322 replies to this topic

[Ketzktl]

QuantumButler, on 29 November 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

WRONG.

You're literally better off dropping those mgs for more heatsinks, each MG has 0.04 damage per bullet, it takes a solid 10 seconds of shooting to deal TWO DAMAGE.

Machine guns do 0.04 damage per bullet and fire 10 bullets per second so It does 0.4 damage per second. It would only take 5 seconds to do 2 damage. They are only half as lame as you make them out to be

[Not a Number]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 December 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

Single sinks are a better option in Mechs with 245 rate engines or smaller. At the 250 rate level and over 10 double sinks take up no extra room or weight and should be just as effective as having 20 single sinks. Cause that is what double sinks have done for 2 decades.

If all you care about is criticals, sure. But even a Flea with the default 120 engine would get a decent return when switching to DHS (4 internal × 2.0 + 6 external × 1.4). With the majority of stock variants coming with SHS as standard, overall balance is currently still off and a problem.

Suppose we had all DHS at 2.0 and SHS at 1.2 (accounting for any modifiers). In the extreme case of the above Flea – with more external than internal sinks – the performance ratio of SHS to DHS would actually be slightly more in favor of DHS (1 to 1.67 as opposed to 1 to 1.64), but the SHS setup would at least be less prone to overheat than it is currently.

In most other cases – with more internal than external sinks – SHS would be in a slightly better position than they are now, improving overall balance. That's on top of improving efficiency for most builds with 15+ DHS*. Now if most stock variants came with DHS pre-equipped this wouldn't be as much of an issue, however that's just not the case.

And I repeat, the above could be done by making an efficiency like Coolrun have a greater effect on SHS or not apply to DHS, leaving the base values of 1.0 for SHS and 2.0 for DHS untouched.

* Actually 18+ DHS when taking into account current implementation of Coolrun, though I don't know if it affects the heat cap as well.

Edited by Not a Number, 04 December 2012 - 09:52 AM.

[MWHawke]

Not a Number, on 04 December 2012 - 07:18 AM, said:

I get what you guys are saying, but we're not talking about what makes sense story- or lorewise or about what works or doesn't according to classic BattleTech rules.

Really? You mean I am NOT playing Mechwarrior, a game based on Battletech?

I should GET THE F OUT!!! I invested in the wrong game!!! I invested in a game called Big Stompy Robots that is COPYING Battletech!!!

Not a Number, on 04 December 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

If all you care about is criticals, sure. But even a Flea with the default 120 engine would get a decent return when switching to DHS (4 internal × 2.0 + 6 external × 1.4). With the majority of stock variants coming with SHS as standard, overall balance is currently still off and a problem.

Suppose we had all DHS at 2.0 and SHS at 1.2 (accounting for any modifiers). In the extreme case of the above Flea – with more external than internal sinks – the performance ratio of SHS to DHS would actually be slightly more in favor of DHS (1 to 1.67 as opposed to 1 to 1.64), but the SHS setup would at least be less prone to overheat than it is currently.

In most other cases – with more internal than external sinks – SHS would be in a slightly better position than they are now, improving overall balance. That's on top of improving efficiency for most builds with 15+ DHS*. Now if most stock variants came with DHS pre-equipped this wouldn't be as much of an issue, however that's just not the case.

And I repeat, the above could be done by making an efficiency like Coolrun have a greater effect on SHS or not apply to DHS, leaving the base values of 1.0 for SHS and 2.0 for DHS untouched.

* Actually 18+ DHS when taking into account current implementation of Coolrun, though I don't know if it affects the heat cap as well.

Seriously, you are still arguing that if electric engines are reliable, they should not be introduced so that petrol would not become redundant?

[TruePoindexter]

shabowie, on 03 December 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

This statement is a lie, and the fact you provided builds that dissipate less than or a bit more than HALF of the heat being generated every second shows you know you aren't being honest.

If you feel that 100% heat efficiency is a necessity than we're not playing the same game. Optimal heat efficiency at the upper tiers of play is not anywhere near there and that is by design.

And to address your math that's not even vaguely close to how heat actually works in the game. If it did then 3 SHS would dissipate a single Medium Laser's heat perfectly on cooldown. This is not the case.

shabowie, on 03 December 2012 - 08:41 PM, said:

Stop telling lies and engage in honest debate or what's the point? You just look like a yes man for a system that makes stock mechs completely unusable.

It's fun to insult people on the internet!

SpiralRazor, on 03 December 2012 - 09:31 PM, said:

Your math is off... Also, anyone boating ERSmalls in MW3 was dead long before they got in range to really use them.


Unless you were a laggy *** Shadowcat, and then we just banned you from the game.

The math is backed up by real world performance and not hypothetical's run by people who honestly should not be trying to do math.

Also you could not ban people on the MSN Gaming Zone where MW3 multiplayer took place. You did not play in the leagues. ER Smalls and ER Mediums ruled the field. I do not want to return to that nonsense.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 04 December 2012 - 11:24 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Not a Number, on 04 December 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

If all you care about is criticals, sure. But even a Flea with the default 120 engine would get a decent return when switching to DHS (4 internal × 2.0 + 6 external × 1.4). With the majority of stock variants coming with SHS as standard, overall balance is currently still off and a problem.

A valid counter argument, and quite correct.

Quote

Suppose we had all DHS at 2.0 and SHS at 1.2 (accounting for any modifiers). In the extreme case of the above Flea – with more external than internal sinks – the performance ratio of SHS to DHS would actually be slightly more in favor of DHS (1 to 1.67 as opposed to 1 to 1.64), but the SHS setup would at least be less prone to overheat than it is currently.

I am of a position that a double sink should be just that. So if a single sink is going to be 1.2 then a double needs to be 2.4. Hence the Double in the name.

Quote

In most other cases – with more internal than external sinks – SHS would be in a slightly better position than they are now, improving overall balance. That's on top of improving efficiency for most builds with 15+ DHS*. Now if most stock variants came with DHS pre-equipped this wouldn't be as much of an issue, however that's just not the case.

True but there are some builds that only carry the base 10 sinks whether single or double (Thunder hawk for inastance). Double sinks will be becoming more and more prominent as the 3055 and 3058 TRO mechs come into play.

Quote

And I repeat, the above could be done by making an efficiency like Coolrun have a greater effect on SHS or not apply to DHS, leaving the base values of 1.0 for SHS and 2.0 for DHS untouched.

* Actually 18+ DHS when taking into account current implementation of Coolrun, though I don't know if it affects the heat cap as well.

Meh, I'm of a mind that cool runnin' should affect all sinks with the possible exception of laser sinks the Clan will(might) be producing!


Christmas light my Bah Humbug!

[MWHawke]

TruePoindexter, on 04 December 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

ER Smalls and ER Mediums ruled the field. I do not want to return to that nonsense.

They already are for light mechs. With DHS at 1.4 efficiency, heavier mechs are gimped.

I think everyone has lost sight of one thing, or maybe they are purposely doing it, light mechs should NOT be able to stand up against heavier mechs but yet here we are where a light chassis has the advantage of firing their complement of lasers but the heavier mechs are limited to the same weapons a light has due to the fact that lights can rely on those 2.0 DHS IN the engine while heavier laser weapons require external DHS to work efficiently.

Game balance my ar53!!!

[TruePoindexter]

MWHawke, on 04 December 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

I think everyone has lost sight of one thing, or maybe they are purposely doing it, light mechs should NOT be able to stand up against heavier mechs but yet here we are where a light chassis has the advantage of firing their complement of lasers but the heavier mechs are limited to the same weapons a light has due to the fact that lights can rely on those 2.0 DHS IN the engine while heavier laser weapons require external DHS to work efficiently.

That's not entirely true - you want to swing the balance of power the other way. This is how it was in MW4 and all we ever saw were Heavies and Assaults - mostly Assaults. In fact for the first 4 months of league play there was only one acceptable mech - Daishi with 6 ER Large Lasers. Games were incredibly boring.

The balance is being maintained thanks to weapon tweaking, information warfare, and heat. Light mechs just can't reach the heat efficiency that their larger counterparts can achieve because they can't mount the additional heat sinks. This keeps 6ML Jenners and Cicadas from becoming the default mech on the field.

Finally to specifically address the comment I keep seeing of "With DHS at 1.4 efficiency, heavier mechs are gimped." This idea needs to die in a fire right now because it is just flat wrong. Yes additional heat sinks do not operate as well as the free in engine heat sinks -THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU SHOULD NOT TAKE ADDITIONAL HEATSINKS NOR DOES THAT MEAN THAT ADDITIONAL HEAT SINKS ARE BAD. They simply do not work as well as the free heat sinks. As you get to the upper levels of performance the rate at which performance improves decreases. This creates a decrease on investment and is one of the factors that keeps 100% heat efficiency out of the reach of players.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 04 December 2012 - 11:47 AM.

[shabowie]

TruePoindexter, on 04 December 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

If you feel that 100% heat efficiency is a necessity than we're not playing the same game. Optimal heat efficiency at the upper tiers of play is not anywhere near there and that is by design.

Not asking for 100% heat efficiency. You claimed you had builds that made heat not a concern anymore with DHS, then posted builds that would be only ~50% efficient with true double heatsinks.

TruePoindexter, on 04 December 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

And to address your math that's not even vaguely close to how heat actually works in the game. If it did then 3 SHS would dissipate a single Medium Laser's heat perfectly on cooldown. This is not the case.

This is important, because I actually posted exactly how heat would be dissipated with true double heatsinks. Every DHS would dissipate .2 heat per second. 10 doubles in your engine right now dissipate 2 heat per second. 4 medium lasers on a Jenner generate 16 heat, with 14 waste heat accumulated by the time they get done firing for one second. Anyone can test this with a 4 mlas 10 engine DHS Jenner. The pilot proficiencies don't seem to be working right now either.

And no 3 SHS would cool .3 heat in the 1 second firing of a medium laser leaving 3.7 excess heat

It's pretty clear you have no clue what you're talking about..

Edited by shabowie, 04 December 2012 - 12:01 PM.

[TruePoindexter]

shabowie, on 04 December 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

Not asking for 100% heat efficiency. You claimed you had builds that made heat not a concern anymore with DHS, then posted builds that would be only ~50% efficient with true double heatsinks.

50% is amazing efficiency - that's near Gausspult efficiency.

[MossDog]

Sarcasm/

BY GEORGE I'VE GOT IT!!!!

We can make everyone happy here. Just completely remove double heat sinks. We will add in a new solution. Enhanced Heat Sinks. (EHS) They will work at a 1.4 cooling ratio instead of 1, and take up 3 slots instead of 1!

/Sarcasm

Seriously though, originally, I was in agreement that double heat sinks should be double, but the more I play (which has been more recently) the more I am beginning to see the need for the DHS limitations. Personally, I play ballistic mechs. Have since closed, and some of the most fun I have had is my AL Centurion with an ERPPC. It is a great sniping weapon, only 7 tons, and I don't have to worry about ammo. Instead, I have a secondary RoF governor in the form of heat. Yes, I understand that the Awesome with 3 ERPPC's is a disgustingly overheating machine, but (since we can't not compare it to tabletop) It overheated in that game as well. It's NOT a good mech. It wasn't in tabletop either. That being said, chainfireing those PPC's (or even link firing) very quickly popping over a ridge in a sniping battle, then backing off to cool down, not a bad tactic. A Gauss player can keep that up for around 40 shots. Whereas you, in your energy weapon system are only challenged by keeping your cooldowns/heat meter in check. It's give and take. I'm sure that PGI will find a happy balance, but jumping back to 2.0 in one fell swoop is not the answer. Besides, Harder=Requires More Skill. If you aren't good enough to use PPC's, and I am not, my accuracy at long ranges is bad, don't choose mechs that are based around a long ranged, hit and fade philosophy. Grab some large lasers, some LRM's, and have a good time.

[shabowie]

TruePoindexter, on 04 December 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

50% is amazing efficiency - that's near Gausspult efficiency.

2 gauss rifles at max cyclic rate can't even generate enough heat to fill the bar man, wtf are you talking about?

The fact you might have 2 medium lasers that can singlehandedly overheat the mech eventually if you fire them as well? This just illustrates how broken the current heat system is.

[TruePoindexter]

shabowie, on 04 December 2012 - 11:50 AM, said:

This is important, because I actually posted exactly how heat would be dissipated with true double heatsinks. Every DHS would dissipate .2 heat per second. 10 doubles in your engine right now dissipate 2 heat per second. 4 medium lasers on a Jenner generate 16 heat, with 14 waste heat accumulated by the time they get done firing for one second. Anyone can test this with a 4 mlas 10 engine DHS Jenner. The pilot proficiencies don't seem to be working right now either.

And no 3 SHS would cool .3 heat in the 1 second firing of a medium laser leaving 3.7 excess heat

It's pretty clear you have no clue what you're talking about..

Love insults on the internet. That makes you more right right?

If you want to see a wonderfully written and detailed description of heat in MWO see this thread:
http://mwomercs.com/...r-the-solution/

[shabowie]

TruePoindexter, on 04 December 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

Love insults on the internet. That makes you more right right?

No I actually posted facts showing you are wrong. It involved a real easily reproduced situation showing 4 medium lasers being fired, how much heat generated, how much dissipated by 10 engine DHS, and how much waste heat left over needed to be dissipated over additional time. Go ahead and imagine them away.

Edited by shabowie, 04 December 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[TruePoindexter]

shabowie, on 04 December 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

2 gauss rifles at max cyclic rate can't even generate enough heat to fill the bar man, wtf are you talking about?

The fact you might have 2 medium lasers that can singlehandedly overheat the mech eventually if you fire them as well? This just illustrates how broken the current heat system is.

Here's the generic standard Gausspult for reference:

Spoiler

Chassis Name: Catapult
Model Name: CPLT-K2
Variant Name: Generic Gausspult

Engine Cost: 1,040,000 C-Bills
Heat Sink Cost: 0 C-Bills
Armor Cost: 100,160 C-Bills
Weapons Cost: 1,360,000 C-Bills
Equipment Cost: 0 C-Bills
Ammo Cost: 140,000 C-Bills

Engine: 260 XL Engine
Internal Type: Endo Steel
Armor Type: Std Armor
Heat Sinks: 10 (10) Double Heat Sinks

Tonnage: 65.00
Speed: 64.8 kph
Armor Total: 304
Alpha Strike Damage: 40.00
Alpha Strike Heat: 10.00
Firepower: 10.00 dps
Heat Efficiency: 56.00%
Effective Range of Loadout: 660m

Head: 18/18
Right Torso: 44/60
Right Rear Torso: 16/60
Center Torso: 66/84
Center Rear Torso: 18/84
Left Torso: 44/60
Left Rear Torso: 16/60
Right Arm: 0/40
Left Arm: 0/40
Right Leg: 41/60
Left Leg: 41/60

Weapons Locations
Right Torso:
Gauss Rifle
Medium Laser
Left Torso:
Gauss Rifle
Medium Laser

Heat Sink Locations

Equipment Locations

Ammo Locations
Right Torso:
Gauss Ammo
Left Torso:
Gauss Ammo
Center Torso:
(2) Gauss Ammo
Head:
Gauss Ammo
Right Leg:
Gauss Ammo
Left Leg:
Gauss Ammo

You can't evaluate a weapon or performance mechanic in a vacuum and we have to use examples like this to better understand the situation. I had assumed you would be aware of what the performance standards of the current common Gausspult are but since you don't please refer to above.

[shabowie]

TruePoindexter, on 04 December 2012 - 12:11 PM, said:

You can't evaluate a weapon or performance mechanic in a vacuum and we have to use examples like this to better understand the situation. I had assumed you would be aware of what the performance standards of the current common Gausspult are but since you don't please refer to above.

I already addressed this point. Not sure why you are acting like I didn't.

[TruePoindexter]

shabowie, on 04 December 2012 - 12:16 PM, said:

I already addressed this point. Not sure why you are acting like I didn't.

You didn't actually address anything. You just gave an example of heat sinks on a Jenner as if that validates 2.0 heat sinks on a Cataphract or any other mech which it does not.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 04 December 2012 - 12:20 PM.

[shabowie]

TruePoindexter, on 04 December 2012 - 12:20 PM, said:

You didn't actually address anything. You just gave an example of heat sinks on a Jenner as if that validates 2.0 heat sinks on a Cataphract or any other mech which it does not.

I gave a hypothetical because you claimed heat doesn't work the way I said. You are wrong. The two builds you posted earlier I used the same facts to show how they were both ~50% efficient with hypothetical universal DHS. You came back saying the gausscat is also around the same efficiency, I replied that the gausscat is only so if you have 2 mlas that you fire and you are better off just shooting the gauss rifles which are 100% efficient.

The reason why the gaussapult is "amazing" at 50% efficiency is the 2 gauss rifles. Merely 2 medium lasers is enough to move it from 100% all the way to ~50%. Think about what that means.

Edited by shabowie, 04 December 2012 - 12:38 PM.

[Not a Number]

MWHawke, on 04 December 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Really? You mean I am NOT playing Mechwarrior, a game based on Battletech?

I should GET THE F OUT!!! I invested in the wrong game!!! I invested in a game called Big Stompy Robots that is COPYING Battletech!!!

[...]

Seriously, you are still arguing that if electric engines are reliable, they should not be introduced so that petrol would not become redundant?

No, I am saying that the values for SHS and DHS ultimately need to make sense within the context of the gameplay of MWO and what it tries to achieve. Setting obviously plays a large role – which is why I’d prefer an indirect buff to SHS over directly messing with the values from the classic game – but it should never be to the detriment of the game itself.

For the old MechWarrior games, working your way up from a light mech with old tech all the way up to an assault mech with all the latest bells and whistles was a core part of the experience. For a single player oriented game that type of linear progression system makes perfect sense.

MechWarrior Online is quite different in this regard because it tries to keep all chassis types relevant. Since it’s a pure multiplayer game, this is ultimately to everyone’s benefit as it improves diversity and makes it easier to set up balanced multiplayer games. So instead of providing us with a simple linear progression system with a pretty clear end goal to work towards, it gives us so much freedom of choice that we ideally never run out of new things to try out.

That’s great, because maybe the idea of being Speedy Gonzales in my tiny little Flea is more appealing to me than lumbering around in a big fat Atlas. Or maybe I like both!

Ultimately this balancing act also extends to weapons and equipment, with SHS vs. DHS balance being just one part of the equation. There’s nothing wrong with DHS being better than SHS in the majority of situations, especially when considering the setting (they’re supposed to be!). But it would hurt player choice if there was virtually no situation in which SHS could be a sensible alternative to DHS. SHS would be a completely redundant gameplay element serving only to confuse new players and should thus be removed from the game.

It’s already leaning towards this kind of redundancy even with DHS being partially at 1.4. Besides, with so many stock variants having SHS, removal is just not really an appealing option. Never mind the lore objections to them simply not existing.

That’s why I think the intention to keep SHS somewhat viable is defensible. Not because I hate electric engines. ;_;

Edited by Not a Number, 04 December 2012 - 11:29 PM.

[ArmandTulsen]

bump

[Von Falkenstein]

+1

The designation Double Heatsink for a 1.4 dissipation shows the paradox. 90% of post-3050 mechs have DHS. No need for balancing the stats. The price and repair costs make the balancing here. They are hightech intended to replace SHS!

You wouldn't try to balance a Prius with a Ferrari, would you?

PS: And yes, SHS are redundant after 3050, nobody uses them in the lore except for units who don't have the funds or supply to use them!

Edited by Von Falkenstein, 11 December 2012 - 09:03 AM.