263 replies to this topic

[TruePoindexter]

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.

I don't trust them to get it perfect either - that was a big slip and I sense that a lot of heads rolled. That said most other issues have been addressed or caught in testing and are why various patches were delayed.

[QuantumButler]

PGI doesn't play their own game enough to know if trudubs would break everything and since they cannot be bothered to they want us to all just be satisfied with poordubs instead.

Also buy more MC.

Edited by QuantumButler, 03 December 2012 - 06:33 PM.

[Super Mono]

TruePoindexter, on 03 December 2012 - 06:31 PM, said:

I don't trust them to get it perfect either - that was a big slip and I sense that a lot of heads rolled. That said most other issues have been addressed or caught in testing and are why various patches were delayed.

There's slip ups and then there's multiple screw ups every patch as well as multiple comments and interviews indicating they don't really understand how the game they're making works. See Russ's interview on themittani for several examples of this.

Edited by Super Mono, 03 December 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Zyllos]

I am not so much against the fact that they do not want 2.0, but WHY are some DHS 2.0 and others are 1.4?

That is my major problem. They should be the same no matter where they are equipped. This is a total nerf to mechs that needs high dissipation, like the Awesome and K2 (standard build).

[FerretGR]

Max Dragon, on 03 December 2012 - 06:22 PM, said:

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

I'd like to see the math on a single "broken" build under 2.0 DHS, as I always post in these topics. We don't need tabletop to show you mathematically why an AWS-9M needs true DHS for most builds to be viable.

[GatorG]

I just want to jump in a back the idea that if they are true doubles, or not, is less important than the fact that they are different in the engine verses outside the engine. I just want heavier mechs to have an even playing field.

[OneManWar]

I have a CTF with AC/20, 3 med lasers and 2 streaks, I can fire nearly constantly for a good 30 seconds before overheating with 16 DHS. Any more than that (aka real double HS) and I would probably never overheat. I personally like the fact that mechs can sometimes overheat. The key is dont fire all your weapons all the time.

[the huanglong]

The thing that ***** me is that Jenners still get full benefit of 2.0 DHS, when they really did not need it, while the awesome 9M is still frustrating new players left and right. The 3 second Jenner that was cited as the reason for not daring to let us try 2.0 is currently harvesting the meta in the exact form they were afraid of!
Why not just make it 1.5-6 for all DHS, rather than differentiating engine sinks? Then the awesome 9M might not suck so bad.

[Vila deVere]

Sephlock, on 03 December 2012 - 05:44 PM, said:

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

Heat MUST be a limiting factor, or what's the use? Some builds are simply more viable than others from a heat stand point. The current heat system is fine, though I think it could use some tweaking here and there.

[Zervziel]

I kind of expected them to not move from that position. Still would it truly break the gameplay so freaking horribly to have it dissipate at 1.6? I mean it takes up three freaking slots.

[ebea51]

We will more then likely NEVER have 2.0 double heat sinks.
They would litterally BREAK the game, you would never ever build enough heat to shutdown because they would dump it too fast. You could fit 4 ER PPCs and never overheat and shutdown...

The ONLY way we will ever see 2.0 double heat sinks is if they COMPLETELY revise the entire heat generation system and the heat of every weapon and the temperature of every map.

Double heat sinks are fine the way they are. The fact it says DOUBLE and theyre actually 1.4 (error 1) and the fact they arent double weight (error 2) and three times as large (error 3) doesnt bother me and if you want to get your knickers in a knot, get them all twisted about all THREE errors.

Again, theyre fine. They increase your heat loss, they dont unballance the game.
Im glad Garth has gotten to the point where he is just ignoring all this QQing about double heat sinks not being exactly double as the word double implies.

Deal with it.

[Death Knell]

ebea51, on 03 December 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

We will more then likely NEVER have 2.0 double heat sinks.
They would litterally BREAK the game, you would never ever build enough heat to shutdown because they would dump it too fast. You could fit 4 ER PPCs and never overheat and shutdown...

The ONLY way we will ever see 2.0 double heat sinks is if they COMPLETELY revise the entire heat generation system and the heat of every weapon and the temperature of every map.

Double heat sinks are fine the way they are. The fact it says DOUBLE and theyre actually 1.4 (error 1) and the fact they arent double weight (error 2) and three times as large (error 3) doesnt bother me and if you want to get your knickers in a knot, get them all twisted about all THREE errors.

Again, theyre fine. They increase your heat loss, they dont unballance the game.
Im glad Garth has gotten to the point where he is just ignoring all this QQing about double heat sinks not being exactly double as the word double implies.

Deal with it.

[REDACTED]

IS DHS are supposed to take 3 times the crit, way as much as a SHS and have double the value of a SHS. You trade weight for crit slots. As is, you can't fire one ERPPC constantly with out shutting down.

[REDACTED]

Edited by miSs, 03 December 2012 - 08:51 PM.
rude/non constructive

[ebea51]

Death Knell, on 03 December 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

[REDACTED]

IS DHS are supposed to take 3 times the crit, way as much as a SHS and have double the value of a SHS. You trade weight for crit slots. As is, you can't fire one ERPPC constantly with out shutting down.

[REDACTED]

[REDACTED]
You want to run around in a refridgerated mech all game. Never having to worry about heat?
You want to have a mech with 4-5 ER PPCs alpha strike you and moonwalk away from your smoldering corpse?

[REDACTED]

Edited by miSs, 03 December 2012 - 08:53 PM.

[LaserAngel]

ebea51, on 03 December 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

We will more then likely NEVER have 2.0 double heat sinks.
They would litterally BREAK the game, you would never ever build enough heat to shutdown because they would dump it too fast. You could fit 4 ER PPCs and never overheat and shutdown...

The ONLY way we will ever see 2.0 double heat sinks is if they COMPLETELY revise the entire heat generation system and the heat of every weapon and the temperature of every map.

Double heat sinks are fine the way they are. The fact it says DOUBLE and theyre actually 1.4 (error 1) and the fact they arent double weight (error 2) and three times as large (error 3) doesnt bother me and if you want to get your knickers in a knot, get them all twisted about all THREE errors.

Again, theyre fine. They increase your heat loss, they dont unballance the game.
Im glad Garth has gotten to the point where he is just ignoring all this QQing about double heat sinks not being exactly double as the word double implies.

Deal with it.

There isn't a mech with enough tonnage or with enough critical spaces to fire that many PPCs continuously with the game's triple firing speed and tabletop 10 second heat dissipation. It takes about 19 current DHS to get a single PPC to be heat neutral. I tested this out in the Heat Lab v1.3 but someone else can bring out the math.

[Valder]

Gawd, I love the tears of the QQers.

"Hey guise! I have a great idea! Let's add in heatsinks that let 9 Med Laser boats alpha every time they recycle without ever overheating!!!! If they don't give it to us let's cry about it until they give in, even though they already said it's a game breaking mechanic!"

Please feed me more delicious tears!

[Windies]

I find the contradiction between them not wanting to have 2.0 DHS because it gives lighter mechs a huge advantage and they are afraid of the 3 second jenners, yet the system they put in place ends up giving more advantages to lights with big engines, to be quite funny to say the least.

[LaserAngel]

Windies, on 03 December 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

I find the contradiction between them not wanting to have 2.0 DHS because it gives lighter mechs a huge advantage and they are afraid of the 3 second jenners, yet the system they put in place ends up giving more advantages to lights with big engines, to be quite funny to say the least.

Said terrifying 3.0 second Jenner gets the base 10 heatsinks at 2.0 and the remaining engine sinks at 1.4. The XL 300 is popular I hear so that gives you 12 engine sinks.

We have been rolling with DHS Swaybacks and I run a Standrd 250. I get those game breaking 2.0 heatsinks plus whatever space and tonnage I have left. (17 in mine but yes at 1.4)

[FerretGR]

ebea51, on 03 December 2012 - 07:32 PM, said:

We will more then likely NEVER have 2.0 double heat sinks.
They would litterally BREAK the game, you would never ever build enough heat to shutdown because they would dump it too fast. You could fit 4 ER PPCs and never overheat and shutdown...

This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. Let's see the math. I'm going to go with an AWS-8Q, 4ERPPCs (the only Awesome chassis that can fit 4 ERPPCs). Crit-space wise, the best way to do it is 2 ERPPCs per left/right torso, which leaves the maximum space for DHS. Under this setup, and limiting ourselves to STD engines smaller than 250, I can get 19 DHS in there. 19 DHS at 2.0 heat capacity is equivalent to 38 SHS, dissipating 3.8 heat per second.

Now, think about the SHS equivalent. The same build, I can squeeze on 46 SHS dissipating 4.6 heat per second if my math is right (I sold my 8Q so I'm going on memory). It might be 45 or 44. Either way, it's more than you could get with DHS even if they were true doubles.That's SHS as they're functioning right now in the game, beating true 2.0 DHS in one of the only (the only?) build that can run the loadout you describe. ETA: Okay, I can think of a few other builds, but if you think one of them holds up better to this treatment than the AWS, do the math!

ETA: I'm not sure by how much either SHS or DHS raise the heat ceiling, but even if it's 1-1 (ie. you start with 30 and you get 1 for every HS), you'd overheat on your second alpha with true 2.0 DHS and would need to shutdown for almost 4 seconds, then alpha, shutdown for another 8-10 secs, rinse repeat. Scary build to face, I know.

Bear in mind that through all of this the equivalent SHS build that is currently available to field is actually more heat efficient.

So again, I ask, can someone provide me with this game-breaking mech math?

Edited by FerretGR, 03 December 2012 - 08:59 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

I think they put the full 2.0 DHS in the Engines because Assault Mechs always run big engines and always make the 10-HS required drop spec; Mediums and Lights can get away with smaller Engines and simply stack external heatsinks on top of their Engine Fullies in order to make the drop spec... and they are so spacious to begin with.

So the Rule is meant for small-engined, spacious Mechs to not get the full benefit of DHS. I think their intent was to deter, or rather reduce the effectiveness of, people dropping Engine weight to stack more external heatsinks on their small, spaceous Mechs.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 03 December 2012 - 08:56 PM.

[LaserAngel]

Prosperity Park, on 03 December 2012 - 08:56 PM, said:

I think they put the full 2.0 DHS in the Engines because Assault Mechs always run big engines and always make the 10-HS required drop spec; Mediums and Lights can get away with smaller Engines and simply stack external heatsinks on top of their Engine Fullies in order to make the drop spec... and they are so spacious to begin with.

So the Rule is meant for small-engined, spacious Mechs to not get the full benefit of DHS. I think their intent was to deter, or rather reduce the effectiveness of, people dropping Engine weight to stack more external heatsinks on their small, spaceous Mechs.

The 3.0 second Jenner bogeyman was dragged out and that quieted the community down. We LIVE in 3 second Jenner days right now. The first 10 engine sinks are full 2.0 sinks the rest are 1.4 along with externally mounted ones.

This was brought up in the past as well. Make engine sinks 1.4 (less that 2.0, not that it matters now since engine sinks ARE 2.0). If you are willing to spend tonnage and critical spaces you should be rewarded with 2.0 sinks.

Jenners can mount the XL 300, Mediums are mostly capped to 260, and 3050 XL Engine variants like the Centurion D and Awesome 9M can showboat massive XL engines (385/390). The Atlas is capped at 360. Light and Assault mechs aren't really hurt at all, just cheaper engine capped Standard variants.

SHS die, it's inevitable with the current timeline and with Clan mechs. We cry about the Awesome overheating right now. Imagine the tears with those Clans mechs are shutdown just as well.

Edited by LaserAngel, 03 December 2012 - 09:06 PM.