91 replies to this topic

[Lefty Lucy]

qazswerty, on 30 November 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

Name some things they have done that deserved respect(that were not bugs due to their incompetence).
Even if you do, it is largely overshadowed by the problems plaguing this game. Netcode is still ****, bugs that took forever to fix, random tweaking of weapon values(UAC5 jamming), or even their not so secret attempt to cash grab by increasing mechbays from 300 to 1000.

Honestly, its more as if they lost our respect. Just look at Garth's replies to Vassago.

They made a game that I find to be really fun to play.

[FutureCider]

Lefty Lucy, on 30 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

They made a game that I find to be really fun to play.

Astounding rebuttal. I hope you never work in fields that require any linguistic talent.

[Deadoon]

Lefty Lucy, on 30 November 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

They made a game that I find to be really fun to play.

While shi-tting all over the universe they are making a game about.

Edited by Deadoon, 30 November 2012 - 10:23 AM.

[SteelPaladin]

MaddMaxx, on 30 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

And the damnest thing about that is, when they do, or should earn that respect, they NEVER get it. There is always some Troll who says something totally asinine, that thinks it is cute, and then the Forum bandwagon starts to fill up, yet again.

What is the saying. Respect is earned, not given. Well I personally feel "we" the Community have not even come close to earning the Dev's true respect. A lot of growing up has to be done around here before that should even be a consideration.

If you don't think that is true, then Welcome to the Forums. You may want to start in the New user Help section...

I give them their props when they do right (like make LLs useful back in the day, get UAC/5s working nice, the recent surge in useful communication) and call them on the carpet when they screw up. It's the same way I fully expect to be treated when I'm writing code and building software. I don't think PGI can do no right any more than I think they can do no wrong.

But the bottom line of the matter is, I'm a consumer. I'm not trying to get their respect. It would be a nice thing to have, since they generally seem to be pretty cool dudes, and I never try to be an @## deliberately, but it is ultimately irrelevant. I doubt I will ever go out for beers with them (though it would be awesome). What I am trying to get is a quality product that is worth my money.

They're not after my respect either; they're after my money. Inspiring faith and confidence is just a fairly effective path to get there.

[Deadoon]

MaddMaxx, on 30 November 2012 - 09:58 AM, said:

And the damnest thing about that is, when they do, or should earn that respect, they NEVER get it. There is always some Troll who says something totally asinine, that thinks it is cute, and then the Forum bandwagon starts to fill up, yet again.

What is the saying. Respect is earned, not given. Well I personally feel "we" the Community have not even come close to earning the Dev's true respect. A lot of growing up has to be done around here before that should even be a consideration.

If you don't think that is true, then Welcome to the Forums. You may want to start in the New user Help section...

Near unanimously people loved the uac/5 update, then they proceeded to **** on it again by making it among the garbage bin weapons with a simple value change that takes under a minute. They get responses similar to the stuff they pour onto the community.

[Rina Fujimoto]

Vassago Rain, on 30 November 2012 - 09:06 AM, said:

Why don't you and your company do your jobs, instead of fighting us on the forum?

Yeah Garth, instead of trolling on the forums you could be fixing this ******** heat system.

You know, one day, I'd love to play my favorite Assault mech, you know, the Awesome?
The one known in cannon for being able to lay down dizzying amounts of non-stop beam spam without overheating?
The one mech intended for boating lasers and PPC's without overheating?

[Triggerhippy]

Lefty Lucy, on 30 November 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

You did your math wrong. Even when MPL were bugged to generate .75 their true heat, you couldn't run 8 of them heat neutral with 2.0 DHS. In a K2 with 25 "true" DHS and 2x ERPPC (which is not actually possible due to critical space restrictions), you have 55 heat capacity, 5 hps cooling, and 8.66 hps generation, giving you about 15 seconds to shut down, which is 5 volleys. That is *not* in the caldera on caustic.

no, no, I didn't. my maths skills are just fine thank you.

I can't go into the details (because it was a while back and I don't have my notes to hand anymore, the 2.0 DHS bleed the heat away so quickly . Also, and this may in part be my fault for not being specific - that was 20 single shots not 20 alphas.

Your not taking fully into account also skills (heat containment and cool running) - caustic caldera basically removes 6 or 7 heatsinks in real terms. and why did you use 25 DHS in your example - thats impossible, so lets not start down the reductio ad absurdum route.

[197mmCannon]

Hillslam, on 30 November 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

There's been a slow, steady, consistent trend of nerfing Heavy and especially Assault class effectiveness.

DHS, Endo, Ferro all grant more benefit the lower your tonnage goes down, and give the least benefit at the upper ends. This is due to a combination of factors involving slots, tonnage, heat and hardpoints.

XL engines are really the only benefit to Assault class mechs,

If you want any heat dissipation and or fight endurance you're really looking at taking your damage dealing potential down to Heavy or Medium levels. And then you've just traded a ton of mobility for a little more armor and a lot higher repair bills.

Clearly the trend is to make running an Assault a pay-to-maintain proposition.

I have never disagreed more with a post.

The heavier your mech the more you gain with endo and ferro. It's just math.

And you say that an XL engine is the only worthwhile upgrade for an assault mech and it is the only upgrade I won't put on my Atlasai. Every organized team I play with calls either left or right torso as the primary target when an Atlas is focused. Why would I want engine slots there?

Edited by Daemian, 30 November 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[Lefty Lucy]

qazswerty, on 30 November 2012 - 10:20 AM, said:

Astounding rebuttal. I hope you never work in fields that require any linguistic talent.

Sometimes a simple argument is still effective. Prolix prose is rarely proof of perspicacity.

[Joseph Mallan]

Deadoon, on 30 November 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

While shi-tting all over the universe they are making a game about.

Not all over it, just certain areas of it.

[Triggerhippy]

Vassago Rain, on 30 November 2012 - 09:26 AM, said:

I'm not insulting anyone.
The community agrees with what I say. That's why everybody was so willing to jump on the goldsink jokes.

We have no faith left that they're not doing this to prepare for premium sinks.
I paid money for this...this...whatever it is. Deathmatch capture the box game. I'm a customer.

I have the right to tell them to shut up, and get back to work. Trolling the forum when you should be working on your mess of a game, eh? No, you're not. Go fix some bugs.

This is how reality works.

No you don't - you didn't buy shares - and they gave you what you bought. just because you handed over the equivalent of the cost of a nice meal does not give you the right to tell the restaurant owner how to run his restaurant. It gets you a meal - now eat it

[Lefty Lucy]

Triggerhippy, on 30 November 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

no, no, I didn't. my maths skills are just fine thank you.

I can't go into the details (because it was a while back and I don't have my notes to hand anymore, the 2.0 DHS bleed the heat away so quickly . Also, and this may in part be my fault for not being specific - that was 20 single shots not 20 alphas.

Your not taking fully into account also skills (heat containment and cool running) - caustic caldera basically removes 6 or 7 heatsinks in real terms. and why did you use 25 DHS in your example - thats impossible, so lets not start down the reductio ad absurdum route.

Because if it's impossible with more heat sinks than you can actually use, it's impossible with a real build as well. Even with skills, you get maybe 6 volleys in a *heat neutral* map. Not 8 in the crater in caustic. Back it up with numbers please.

[Kobold]

BASIC PROBLEM:

1) Increased rate of fire, but not increased heat dissipation rewards smaller, lower heat weapons.

2) Most of the smaller, lower heat weapons are short range (gauss excepted).

3) Long range combat is not deadly (and there is no die rolling with range penalty to benefit long range weapons compared to say, medium lasers), so there is no penalty to using massed, repeated fire of short range weapons.



No matter what the heat sinks are set to, this is the ultimate problem. Long range weapons were balanced for tabletop with the assumption that they had a HUGE advantage simply because they were long range. Getting a bonus (or more specifically, not getting a penalty) at longer range, and using turn based movement that precisely allowed you to control range was a legitimate trade off for more weight and FAR more heat.

In MWO, it isn't.

[Mister Blastman]

SI The Joker, on 30 November 2012 - 09:17 AM, said:

Isn't a .6 increase to the 1.4 sinks is a 30% increase, unless I have it wrong? (2.0 * .3 = .6)

Yeah, you sorta do. First, consider that all mechs have 10 heatsinks in the engine (well, some of the smaller engines don't but generally most that are used, do). The mechs that don't have 10 sinks in the engine require additional sinks outside the engine or it won't let you drop. As I understand it at the moment, say in a pure single heatsink mech (300 XL):
10 SHS = 10 cooldown capacity. They are 1:1

In a double heatsink mech (300 XL engine so 10 inside):

10 DHS = 20 cooldown capacity. They are 2:1 for _internal_ heatsinks.

Now, the 300 XL has 2 slots for additional heatsinks. These + all chassis heatsinks will be considered _external_ heatsinks. Add those 2 sinks to the 300 XL and now you have:

10 DHS Internal = 20 cooldown (2:1)
+
2 DHS external = 2.8 cooldown (1.4:1)
for a total of 22.8 cooldown.

In your Jenner, you probably have 10 internal and 2 slotted (i.e. external) for 22.8 cooldown.

Now, if _external_ sinks were upgraded to 2.0 to match the _internal_ sinks, you'd then have... 24 cooldown.

The difference between 22.8 and 24 is 1.2, or 5.2% improvement. Not much at all in Jenner. Now take a Dragon with a 300 XL, 10 internal DHS and 6 external. Right now it would be:

20 (2:1) + 6*1.4 or 8.4 (1.4:1) for a total of 28.4. If the _external_ moved to 2.0, then it would be 20 + 12 (2:1) or 32. That is a improvement of 3.6 or 12.67%.

This is what I was getting at. Unless the devs did a stealth change, the internal engine sinks are still at 2.0, not 1.4.

So you see, making the external sinks fully 1.4 would benefit mostly the heavier mechs, not the lighter ones.

Oh, and PGI--Listen to Joker. When he says he can run a league--he MEANS IT!

[MustrumRidcully]

SI The Joker, on 30 November 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

A Double Heat Sink is not something that belongs on every config... which seems to be sorely lost on a number of pilots.

If you're stuck in 3025, you need single heat sinks. If you're in 3049 and upwards, you want to upgrade to Double Heat Sinks.

That is Battletech as it moves through the timeline.

If you don't want that, you can do that. I have no problem with that. In fact, I 'd prefer it, I hate power creep.

But - you need to balance all the technology around this concept. You can't just say.: "Okay, here are Double Heat Sinks, they are no better than Single Heat Sinks, but here is all the new ER technology that needs more heat and you can't field it effectively anymore. And your new 3050 Tech Mech? It's now too hot!"

[Hidirian]

My theory as to why they set Double HeatSinks to 1.4 instead of 2.0? Well its because when clan gear comes out it NEEDS to be superior to IS tech so what they're going to do is make Clan HeatSinks 2.0 all around(inside and outside the engine). I assume they are doing this for balance reasons but I still think that the IS ones we have now should be 1.6 instead of 1.4.

[Solis Obscuri]

Congratulations on failing at heat management.

[Evex]

The thing is that when Piranha made the heat system to take into account the real time factor of the game, they doubled the values of a mechs total heat generation. This means a suit like the AWS-8Q Awesome which in the table top generates a max heat of 33 with a heat dissipation of 28 from its 28 single heat sinks. In MW:O the max heat generated is doubled so the AMS-8Q Awesome now generates a max heat of 66, while still only having 28 heat dissipation. In order to dissipate that heat you would need 46 heat sinks. Keeping the full 28 heat sinks and changing over to double gives a heat dissipation of 56. You can now drop the heat sinks to 23 the problem is there isn't enough space available for 23 double heat sinks.

Well then how do we get this build to work at a better heat efficiency ? Endo steal will give us a free 4 tons, which means we can bring the single heat sink count to 32 which is close to 50 % of the heat generated by the battle mech. An XL engine will allow us to get the heat sinks to 33 which is exactly 50 % of the mechs total heat. The problem is that you can only dissipate 49% to 50% of the Awesome's heat, so you either choose the XL engine, or endo steel. There is only room for one of these, since there isn't enough space in the battle mech. This also doesn't leave room for any other additional weapons, or equipment. In the end you go from the tabletop where the AWS-8Q Awesome is capable of cooling off 85% of its heat in the table top with only 28 single heat sinks. To MW:O where the same mech can only dissipate 49% - 50% of its heat with 32-33 single heat sinks. I think Piranha needs to retool the heat system overall.

[TruePoindexter]

Geez this debate is still going on even after cleanly pointing out that if DHS were set to a true 2.0 would get Mechwarrior 3 all over again? Is that what we want? Everyone bringing some kind of energy boat? With all the whining about Jenner's and other kinds of boats all this would do is encourage even more of them with even heavier weapons.

I keep seeing the same arguments and they basically come down to you want them because prior games had them and you want to be able to build the same imbalanced death walker you had before. You can't stand the idea that a game mechanic is intentionally there to make you think about firing your weaponry as a tactical decision instead of an instinctual reaction.

Plus I love all the hatred towards PGI staff - as if that will make them take your opinion seriously.

[Vapor Trail]

Triggerhippy, on 30 November 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

no, no, I didn't. my maths skills are just fine thank you.

I can't go into the details (because it was a while back and I don't have my notes to hand anymore, the 2.0 DHS bleed the heat away so quickly . Also, and this may in part be my fault for not being specific - that was 20 single shots not 20 alphas.

Your not taking fully into account also skills (heat containment and cool running) - caustic caldera basically removes 6 or 7 heatsinks in real terms. and why did you use 25 DHS in your example - thats impossible, so lets not start down the reductio ad absurdum route.

Correct me if I get this wrong (haven't done a Hunchie build in a long while).

Hardpoint layout for Swayback is
1 ea. L/R A.
6 RT.
1 H.

Arms have upper, lower, and hand actuators.

Running a 250Std engine, and 8 ML:


After adding weapons the crits left are:
L/R A 7 crits ea.
Rt 6 crits.
Lt 12 crits.

So, that's 4 DHS in the arms, 2 in the RT, and 4 in the LT. Total of ten out of engine heat sinks max.

Total of twenty DHS.

Heat dissipation of 4.0 heat/sec @ .2 heat/sec per sink.
Heat dissipation of 3.4 heat/sec @ .2 heat/sec per default sink + .14 heat/sec per added sink

1 MPL (thank you Ohmwrecker) generates 5 heat every 3 seconds or 1.667 heat per second @ max rate.

8 MPLs generate 13.333 heat per second, if all fired at max rate.

Define "without heat problems" please? Oh you did:

Triggerhippy, on 30 November 2012 - 08:37 AM, said:

a hunchie 4p would be capable of operating 8 mplas without experiancing heat trouble (the heat bar cool down would be almost at 0 by the time the weapons recycle.

Um... Lets see. 8 MPLs fired generate 40 heat. This heat is dissipated at 4.0 heat per second at maximum. It would take ten seconds for the heat bar to hit baseline again after an alpha.

So perhaps you need to define "operate" for us.
If you're defining "operate" as "shoot every ten seconds" then yes you can "operate" 8 MPL on this setup without heat trouble.
However, if you define "operate" as "shoot at max rate"... Then no, you've done your math wrong.

With this setup (and .2 heat/sec truedubs), the most you could fire together and be near the bottom of the heat scale is three.

3 MPLs = 15 heat

15 heat generated, / 4 heat per sec of cooling = 3.75 seconds of cooling.

.75 seconds of cooling * 4 heat / seconds of cooling = 3 heat

So basically you gain 3 heat every time you fire 3 MPL at maximum rate (and nothing else).
Since your heat cap is (30 + 2*#DHS) = 70, you can do this nineteen times without worrying (too much) about shutdown (on a standard temp map).


As for the other half:

For a K2 using 2 ERPPCs and the max number of heat sinks:
That's three in each arm and each side torso. Total of 12. 300Std engine +2 in engine (14 total) + 10 default.
Twenty-four DHS @ a .2 heat/sec rate gives you a Heat Dissipation Rate of 4.8.
Twenty-four DHS @ 10 * .2 heat/sec rate + 14 * .14 heat/sec gives a heat dissipation rate of 3.96.

Firing a single ERPPC generates 13 heat. (Single shots, you said)
The mech carrying 24 DHS(4.8 heat/sec) dissipates that in 2.71 seconds.
The mech carrying 24 DHS(3.96 heat/sec) dissipates that in 3.28 seconds.

The first is usually heat neutral.
The second can fire twenty two times (single shots) on a standard temp map before shutdown.

To cut the first down to ~twenty times, the caldera must impart about 1.38 heat/sec to the mech standing in it... So you may have done your math right...

But you're backing a single MWO ERPPC with enough double heat sinks to cool three TT ERPPCs to heat neutrality, even if you run.
(24 DHS. Effectively 48 SHS. Each TT ERPPC needs 15 heat sinks for heat neutrality. 3*15=45, 45 +2 = 47, 48>47.)

I think I'll just buy a Gauss and get more DPS out for the same investment in tonnage, and much less critical space (not to mention the ability to add DPS fairly cheaply).