80 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

FerretGR, on 06 December 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

That's a very good question. Why not work on the weapons that are problematic instead of laying the blame on DHS and nerfing them, something that affects other weapon systems, in turn throwing them out of whack?

Garth, in another thread, said the real issue with DHS is the 6ML Jenner/Cicada. He says the DHS 1.4 nerf is in place to keep that particular build from being able to alpha infinitely. Which it can basically do now, I might add, as a Cicada pilot.

If MLs are a problem, fix the problem by focusing on them, not by using a convoluted nerf of other systems. In nerfing DHS you nerf PPCs, ER weapons, and LLs to a certain extent. In not nerfing DHS you buff MLs to an unacceptable level according to devs (debatable, but for the sake of the argument we'll accept that). So neither is the answer. The answer is to nerf MLs (and give us 2.0 DHS) or buff PPCs/ERs/LLs (and leave DHS in their current, convoluted state).

I agree, with the caveeat:

You're missing the pulse lasers on your lists of weapons that need a buff if you don't change DHS.

And in fact, even if you don't change DHS, you might still want to nerf Medium and Small lasers a bit.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 06 December 2012 - 06:11 AM.

[FerretGR]

Dukov Nook, on 06 December 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

People need to get over this 'cannon' issue when dealing with a decades old ruleset for a pen and paper game attempting to be translated to a modern day video game. Things are going to change. The ruleset was based for turn play. Of course things will change in a real time environment.

Yes, but the reason why canon is still an important consideration is that while some things (fire rate, armor) were changed in the real-time environment, other things (heat dissipation) were not. It makes for a mess. Because of this, we need to talk about canon: the changes made to one canon process have to be translated to all connected processes (ie. fire rate and heat) or else you have issues because of the mismatch. Which is what we're seeing here.

Nobody who brings canon into the discussion is anti-change. The reason canon is brought into things is, in the case of specific canon builds, to demonstrate the negative effect of the previously mentioned mismatch (ie. the worthless stock AWS-9M), or to discuss how to better match the canon feel to the real-time environment by discussing where things were in TT and what can be adjusted.

MustrumRidcully, on 06 December 2012 - 06:10 AM, said:

I agree, with the caveeat:

You're missing the pulse lasers on your lists of weapons that need a buff if you don't change DHS.

And in fact, even if you don't change DHS, you might still want to nerf Medium and Small lasers a bit.

Yeah, my list is incomplete, but that's laziness as much as anything. I'll include them in future rants And while I'd hate to see my 5ML Cicada nerfed, I tend to agree about MLs and SLs.

[Onyx Rain]

Dev's have said they want to keep SHS viable...well even with 2 rated DHS or close to that they would still initially be viable because the upgrade is so expensive....

So you buy a new mech and use singles till you can afford the upgrade...big whoop. (There are SHS builds that while not ideal are still pretty good...better then a lot of crap builds i see people run even if that build has DHS)

Endo is basically the same deal....almost every mech build benefits from having endo because even though it takes up so many crits you need to save the weight to put a bigger engine with more free HS slots and/or the weight for more DHS because they take 3 crit slots each....I can hardly ever find a build that is better without endo then with it...I either run out of weight or run out of crit spots...either way the endo mech build ends up being better or at least functionally equivalent to the non-endo build. The exception is a build that boats large energy weapons...there you may be better off not doing endo and loading up on DHS in those free crit spots, but for ballistic/missile mechs with just a few lasers as back up endo is almost always a must have.

So for me basically it is a must have upgrade....makes standard structure obsolete just like DHS may make SHS obsolete...I really don't have a problem with that. Its an upgrade path....get the bills, do the upgrade...run SHS till then. DHS are there for everyone to use, and most can earn the price of the upgrade in a few hours....so you're not gimped much, and even if you feel you are.... it isn't for long.

Edited by Onyx Rain, 06 December 2012 - 06:49 AM.

[FerretGR]

Onyx Rain, on 06 December 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

Dev's have said they want to keep SHS viable...well even with 2 rated DHS or close to that they would still initially be viable because the upgrade is so expensive....

They'd still be viable. I can't speak for other builds, but I run lots of Awesomes and at least half of the loadouts I've tried are better with SHS, even if the DHS were 2.0. There will always be a place for SHS: like endo or ff, they're an upgrade option to consider if you want to save weight.

[Chrithu]

1.4 is just fine. Always keep in mind: DHS were aimed to be an alternative that would allow for a balanced tradeoff between increased heat dissipation and HS slot occupation. It was never meant to become the new standart for heatsinks that makes it unnecessary to choose between SHS and DHS.

[wanderer]

Redshift2k5, on 06 December 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

By half you mean... PPC and ERPPC?

1.4 DHS work fantastic for a huge rang of mech builds, and you must account for the pilot lab skills that increase both that dissipation rate and heat limit.

.

So, for a 'Mech to work at it's baseline levels, it should have all the pilot skills maxed out?

Quote

It was tested internally and it was deemed overpowered, as said by Paul. If you think Paul Inouye doesn't know how to play this game, you've got a lot to learn.

The internal testers would be the ones who told us DHS worked at a completely different level than we figured out hours after the patch and fed that false info straight to the devs who'd borked it up in the first place when coding DHS to begin with.

I can do the math. DHS should simply be 2.0, regardless of where they're placed on a 'Mech- engine freebie or external mounts. Given MWO's heat generation, 2.0 DHS CAN'T break the system.

[wanderer]

Jason Parker, on 06 December 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

1.4 is just fine. Always keep in mind: DHS were aimed to be an alternative that would allow for a balanced tradeoff between increased heat dissipation and HS slot occupation. It was never meant to become the new standart for heatsinks that makes it unnecessary to choose between SHS and DHS.

Actually, DHS in Battletech ARE the standard for heatsinks. SHS are the things you mount on tanks, because they can't use DHS- but the DHS is the norm for 'Mechs after the Mad Max-style tech loss was recovered from and DHS went into large-scale production. SHS haven't been the standard in Battletech for over two decades now of realtime and for over a century in game-time- heck, for the Clans SHS are literally considered junk, fit only for third-rate designs sold to the Inner Sphere and bargain-basement trainers produced in the Inner Sphere for newbie greenhorns, not real 'Mechs.

[QuantumButler]

Redshift2k5, on 06 December 2012 - 04:56 AM, said:

By half you mean... PPC and ERPPC?

1.4 DHS work fantastic for a huge rang of mech builds, and you must account for the pilot lab skills that increase both that dissipation rate and heat limit.

It was tested internally and it was deemed overpowered, as said by Paul. If you think Paul Inouye doesn't know how to play this game, you've got a lot to learn.

>implying the devs play their own game for more than 20 mins a week.

Hahahahahaha.

Edited by QuantumButler, 06 December 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Jason Parker, on 06 December 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

1.4 is just fine. Always keep in mind: DHS were aimed to be an alternative that would allow for a balanced tradeoff between increased heat dissipation and HS slot occupation. It was never meant to become the new standart for heatsinks that makes it unnecessary to choose between SHS and DHS.

There shouldn't be a choice. unless you want single sinks, double sinks are the way to go. Why have 14 single sinks to cover the heat of 2 LRM20s (12 heat for weapon and 2 for movement) when 10 double sinks gives you better heat management and 4 more tons for Pulse mediums or more ammo per launcher? Single sinks are a cost/space saver. That's the only reason to use them. The only reason.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 December 2012 - 07:10 AM.

[EyeOne]

I think people forget that heat is supposed to be an issue.

[LaserAngel]

Drop the additional heat capacity on DHS too. If the developers are so scared of those Small/Medium Lasers, why not FIX those in the process.

[MustrumRidcully]

Jason Parker, on 06 December 2012 - 06:55 AM, said:

1.4 is just fine. Always keep in mind: DHS were aimed to be an alternative that would allow for a balanced tradeoff between increased heat dissipation and HS slot occupation. It was never meant to become the new standart for heatsinks that makes it unnecessary to choose between SHS and DHS.

On what basis do you say it was never meant like that? Never meant by the devs? Because the lore of the game suggests it is a significant upgrade.

In practice, it still is. There isn't a good reason to keep with single heat sinks. Yes, you can technically get more heat dissipation and heat capacity on Heavy or Assault mechs with single heat sinks - but it's not wise doing so, you're mech build will be rather inefficient for it.

The current implementation may be one of the worst cases even - engine heat sinks and out-of-engine heat sinks work differently, in practice meaning that light mechs gain the most and heavies and assaults the least. If you're only gonna have 10 heat sinks anyway, better make sure they are DHS. At the same time, all the stock mechs that were build around DHS will be off far wors,e evne worse than the stock mechs that relied on single heat sinks already are.

I would on some level prefer if all tech would be equal, and everyhting was sidegrades.

But there is precedent in the lore and in most MMO games for upgrades and better gear as your experience increase. (The problem is just that MW:O doesn't account for this in match-making.)

[Hotthedd]

The devs want SHS to be a viable option?

I suppose that in real life, I have a viable option to drive a Yugo, even though I have the money to drive a Porche. But if the Yugo is just as good, why would I do that?

Some things are simply supposed to be better than others, hence the term "upgrade".

If alpha strikes are the problem, make alpha strikes generate more heat than chain firing.
If smaller mechs with DHS are the problem, Scale DHS to Engine size. (More of a weight penalty)
What we have now should be called "Improved Heat Sinks", not "Double Heat Sinks", perhaps both could be used, and make "Double" heat sinks more expensive, or an unlockable skill.

[General Woundwort]

Current DHS is about 2/3rds as effective as table top. What if we didn't buff its absolute heat capacity, but instead made it so the relative crits were reduced proportionately? Drop the DHS to 2 crits, reducing its size by a third to be commensurate with its reduced cooling. If you want to make an Awesome closer to heat neutral, you could, through more efficient use of space, but you still will have to bring a lot of tonnage of sinks.

Clarification: Under this system, 1 2 crit DHS = 1.4 heat dissipation for 1 ton. 2 1 crit SHS = 2 heat dissipation for same crits, but for 2 tons total. Crit efficency versus tonnage efficiency therefore becomes the balancing factor the player must carefully consider, but they won't feel like they're wasting so much space for weaker sinks.

Edited by General Woundwort, 06 December 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[Pando]

Agreed. Heat isn't the problem, pilot heat management is. For a very short period I believe we did have 2.0 DHS during Closed Beta Testing. I was able to run the most insane laserboats because of it. Ripping people APART in seconds. I don't want DHS to return to 2.0 because it made gave the possibility for builds like the AWS-8Q, HBK-4P or Jenner F running all Medium Lasers or Medium Pulse Lasers to ruin the game.

Edited by Pando, 06 December 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Pando, on 06 December 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Agreed. Heat isn't the problem, pilot heat management is. For a very short period I believe we did have 2.0 DHS during Closed Beta Testing. I was able to run the most insane laserboats because of it. Ripping people APART in seconds. I don't want DHS to return to 2.0 because it made gave the possibility for builds like the AWS-8Q, HBK-4P or Jenner F running all Medium Lasers or Medium Pulse Lasers to ruin the game.

Was that before or after they doubled armor? Was that before or after they raised the heat on medium lasers?

[wanderer]

Pando, on 06 December 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

Agreed. Heat isn't the problem, pilot heat management is. For a very short period I believe we did have 2.0 DHS during Closed Beta Testing. I was able to run the most insane laserboats because of it. Ripping people APART in seconds. I don't want DHS to return to 2.0 because it made gave the possibility for builds like the AWS-8Q, HBK-4P or Jenner F running all Medium Lasers or Medium Pulse Lasers to ruin the game.

I was in closed Beta since June, well before DHS made it in.

We never had universal 2.0 sinks. We had one flustercluck where engine sinks were 1.0 and external sinks 2.0, and then that was changed to the current engine sinks are 2.0, externals are 1.4.

Guess what? Lights running on all engine DHS are running on 2.0 DHS, even mounting the aforementioned weapons.

MWO has not crashed and burned from it.

[Joseph Mallan]

EyeOne, on 06 December 2012 - 07:11 AM, said:

I think people forget that heat is supposed to be an issue.

Thug would put a hole in that position. It had so much heat dissipation it could take sinks out and still alpha every turn.
Grasshopper a cool running Energy boat with 22 single sinks! Able to run and fire all lasers non stop.
Valkyrie LRM10, medium laser single sinks, heat neutral unless jumping!
Spider Under gunned but capable of running a shooting non stop... Jumping was a different story.
Annihilator 3 AC10 could be fired every turn without reduction of leathality.
Orion Able to fire either long or short range weapons with impunity.
Thunderbolt again could fire its large laser and LRM15 without over heating for an entire match.

I can find many more examples of mechs that would be over heating in the MMO that should never have a problem with heat... EVER.


(NOTE: These are 3025 designs without double sinks, except the Thug.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 06 December 2012 - 08:45 AM.

[Wizard Steve]

Seriously, when will the heat whine end? I run mechs in the caldera on caustic and don't overheat because I know how to build mechs and now how to manage their heat. I do it so well that my prime tactic on caustic is to goad the enemy into overheating so I can pull them apart. Setting DHS to 2.0 is just a crutch for those people that need to lrn2play.

The PPC and ER PPC do need some work but that work does not include unbalancing every other weapon. DHS 2.0 is not the answer.

[Joseph Mallan]

I will just have to disagree with you Steve. the problem that PPCs and ER PPCs are having is that Sinks are not working properly for the MMO. An Awesome 9M with 20 double sinks should not overheat at all if only firing 2 ER PPCs (-10 heat per turn) But having the sinks working at half the rate of fire per turn in most cases is making an artificial high heat problem. the problem is in fact with the sinks not the weapons.