21 replies to this topic

[BladeXXL]

For now smaller chassis benefit a lot more by DHS then bigger chassis...

A Jenner with 250 engine having 4 add. SHS (=14 SHS) can stript the add. HS and save 4 tons keeping the same heat value (=10 DHS 1.4)!
An Atlas with 300 engine having 16 add. SHS (=26 SHS - needed to manage the heat!) must have 9 DHS to keep min. the same heat value (=26.6).
7 of 9 DHS must be placed in critics so you need 7 more critical slots (from 14 SHS to 21 DHS).
It also can't use the new 7 tons ... no space for nothing! The only way: upgrading to 325 engine and ge 1 more engine slot... now you have space but no free tonage! ^^

What about a slightly move to goodwill the bigger chassis giving 1.0 heat dissipation to the engine internal HS and 2.0 for all the others!?

here a little math if you have time for and are not annoyed at:
Table shows: engine internal HS + HS can be placed inside the engine + additional HS for critics/slots = amount of heat dissipation.

Atlas (E325) usualy have 15-21 slots for additional HS - and is limited by slots:
SHS 1.0: 10x1.0 + 3x1.0 + 14x1.0 = 27.0 (17t + 14sl for add. HS)
DHS 1.4: 10x1.4 + 3x1.4 + 7x1.4 = 28.0 (11t + 21sl for add. HS)
DHS mix: 10x1.0 + 3x2.0 + 7x2.0 = 30.0 (11t + 21sl for add. HS)

Centurion (E275) usualy has 18-24 slots for additional HS and is limited by tonage and slots:
SHS 1.0: 10x1.0 + 1x1.0 + 9x1.0 = 20.0 (10t + 14sl for add. HS)
DHS 1.4: 10x1.4 + 1x1.4 + 7x1.4 = 25.2 (8t + 21sl for add. HS)
DHS mix: 10x1.0 + 1x2.0 + 7x2.0 = 26.0 (9t + 21sl for add. HS)

Jenner (E225) usualy has 23-27 slots for additional HS but is limited by tonage:
SHS 1.0: 9x1.0 + 0x1.0 + 6x1.0 = 15.0 (6t + 6sl for add. HS)
DHS 1.4: 9x1.4 + 0x1.4 + 6x1.4 = 21.0 (6t + 18sl for add. HS)
DHS mix: 9x1.0 + 0x2.0 + 6x2.0 = 21.0 (6t + 18sl for add. HS)

Commando (E200) usualy has 26-30 slots for additional HS but is limited by tonage:
SHS 1.0: 8x1.0 + 0x1.0 + 4x1.0 = 12.0 (4t + 4sl for add. HS)
DHS 1.4: 8x1.4 + 0x1.4 + 4x1.4 = 16.8 (4t + 12sl for add. HS)
DHS mix: 8x1.0 + 0x2.0 + 4x2.0 = 16.0 (4t + 12sl for add. HS)

please don't be to strict with my examples for available HS slots... :-)

[Zyllos]

I personally think we need to modify DHS to provide the same benefit across the board, no matter where they are equipped. Change capacity of DHS to 1.0 and dissipation to 0.17 across the board.

Here is my proposal: [Sug] Current DHS vs. Proposed DHS

[BladeXXL]

this way the smaller ones would get even more prioritized!

[focuspark]

DHS cannot be better than SHS. You need to balance them before continuing. The proposed model makes it a no brainer to choose DHS every time. That's a fail model for MMO.

[Irvine]

If i pay 1.5 million Cbills for DHS, shouldn't they be better than SHS?

[Deadoon]

focuspark, on 05 December 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

DHS cannot be better than SHS. You need to balance them before continuing. The proposed model makes it a no brainer to choose DHS every time. That's a fail model for MMO.

http://www.sarna.net...ouble_Heat_Sink

Quote

Following the discovery of the Helm Memory Core and the subsequent dissemination of lost Star League knowledge throughout the Inner Sphere in 3028, double heat sinks gradually became a staple of 'Mech construction again and were extensively used in retrofits and new designs. The NAIS had double heat sinks ready for serial production in 3041.


The benefits of doubled heat dissipation capacity usually outweigh the drawbacks and by 3058 almost every 'Mech model was equipped or retrofitted with double heat sinks.

No. They are better. We are at the half way point between mass production and nearly every mech being loaded with them. Meaning that all those mechs you buy are not just beneficial to be switched to doubles, but EXPECTED to be switched over via a retrofit.

[focuspark]

Read my sig. I don't give a damn about lore or canon. This is a MMO and things have to be balanced. That's just how it is. All choices have to be meaningful, if they're not then they're unbalanced and need to be fixed or removed.

[WardenWolf]

Another approach option, as the OP is right that DHS currently benefit lights too much (and Garth has used this as his why-they-are-this-way example), is to scale DHS outside the engine based on the mech class. Something like this:

All in-engine DHS = 2.0 (as currently)
Added DHS in Light mechs = 1.4
Added DHS in Medium mechs = 1.6
Added DHS in Heavy mechs = 1.8
Added DHS in Assault mechs = 2.0

This gives bigger mechs a bigger advantage, since they are the ones who 'should' be totting the larger energy weapons anyways.

Another interesting option is to move dissipation to 2.0, but reduce the capacity they add to 1.5 or even just 1.0 (though that may be too harsh)

Edited by WardenWolf, 05 December 2012 - 03:08 PM.

[Deadoon]

focuspark, on 05 December 2012 - 12:53 PM, said:

Read my sig. I don't give a damn about lore or canon. This is a MMO and things have to be balanced. That's just how it is. All choices have to be meaningful, if they're not then they're unbalanced and need to be fixed or removed.

Yes, the first mechwarrior game that decides to follow the timeline to the letter doesn't need to follow canon principles, such a great, well thought out and meaningful argument.

Why don't we just make the clans just as powerful as the is mechs eh? Just to make them 'balanced'... Why don't we make that timberwolf just as powerful as a marauder? After all the marauder only has 2 ppc,2 med lasers, and an ac/5? The mad cat has; 2 er large lasers; 2 er med lasers, 1 medium pulse laser, 2 lrm 20 and 2 machine guns? Perfectly balanced, they are both 75 ton heavies after all?

You really don't know much about this universe in general. You will likely be complaining to all high heaven when the clans invade due to they are "unbalanced".

[neviu]

Well said deadoon

[DeadlyNerd]

WardenWolf, on 05 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

All in-engine DHS = 2.0 (as currently)
Added DHS in Light mechs = 1.4
Added DHS in Medium mechs = 1.6
Added DHS in Heavy mechs = 1.8
Added DHS in Assault mechs = 2.0

I like this.

[focuspark]

The graduated scale for DHS is more inline.

As for Deadoon, no it does not need to follow canon. It needs to make a fun and lasting game or meet the same fate as FASA (your source of canon).

[Miken]

2 focuspark
If you not follow canon, then you get another "Hawken" or something

[BladeXXL]

WardenWolf, on 05 December 2012 - 03:07 PM, said:

All in-engine DHS = 2.0 (as currently)
Added DHS in Light mechs = 1.4
Added DHS in Medium mechs = 1.6
Added DHS in Heavy mechs = 1.8
Added DHS in Assault mechs = 2.0

This gives bigger mechs a bigger advantage, since they are the ones who 'should' be totting the larger energy weapons anyways.

"(as currently)" <- WRONG!
currently ALL (inside/outside) DHS have 1.4!
A little test: got to lab, put a 250 engine to any DHS-mech and watch the heat efficiency... drop the engine and equip 10 DHS and you'll see the same heat value!

Giving the engine DHS a 2.0 is a bad idea. A Jenner will never need any additional DHS anymore! And it's not realistic that DHS have no size effect on the engine! They should stay 1.0 inside the engine!

But is is a good idea to scale the additional DHS by the class or tonnage: 0t = 1.0, 50t = 1.5, 100t = 2.0 .... so a Jenner will have 1.35!

[focuspark]

Miken, on 05 December 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

2 focuspark
If you not follow canon, then you get another "Hawken" or something

Hawken is COD in machines. So no and unlike the "canon, canon, canon" crowd I want to see MWO succeed even if it means not ahearing to canon and lore. For unknown reason the "canon, canon, canon" crowd can't get it through their collective heads that FASA failed and MSFT stopped publishing BT and MW games because the games weren't fun enough for a large enough audience.

BladeXXL, on 05 December 2012 - 11:39 PM, said:

"(as currently)" <- WRONG!
currently ALL (inside/outside) DHS have 1.4!
A little test: got to lab, put a 250 engine to any DHS-mech and watch the heat efficiency... drop the engine and equip 10 DHS and you'll see the same heat value!

Giving the engine DHS a 2.0 is a bad idea. A Jenner will never need any additional DHS anymore! And it's not realistic that DHS have no size effect on the engine! They should stay 1.0 inside the engine!

But is is a good idea to scale the additional DHS by the class or tonnage: 0t = 1.0, 50t = 1.5, 100t = 2.0 .... so a Jenner will have 1.35!

I think the scale is probably a good idea, but I'd rather see something like 1.2 to 1.7 so that a Jenner would get 1.375 and an Atlas would get 1.7 per DHS. A solid 2.0 is too good IMO.

Edited by focuspark, 06 December 2012 - 12:38 AM.

[BladeXXL]

focuspark, on 06 December 2012 - 12:38 AM, said:

I think the scale is probably a good idea, but I'd rather see something like 1.2 to 1.7 so that a Jenner would get 1.375 and an Atlas would get 1.7 per DHS. A solid 2.0 is too good IMO.

The scale is for ADDITIONAL DHS only ... it would nerf the small ones and boost the bigger ones, but only a moderate little!

I hope you don't mean math to the additional only!? It would be worse...
Atlas: 10x1.0 + 3x1.7 + 7x1.7 = 27.0 (NO boost to SHS) ^^
Jenner: 9x1.0 + 0x1.375 + 6x1.375 = 17.25 (an avarage boost of ~15% to SHS)

But giving 1.7 for Atlas and 1.2 for 0t (1.2 + 0.005/t) to ALL DHS would looks like this:
Atlas: 10x1.7 + 3x1.7 + 7x1.7 = 34.0 (an avarage boost of ~26% to SHS)
Jenner: 9x1.375 + 0x1.375 + 6x1.375 = 20.6 (an avarage boost of ~38% to SHS)

...compared to my 1.0 for 0t to 2.0 for 100t match would be:
Atlas: 10x1.0 + 3x2.0 + 7x2.0 = 30.0 (an avarage boost of ~11% to SHS)
Jenner: 9x1.0 + 0x1.35 + 6x1.35 = 17.1 (an avarage boost of ~14% to SHS)

I like your Idea too, but it could be a little to mutch... just think about 3ER PPC Awesome with 350XL... ^^

[Bobzilla]

What if the effect of heatsinks were exponential?
1 SHS =1
2 SHS =2.04
3 SHS =3.09
4 SHS =4.16
5 SHS =5.25
10 SHS =11.00
20 SHS =24.00

Would help with the heat values in this game being weird, bigger mechs would have a bigger bonus as they have more HS.
DHS's could stay at 1.4, but 1.4 times the exponential values (2 DHS = 1.4 x 2.04).

1 DHS =1.4
2 DHS =2.856
3 DHS =4.32
4 DHS =5.82
5 DHS =7.35
10 DHS =15.40
20 SHS =33.60

[BladeXXL]

No ... that's the point!
Bigger mechs CAN'T fit a lot more DHS then the small ones... because they all have the same amount of critics! Maybe 2 or 3...
The boost for upgrading to DHS to the limits (crits or tonnage) should be nearly the same over all chassies.

One other solution would be to reduce the amount of critics for smaller classes. But it is against TT (I think - don't really know much about it) and would push the game back to be stricted like MW4... no thanks!

I still think the best way is a directly dependance to the tonnage, as DHS are made to safe tonnage.

Edited by BladeXXL, 06 December 2012 - 07:41 AM.

[Apoc1138]

I agree, we should definitely reduce the number of critics in this game

[focuspark]

BladeXXL, on 06 December 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

No ... that's the point!
Bigger mechs CAN'T fit a lot more DHS then the small ones... because they all have the same amount of critics! Maybe 2 or 3...
The boost for upgrading to DHS to the limits (crits or tonnage) should be nearly the same over all chassies.

One other solution would be to reduce the amount of critics for smaller classes. But it is against TT (I think - don't really know much about it) and would push the game back to be stricted like MW4... no thanks!

I still think the best way is a directly dependance to the tonnage, as DHS are made to safe tonnage.

This is kind of by design. It's a major limiting factor in designing assault class mechs, otherwise they're easily over powered. As it was in CBT the heavier the mech the better, now with MWO PGIGP is attempting to remedy the problem. If we scale DHS we're further breaking the balance.

it's not meant to be realistic, it's meant to be balanced.

That said, if SHS also scaled... say from 0.7 to 1.0 or something this might actually work