.

And this is why SWTOR is not only F2P now, but running on a fraction of it's original serverbase to accommodate the reduced population (more like "decimated").

It's turned into EQ2, which is amusing considering Verant's earlier SW game.

[wanderer]

Garth Erlam, on 30 November 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

So, I say this as objectively as possible, but I think if you look at the previous games, then back here, you'll notice a shockingly good balance of chassis/weapons/etc.

Give us 2.0 DHS, or show us exactly where you're breaking 2.0 DHS- because right now, lights aren't being broken with them, and heavier 'Mechs are disadvantaged because externals are worse. C'mon. Go take the Trial Awesome out there and tell me that isn't just pathetic right now. Cause you're right- PGI has done better with weapon balance. More weapons appeal in MWO than I've seen in just about any MW title to date. We've been head-to-tabling on this truly weird fixation with DHS somehow being "imbalanced" by functioning as intended.

Heck, you made AC/20 Cats fully viable designs with 2.0 DHS (as they use engine-only sinks). They're fun. They're effective. They're not broken. Proper DHS will help make more of the larger guns viable. Let us have them, then we can balance properly with a solid baseline for how much cooling a 'Mech can put out.

[Deadoon]

I was thinking, what if they made the heatsinks in the engine 1.0 heatsinks and the ones outside 2.5 or 3.0, if you were to mount a full 10-11 heatsinks, you would be at best 1 heat better off than canon with 3.0s without making the built in heatsinks overpowering the mechs. This would make the heatsinks outside the engine more heat-weight efficient than even clan tech, but would allow clans to have their true doubles in and out with out too much of an issue, comparatively.

10 in and 10 out uses 30 crits to make 40 heat dispersion. True doubles would do the same. This would make a higher heat build more difficult to manage, but makes sure you load up on those valuable heatsinks, rather than relying on only engine heatsinks.

Edited by Deadoon, 01 December 2012 - 06:59 PM.

[wanderer]

shabowie, on 01 December 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

This whole thread is players saying that PGI is wrong.

Considering most designs with SHS are unplayable they need to rethink their position. Mechs with DHS are currently playable. Maybe raise SHS up to close to that, then boost DHS even more.

It's basically impossible to make something that reduces the heat on your mech more efficiently in almost every situation not completely replace the inferior solution. It's a fool's errand.

As noted before- give DHS the same +1 to maximum overheat as SHS get, instead of +2 or +1.4. SHS cool .1 per sec, DHS .2 per sec like they should.

Suddenly, SHS now give more alpha ability as you can stack more of them. But hey, DHS are -supposed- to replace SHS in most cases. They're the standard by which everything post 3039 or so is measured against, not SHS. We're sitting here with people telling us we should make it so the guy flying a propeller-based plane is "balanced" with the guy using a jet engine.

It just shouldn't be happening when comparing brute performance. The more you nerf DHS, the more you cripple later-tech designs built around them, and that just shouldn't be done. Bigger weapons depend more on external, extra heat sinks to go with them and the current 1.4 just takes a bad situation for those guns and makes it worse. Heck, the current background picture for the forums is a K2 Catapult. Firing PPCs. Which are one of the guns hurt the worst by that decision.

Deadoon, on 01 December 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

I was thinking, what if they made the heatsinks in the engine 1.0 heatsinks and the ones outside 2.5 or 3.0, if you were to mount a full 10-11 heatsinks, you would be at best 1 heat better off than canon with 3.0s without making the built in heatsinks overpowering the mechs. This would make the heatsinks outside the engine more heat-weight efficient than even clan tech, but would allow clans to have their true doubles in and out with out too much of an issue, comparatively.

10 in and 10 out uses 30 crits to make 40 heat dispersion. True doubles would do the same. This would make a higher heat build more difficult to manage, but makes sure you load up on those valuable heatsinks, rather than relying on only engine heatsinks.

It also means bigger engines become less heat-efficient and some wiseguy in a slow 'Mech actually is getting more game from his DHS than a faster one.

Keep it simple and stop changing the performance of a heat sink depending on whether it's inside, outside or for that matter duct-taped to your darn cockpit, if the game allowed for that. Call a spade a spade and a DHS 2.0, wherever it is.

[Lefty Lucy]

wanderer, on 01 December 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

As noted before- give DHS the same +1 to maximum overheat as SHS get, instead of +2 or +1.4. SHS cool .1 per sec, DHS .2 per sec like they should.

Suddenly, SHS now give more alpha ability as you can stack more of them. But hey, DHS are -supposed- to replace SHS in most cases. They're the standard by which everything post 3039 or so is measured against, not SHS. We're sitting here with people telling us we should make it so the guy flying a propeller-based plane is "balanced" with the guy using a jet engine.

It just shouldn't be happening when comparing brute performance. The more you nerf DHS, the more you cripple later-tech designs built around them, and that just shouldn't be done. Bigger weapons depend more on external, extra heat sinks to go with them and the current 1.4 just takes a bad situation for those guns and makes it worse. Heck, the current background picture for the forums is a K2 Catapult. Firing PPCs. Which are one of the guns hurt the worst by that decision.

I would love it if we had this trade off: DHS for DPS, SHS for big alphas.

[Deadoon]

wanderer, on 01 December 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

It also means bigger engines become less heat-efficient and some wiseguy in a slow 'Mech actually is getting more game from his DHS than a faster one.

Keep it simple and stop changing the performance of a heat sink depending on whether it's inside, outside or for that matter duct-taped to your darn cockpit, if the game allowed for that. Call a spade a spade and a DHS 2.0, wherever it is.

The reason for the suggestion is to make the builds which use dhs as a straight upgrade(which pgi hates the idea of for some reason) and makes doubles into something that is coveted but not all powerful and do not affect base stats of anything. Dhs on the engine( as in part of not just mounted on 275+ engines to it, the ones you add yourself would be unchanged) would be completely unaffected and thus make there no difference, and removing the "upgrade" status on your engine.

There are many paths that can be taken to make double heatsinks viable for all. But once clan tech is brought in, I'd suggest making clan doubles true doubles(they need it), engines doubles, and Is heatsinks true doubles as well.

The main issue right now is how the engine heatsinks are handled for balance issues and making it go against pgis statement that double heatsinks are not direct upgrades.

Edited by Deadoon, 01 December 2012 - 07:09 PM.

[Lightfoot]

Lefty said it all. DHS 2.0 is balanced TT gameplay and what we have now for DHS is a paranoid nerf.

[RobinSage]

I personally will be the devils advocate here, sorry guys, but 2.0 DHS would be absolutely insane for virtually all of my Assault builds. I could probably mount 4 LPL's with true 2.0's and not overheat while chaining them CONSTANTLY. That's way out of balance and personally I don't have a problem with heat running just about any class mech with most configurations. BTW if you think that running 3 ERPPC's will ever be heat efficient you're out of your mind. PPC based weapons are SUPPOSED TO BE HEAT INEFFICIENT by design.

I think this thread seems to be more about people bashing PGI than it is a constructive thread about a realistic change. I would be willing to see up to 1.6 but that would be tops. All PPC weapons should have slight heat drops. But the other weapons are functioning pretty close to right on...."feel wise".

This game isn't going to mimic TT, it isn't and never will be canon, no digital version has ever been considered canon. So if you're trying to complain about how you could do such and such in TT and you can't in this game, you're missing the mark on the game. MWO stands alone.

If the devs feel that the DHS should go to 2.0 virtually all weapon systems would then have to be re-balanced. I know I could truly decimate even more people with 2.0 DHS....so go right ahead and wish for em. It would only benefit people like me, those pilots that are already very successful with heat management at the level that the DHS's are at currently. But if you want to give us much more powerful mechs, where only an alpha strike would destroy virtually anything Medium or smaller in a few hits, you're asking for SO MUCH BIGGER OF A PROBLEM.
I don't agree with this idea. But I do support reworking PPC weapons and a slight DHS increase,......maybe.

[Sifright]

Woodpeckr, on 29 November 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

No

DHS are already pretty much mandatory on every mech, there's pretty much no configuration that isn't improved by upgrading to them. Making them better would just widen the gap, particularly against trial mechs which most of the time don't have them.

They are meant to be used in favor of SHS.

Double heat sinks replace all SHS mechs in battle tech around this time period.