263 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Quote

Q: Can we please at least try DHS at 2.0? It doesn't seem like much of a boost to lights who usually benefit mostly from the engine heat sinks, but heavies and assaults that use big energy weapons need the boost. [Wolfways]
A: No. Prior to releasing the Dual Heatsink upgrade the forums were abuzz with whether or not they would be mandatory on all Mechs. With the numbers we've chosen, they aren't, so I'd say we answered those questions well. [Garth]

Why was this question answered like this? It sounds like it means DHS will never be 2.0 for dissipation. Am I misreading this answer?

If this is true, this is a bad omen for the future of the heat system and weapon balance. There is SO many threads on why the current system is not properly working. Hopefully I either read this thread wrong or PGI will reconsider this.

Edit: As an FYI, PGI, DHS is technically suppose to replace SHS (reason why there are no Clan SHS).

Edited by Zyllos, 03 December 2012 - 05:43 PM.

[Indk]

They tested it and it made the game suck.

Has anyone on this forum tested 2.0 DHS?

DHS is almost always an upgrade already, if it were 2.0 it would be mandatory.

[Sephlock]

They've said again and again that heat is intended to prevent the game from being fun be a limiting factor.

[Mister Blastman]

They didn't test it! At least--with everything else not broken! Ugh. It is barely a 7 - 18% increase in dissipation from what we have right now. NOT GAME BREAKING AT ALL.

[Team Leader]

Indk, on 03 December 2012 - 05:43 PM, said:

They tested it and it made the game suck.

Has anyone on this forum tested 2.0 DHS?

DHS is almost always an upgrade already, if it were 2.0 it would be mandatory.

1)They say a lot of things buddy
2)No, and they wont let us, even though its BETA. One of the reasons they shouldnt call it that. ZWe dont get to test anything. Wtf is the point of us being here they never try anything new.
3)Thats the point of DHS. Higher price, better tech, better weapons, higher BV. A team without DHS could take an extra mech, (or even whats that, other equipment?) for the same BV. Your arguement is flawed.

Edited by Team Leader, 03 December 2012 - 05:53 PM.

[Zyllos]

Just an FYI, the current system already makes them mandatory...

It's just it hurts larger mechs than smaller mechs due to 1.4 dissipation for those outside the engine.

[MayGay]

there are very few post 3050 'mechs with SHS for a reason, usually Capellan 'mechs because they are poor and can't afford them, or on low heat 'mechs with space considerations or where not needed, like gauss boats, or other ballistic heavy 'mechs

[TruePoindexter]

Team Leader, on 03 December 2012 - 05:50 PM, said:

2)No, and they wont let us, even though its BETA. One of the reasons they shouldnt call it that. ZWe dont get to test anything. Wtf is the point of us being here they never try anything new..

You test what they let you test. When I'm developing something for my clients I don't give them every bit and bob I may have worked on. I give them what I think represents a useful product for them to test/review.

[Khobai]

Quote

They've said again and again that heat is intended to prevent the game from being fun be a limiting factor.

which is dumb because its entirely possible to build mechs that dont overheat in tabletop and heat really only exists in tabletop to prevent energy boating.

[TruePoindexter]

Also there is already a 14 page thread on this topic already:

http://mwomercs.com/...-all-dhs-to-20/

Garth himself explained it here.

Khobai, on 03 December 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

which is dumb because its entirely possible to build mechs that dont overheat in tabletop and heat really only exists in tabletop to prevent energy boating.

This is MWO - not TT.

MWO doesn't have things like reduced performance the higher in heat you go either. Many mechs in TT are intended to constantly operate at a set heat value.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 03 December 2012 - 06:00 PM.

[Team Leader]

TruePoindexter, on 03 December 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

You test what they let you test. When I'm developing something for my clients I don't give them every bit and bob I may have worked on. I give them what I think represents a useful product for them to test/review.

Thats completely different. All they have to do is tweak a few digits for a day or two. If the forums explode in QQ, rstchet it down a few points. Thats what we beta testers should be doing, not letting a few devs messing around decide the permanent fate of the game because they didnt bother to ask anyone else.

[TruePoindexter]

Team Leader, on 03 December 2012 - 06:01 PM, said:

Thats completely different. All they have to do is tweak a few digits for a day or two. If the forums explode in QQ, rstchet it down a few points. Thats what we beta testers should be doing, not letting a few devs messing around decide the permanent fate of the game because they didnt bother to ask anyone else.

Really? Beta testers get to dictate what to test? They want you to play a certain way and are setting up the game for that.

Edited by TruePoindexter, 03 December 2012 - 06:03 PM.

[Zyllos]

At least make both heatsink types (in Engine/out Engine) the same. There is no reason for it other than make mechs that need those large dissipations for the bigger weapons not optimal...

[Team Leader]

TruePoindexter, on 03 December 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

Really? Beta testers get to dictate what to test? They want you to play a certain way and are setting up the game for that.

They said they would experiment with other variables and they never did... They just kind of said "huh guess you guys will never know!" and left them at 1.4

Edited by Team Leader, 03 December 2012 - 06:06 PM.

[TruePoindexter]

Team Leader, on 03 December 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

They said they would experiment with other variables and they never did... They just kind of said "huh guess you guys will never know!" and left them at 1.4

They do that internally with the staff they have on hand where they can see the results immediately. They don't need to do it publicly where there is a minimum one week turn around and PR issues.

[TruePoindexter]

Windies, on 03 December 2012 - 06:08 PM, said:

~rude post~

I'm amazed that they let you guys post stuff like this and don't just ban you outright. They're far nicer than I would be.

[Super Mono]

TruePoindexter, on 03 December 2012 - 06:06 PM, said:

They do that internally with the staff they have on hand where they can see the results immediately. They don't need to do it publicly where there is a minimum one week turn around and PR issues.

This is the same staff that rolled out a patch for DHS that didn't actually have DHS, it took the community an hour to realize what was wrong.

I don't trust them when they say they tested it and tell us it was undesirable.

[Team Leader]

Super Mono, on 03 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

This is the same staff that rolled out a patch for DHS that didn't actually have DHS, it took the community an hour to realize what was wrong.

I don't trust them when they say they tested it and tell us it was undesirable.

They also thought Artemis was fine, and launching the lrm trial awesome was a good idea. Does anyone else remember that patch? Where an atlas would literally melt in 10 seconds? Great work, internal testers.

[Max Dragon]

PLEASE STOP BRINGING THIS UP, this game is not tabletop and, IMHO, should not elude to or try to be tabletop concerning rules, stats, or damage. Table top was a random generated turn based strategic game and this is real time first person "simulation" of what it would be like to be in the cockpit of a mech during that Random generated turn based strategy game. They game will have to be balanced for the "feel" of the game not the words that are written for an entirely different combat system and game that are worlds a part.

If they said it was broken. It was broken. Stop posting your non-tabletop soapbox complaints.

Edited by Max Dragon, 03 December 2012 - 06:23 PM.

[Windies]

TruePoindexter, on 03 December 2012 - 06:13 PM, said:

I'm amazed that they let you guys post stuff like this and don't just ban you outright. They're far nicer than I would be.

IF I was slandering them and actually being offensive and rude then yes, I would agree a ban would be in order. Simply stating the truth however in a blunt but honest way is far from grounds from a ban.

Super Mono, on 03 December 2012 - 06:14 PM, said:

This is the same staff that rolled out a patch for DHS that didn't actually have DHS, it took the community an hour to realize what was wrong.

I don't trust them when they say they tested it and tell us it was undesirable.

Team Leader, on 03 December 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

They also thought Artemis was fine, and launching the lrm trial awesome was a good idea. Does anyone else remember that patch? Where an atlas would literally melt in 10 seconds? Great work, internal testers.

Shining examples of why I said what I said.