322 replies to this topic

[TruePoindexter]

Asatruer, on 29 November 2012 - 01:04 PM, said:

~ long post truncated to keep post length reasonable ~

Thanks for the reply Asatruer!

I like the depth of your examples thank you. I do think that more needs to be considered including the combat lifespan and pilot accuracy. The AC10 to PPC example sways towards the PPC when that is considered but it is debatable. I was more thinking of weapons like the AC2 which in TT is a truely horrible weapon aside from it's huge range and negligible heat.

BV's do a good job of evaluating effectiveness although they give away which are clearly the superior weapons. Gauss, PPCs, LRMs, and the like reign supreme while ACs lag considerably further behind.

[wanderer]

TruePoindexter, on 29 November 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

This is very true. Dual AC20's would also benefit very much from this. AC10's and AC5's tend to be cool enough.

In fact, K2 AC/20 boats run well with their 2.0 engine-based heat sinks, to help prove that point. That's exactly what pushed the AC/20 Cat from "can't do well" to "gimmicky but doable and fun".

[buckX]

Zeh, on 29 November 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

4 LL Cataphract says differently. 31 SHS is 10000x better than the (14?) DHS you can fit on that sucker. If they were 2.0 HS the difference would be less.. but still in favor of 31 SHS.

I can fit 20DHS in a 4LL Cataphract.

[Weiland]

I wouldn't mind true DHS. I could finally put together my 2x AC2 / 2x PPC K-2 and brawl decently well. Or use ER-PPCs again. That one would be nice.

[Lefty Lucy]

Weiland, on 29 November 2012 - 02:00 PM, said:

I wouldn't mind true DHS. I could finally put together my 2x AC2 / 2x PPC K-2 and brawl decently well. Or use ER-PPCs again. That one would be nice.

Actually, it still wouldn't really make PPCs more useable, it would just give heavier mechs a bit more of a leg up compared to lighter mechs, which they need at the moment, IMO.

[Like a Sir]

Dakkath, on 29 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

With weapon recycle times being what they are, double heat sinks will lead to crazy abnormal DPS numbers.

I think at this time, with the netcode re-work coming, and weapon balancing still under review, that DHS should stay where they are.

Weapon recycle times are the biggest reason why (imo) DHS are not 2.0.

That would be a very solid argument, except for the part where a lot of light and medium mechs run mostly the engine mounted heat sinks. Those are already at 2, so they get that rate of fire benefit you are talking about. Bringing the rest of them up to 2, would mostly benefit heavy and assault mechs. And make them a little more dangerous in terms of firepower... which is not a great crime, since they are Heavy and Assault mechs..

Bottom line - is it wouldn't hurt to test it, if even for a week. The original PGI argument about the 3 second jenner has been proven to not be related to the DHS, and the claim that their internal testers said it was OP, does not sound very viable, considering how many glaring bugs those internal testers missed in the last month... (The last patch did fix many issues for me, and the game is now playable and fun again, gotta give credit where it's due)

[Lefty Lucy]

Like a Sir, on 29 November 2012 - 03:45 PM, said:

That would be a very solid argument, except for the part where a lot of light and medium mechs run mostly the engine mounted heat sinks. Those are already at 2, so they get that rate of fire benefit you are talking about. Bringing the rest of them up to 2, would mostly benefit heavy and assault mechs. And make them a little more dangerous in terms of firepower... which is not a great crime, since they are Heavy and Assault mechs..

Bottom line - is it wouldn't hurt to test it, if even for a week. The original PGI argument about the 3 second jenner has been proven to not be related to the DHS, and the claim that their internal testers said it was OP, does not sound very viable, considering how many glaring bugs those internal testers missed in the last month... (The last patch did fix many issues for me, and the game is now playable and fun again, gotta give credit where it's due)

Yep, most heavier chassis would gain *maybe* 10% effective DPS. Why can't people math...

[Voridan Atreides]

This would improve a lot of things! Hope the devs do it!

[Sug]

Who is still having trouble with heat? I can't remember the last time I shutdown. Just don't spam your weapons nonstop...

[Pr8Dator]

The real problem with lights at the moment isn't damage output... that has been there since TT... the real problem is the lack of the ONLY real balancing mechanism against that kind of speed and damage... KNOCKDOWN!!!! Lights without knockdown are like Assaults without overheating. Bigger mechs has always depended on lights overreaching their speed and falling off edges, falling down on collison and knockdown on missiles for the kill. With that mechanism, those Jenners won't feel OP no matter what weapons they mount.

[Corvus Antaka]

I don't agree. heatsinks seem fine to me at 1.4

[RiceyFighter]

Heat sinks are fine the way they are. If you are over heating consider dropping a weapon for more DHS. Yes an Atlas will get 80+ Alpha, but an Atlas with 60 Alpha that can constantly barrage that 80+ overheating/shutting down Atlas will always be better.

[Wolfways]

I wish everyone would be forced to play a K2 (with only PPC's/ERPPC's) for a week and then see if they think the heat system and DHS are "fine".

[TruePoindexter]

Wolfways, on 30 November 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

I wish everyone would be forced to play a K2 (with only PPC's/ERPPC's) for a week and then see if they think the heat system and DHS are "fine".

Hunchback with PPC's and a Cataphract with Large Lasers or sometimes ER Large Lasers. Working fine here.

[Wolfways]

TruePoindexter, on 30 November 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

Hunchback with PPC's and a Cataphract with Large Lasers or sometimes ER Large Lasers. Working fine here.

Fine as in you rely on the mechs other weapons or hiding until your heat drops?

[Shadowsword8]

Dakkath, on 29 November 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

With weapon recycle times being what they are, double heat sinks will lead to crazy abnormal DPS numbers.

I think at this time, with the netcode re-work coming, and weapon balancing still under review, that DHS should stay where they are.

Weapon recycle times are the biggest reason why (imo) DHS are not 2.0.

Crazy abnormal dps numbers are already reached by autocanons.

In the TT game, things were nicely balanced. PGI took the same weapon values (more or less), made them fire three times faster, but kept the same heating value (again, more or less). The shift in balance is obvious: what what negligible heat buildup became, either still negligible, or barely signifiant. While it turned what was a signifiant, but balanced, drawback into a crippling factor.

You can't claim heat generation on weapons or DHS are fine when ER lasers and PPC are barely ever used.

[Grotoiler]

Sorry in advance - I'm at work so I had to TL;DR most of this thread...

I'm rocking a 8Medlas Swayback with DHS... Admittedly, i can't alpha the thing til i'm blue in the face, but if i chain-fire properly, my heat seldom takes me to overheat-threshholds...

1.5 DHS would be NICE, but i'm not complaining if it's not higher than it is now...

[Milkshaker]

no, its not. this will break the game immensely.

[Miken]

Just post it here
4 Medium lasers overheat - 17 DHS
5 Medium pulse lasers overheat in 2-3 strikes - 20DHS

Maximum capacity at assault mechs are 26DHS or even less!!!
(Awesome 9m - 27DHS, but without weapon in arms and side torsos)

DHS need 2.0 efficiency...

Edited by Miken, 30 November 2012 - 03:21 AM.

[Kotrin]

Of course true 2.0 DHS need to return (did I write return? Dang, they never occurred here in the first place!)

There is absolutely no reason to reduce them to 1.4. I don't care about Jenners running around, and I play an Atlas. Oh, even laser weapons have cooldowns last time I checked. But at least with 2.0 DHS plenty of builds would become viable (ER PPC anyone?)

With no disclosure of the underlying reasoning, no poll and no display of PGI data to back up their claim this DHS nerf was a slap in the face of the community.

It needs to be removed.