108 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Zyllos, on 11 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Heat capacity is 30 + (W * X) + (Y * Z).

Yes, that's the current formula, basically. I am not actually proposing to use a fixed heat capacity (though I think it would b technically more correct to do, even if at first I thought otherwise. I understand the rationale for why they did things the way they did here, but I believe, on closer inspection it's wrong. PGI made the mistake of thinking that a TT alpha strike must translate to every weapon firing at the same time in a real time game - while mechanically/mathematically, it just translates to firing all weapons in a 10 second timeframe.)

Quote

While I think allowing SHS to be better than DHS in ANY situation completely breaks canon, PGI has said they want their heat scale to matter, which only means 100%, all heat below that means nothing.

Don't make the mistake of assuming that double heat sinks removed heat as a concern. - or the mistake of believing that Battletech requries that heat is a concern for every mech. The Battletech Starter Set (the only Battletech rulebooks and minis I own) is full of mechs that don't overheat very fast, if at all.

The counter-point to "DHS make heat go away" would be mechs like the Nova or Supernova - mechs so hot they would 100 % overheat after 3 salvos.

But in general, it's a fundamental optimization problem. Of course it's a bad idea to overheat fast - overheating mechs don't deal damage, but still take damage just fine. But you also don't need to last longer than your enemy or you yourself can survive.
Especially in MW:O, where you don't have to concern yourself with the vagaries of random hit location generation, you know that if you can, say, deal 120 damage to your enemies Center Torso, he will be destroyed. So your goal is to deliver 120 damage to the enemy Center Torso before he deals whatever damage he needs to kill you - and if you spend too many resources on heat neutrality and too little on damage output, your time to deliver that 120 damage could be too long, and you're dead before you can kill him. And, on the other hand - if you can kill him before he kills you because you invested enough in weapons and not too much in heat sinks, it's okay to be closet os hutdown afterwards - the enemy is gone.

The real problem with better dissipation is that mechs can deal more damage, and this will make the combats faster. That is something PGI doesn't seem to want. But:
1) There is already a reasonable and often achieved damage output in this game. Double Heat Sinks will not just make some weapons exceed this - it will finally allow other weapons to catch up to that level. So the solution is either - buff the weak weapons, or nerf the strong weapons and put in DHS.
2) The game's pace can also be altered by lowering damage across the board, or raising armour level sacross the board.

And fundamentally, PGI selected a bad point in the Battletech Universe if they wanted the game's pace to be stable. 3049 and the following years is the time where the Clan Wars start and a lot of new tech comes out, and most of it is designed to kill faster (and almost none seems to exist to make you survive longer!). SO they almost have no choice but to alter the pace of the game over time, and the real choice is more -do they want it faster than now in the future, or can they accept that 3025 level combat is faster than now. Avoiding a change of pace would require invalidating pretty much all stock mech designs, and then they selected a very poor base for their mechs - stock configurations.

Mustrum "I swear someone is editing my posts afterwards to add more spelling mistakes" Ridcully

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 11 December 2012 - 10:25 AM.

[Shroomicide]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 December 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Are you sure that it's true?

Show me your math, please.

The actual exmaple they brought up was a 5 or 6 medium laser Cicada. Not a Quad PPC mech. And they were right. But they may have made the wrong conclusion - not DHS are overpowered - medium lasers are.

Sorry, I was assuming that Syllogy was providing correct information. If we can move past individual nitpicking of mistakes, we should respond to the main point of these posts.

Aside from completely altering the way heat is calculated, which may be correct, my reasoning is simple: energy builds are underutilized and underpowered. Almost no one goes with them if they are not a Laser Hunchback or a Jenner, and that's only out of necessity. Whatever way that can be fixed to make energy weapons competitive against ballistic would be great.

Changing RoF of all weapons would (in my opinion) make Gauss rifles the most overpowered weapons in the game. If that means Gauss is going from 4 to 2 seconds recycle time, that's a pretty huge issue. They would go from 3.75 DPS to one area to 7.5, or dual Gauss, 15 DPS. If RoF does not mean that, ignore this paragraph.

MustrumRidcully, on 11 December 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

The real problem with better dissipation is that mechs can deal more damage, and this will make the combats faster. That is something PGI doesn't seem to want. But:
1) There is already a reasonable and often achieved damage output in this game. Double Heat Sinks will not just make some weapons exceed this - it will finally allow other weapons to catch up to that level. So the solution is either - buff the weak weapons, or nerf the strong weapons and put in DHS.
2) The game's pace can also be altered by lowering damage across the board, or raising armour level sacross the board.

Raising armour levels might be interesting. Missed a typo

[focuspark]

Shroomicide, on 11 December 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

Raising armour levels might be interesting. Missed a typo

MW:O already supports twice the armor of CBT. So yeah, it's pretty interesting

[Pando]

NO

[Zyllos]

MustrumRidcully, on 11 December 2012 - 10:21 AM, said:

Yes, that's the current formula, basically. I am not actually proposing to use a fixed heat capacity (though I think it would b technically more correct to do, even if at first I thought otherwise. I understand the rationale for why they did things the way they did here, but I believe, on closer inspection it's wrong. PGI made the mistake of thinking that a TT alpha strike must translate to every weapon firing at the same time in a real time game - while mechanically/mathematically, it just translates to firing all weapons in a 10 second timeframe.)


Don't make the mistake of assuming that double heat sinks removed heat as a concern. - or the mistake of believing that Battletech requries that heat is a concern for every mech. The Battletech Starter Set (the only Battletech rulebooks and minis I own) is full of mechs that don't overheat very fast, if at all.

The counter-point to "DHS make heat go away" would be mechs like the Nova or Supernova - mechs so hot they would 100 % overheat after 3 salvos.

But in general, it's a fundamental optimization problem. Of course it's a bad idea to overheat fast - overheating mechs don't deal damage, but still take damage just fine. But you also don't need to last longer than your enemy or you yourself can survive.
Especially in MW:O, where you don't have to concern yourself with the vagaries of random hit location generation, you know that if you can, say, deal 120 damage to your enemies Center Torso, he will be destroyed. So your goal is to deliver 120 damage to the enemy Center Torso before he deals whatever damage he needs to kill you - and if you spend too many resources on heat neutrality and too little on damage output, your time to deliver that 120 damage could be too long, and you're dead before you can kill him. And, on the other hand - if you can kill him before he kills you because you invested enough in weapons and not too much in heat sinks, it's okay to be closet os hutdown afterwards - the enemy is gone.

The real problem with better dissipation is that mechs can deal more damage, and this will make the combats faster. That is something PGI doesn't seem to want. But:
1) There is already a reasonable and often achieved damage output in this game. Double Heat Sinks will not just make some weapons exceed this - it will finally allow other weapons to catch up to that level. So the solution is either - buff the weak weapons, or nerf the strong weapons and put in DHS.
2) The game's pace can also be altered by lowering damage across the board, or raising armour level sacross the board.

And fundamentally, PGI selected a bad point in the Battletech Universe if they wanted the game's pace to be stable. 3049 and the following years is the time where the Clan Wars start and a lot of new tech comes out, and most of it is designed to kill faster (and almost none seems to exist to make you survive longer!). SO they almost have no choice but to alter the pace of the game over time, and the real choice is more -do they want it faster than now in the future, or can they accept that 3025 level combat is faster than now. Avoiding a change of pace would require invalidating pretty much all stock mech designs, and then they selected a very poor base for their mechs - stock configurations.

Mustrum "I swear someone is editing my posts afterwards to add more spelling mistakes" Ridcully

While I understand what your saying, I think I was trying to get a different point.

The other heat scale penalties (slower movement, aiming, ect.).

But, yes, I think PGI made the connect that alpha striking means immediately firing all weapons instead of all weapons within 10.0s. But if you follow the 10.0s frame, what PGI thinks is that no player should have to sit around and wait for weapons to come off CD so they up the RoF. But, PGI knowing that if they scaled all the numbers to fit within that 10.0s frame but with higher RoF, we would be off "canon" because a Medium Laser is not dealing 4 damage.

If PGI did not think this was the reason to not scale the RoF with the heat/damage, then I am unsure what they were thinking. It almost sounded like they KNEW they where going to break canon because they, personally, did not like the 10.0s of weapon CD.

But, I think that is fine if you want to up RoF while keeping heat/damage. But what then you need to do is take care making some of those more efficient weapons even MORE efficient while not breaking the canon builds.

Trial mechs are just in a sorry state. You can not fix trial mechs without fundamentally changing the RoF to heat/damage ratios. And as I have said, implementing 50% RoF across the board would greatly improve trial mechs while making the pace of the game a bit more tactical instead of who can alpha strike as much damage on a single point as fast as possible before shutting down.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

But, PGI knowing that if they scaled all the numbers to fit within that 10.0s frame but with higher RoF, we would be off "canon" because a Medium Laser is not dealing 4 damage.

TT rules says it's 5 damage - and they did alter other weapon damage output or heat output from the original rules, so I don't really see a big deal. They seem to be against changing damage for auto-canons. Probably because the damage is standing in its name, but who cares, it oculd just well be a calibre description or some other technical description that has nothing to do with its damage.

Quote

If PGI did not think this was the reason to not scale the RoF with the heat/damage, then I am unsure what they were thinking. It almost sounded like they KNEW they where going to break canon because they, personally, did not like the 10.0s of weapon CD.

I have no idea what PGI was thinking here. I mean, I know one basic aspect - they thought waiting for 10 seconds between shots was too long. But from the math point of view, how they did it was bound to be broken, despite their being relatively obvious ways to not have it broken.

[HighTest]

Zyllos, on 11 December 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

Trial mechs are just in a sorry state. You can not fix trial mechs without fundamentally changing the RoF to heat/damage ratios. And as I have said, implementing 50% RoF across the board would greatly improve trial mechs while making the pace of the game a bit more tactical instead of who can alpha strike as much damage on a single point as fast as possible before shutting down.

Whether it's in MWO (even with 2.0x heat sinks) or in canon, it's always been more than possible to design mechs that overheat like crazy. It's all about letting people customize their builds like they so choose. Sure, I can mount 4 PPCs with 18 SHS due to mass/crit restrictions, and yeah maybe I can alpha it once, but some people are OK with that because they can manage heat and simply want that one big Alpha when they need it. Others would rather mount 2 PPCs and 18 DHS because they'd rather keep firing repeatedly even though they don't have nearly the Alpha strike of the previous build.

Who is anyone to tell people how they run their mechs? Everyone has their own playstyle. That 4 PPC - 18 SHS mech may have a killer finish, but mid-battle it's pretty weak. But some people might like that.

My bigger concern is that the 4 trial mechs currently online ALL have heat efficiencies well under 1.0. That's just being downright cruel to new players -- here newbie, your first lesson is in hardcore heat management -- surprise!

I'd love to see the math where a quad-PPC mech with 28DHS can continue to Alpha fire all 4 PPCs repeatedly. That's 36 heat per alpha. 28 DHS would cool an Awesome with a 240 engine at (9x2.0 internal)+(19x1.4 external) at 44.6 heat per unit of dissipation (which I don't know).

The recycle time on a regular PPC is 3 seconds. Which would mean you'd need to dissipate 9.33 heat / second.

So if the unit of heat dissipation is anything less than 4.78 seconds (44.6heat/4.78sec=9.33hps, which I'm pretty sure that based on feel it takes my mechs closer to 10 seconds to fully shed heat from a shutdown, not 4.78), then there will always be some residual heat after every alpha. eventually leading to an overheat condition.

Probably not a great argument since I'm missing some key variables, and even questioning if said Awesome could even exist in that build, but food for thought I suppose.

My point is, it always boils down to a complex optimization equation. Even if you allowed 2.0x DHS, which I strongly propose, you still have to balance:

- tonnage
- critical slots
- heat ceiling
- heat dissipation
- hardpoint restrictions
- weapon choice
- pilot playstyle

Adjusting DHS efficiency is only part of the equation, and one that I think sorely nerfs larger mechs thus giving smaller ones a distinct and unwarranted advantage. Proving 2.0x DHS would at least make some energy build a little bit more viable relative to some of the killer AC/missile builds out there.

I'd still rather see better netcode, proper matchmaking, and new features put into the game rather than tinkering with 'balance'. Yesterday I experienced some of the worst matchmaking yet -- 8 on 5 (started 8 vs 7, lost one to yellow screen and one immediate DC), PLUS they had 2 Atlases and a few heavies on their side, and the biggest mechs we had were 2 Awesomes (one was the DC) plus a bunch of mediums and lights. In active mechs I'm sure they out-tonned us by at least 200 tons. Let me tell you, all the DHS tweaking in the world wasn't going to even out that battle.

I can understand how brand new PUGs can get frustrated and leave when I see stuff like that.

[Zyllos]

HighTest, on 12 December 2012 - 07:17 AM, said:

Whether it's in MWO (even with 2.0x heat sinks) or in canon, it's always been more than possible to design mechs that overheat like crazy. It's all about letting people customize their builds like they so choose. Sure, I can mount 4 PPCs with 18 SHS due to mass/crit restrictions, and yeah maybe I can alpha it once, but some people are OK with that because they can manage heat and simply want that one big Alpha when they need it. Others would rather mount 2 PPCs and 18 DHS because they'd rather keep firing repeatedly even though they don't have nearly the Alpha strike of the previous build.

Who is anyone to tell people how they run their mechs? Everyone has their own playstyle. That 4 PPC - 18 SHS mech may have a killer finish, but mid-battle it's pretty weak. But some people might like that.

My bigger concern is that the 4 trial mechs currently online ALL have heat efficiencies well under 1.0. That's just being downright cruel to new players -- here newbie, your first lesson is in hardcore heat management -- surprise!

I'd love to see the math where a quad-PPC mech with 28DHS can continue to Alpha fire all 4 PPCs repeatedly. That's 36 heat per alpha. 28 DHS would cool an Awesome with a 240 engine at (9x2.0 internal)+(19x1.4 external) at 44.6 heat per unit of dissipation (which I don't know).

The recycle time on a regular PPC is 3 seconds. Which would mean you'd need to dissipate 9.33 heat / second.

So if the unit of heat dissipation is anything less than 4.78 seconds (44.6heat/4.78sec=9.33hps, which I'm pretty sure that based on feel it takes my mechs closer to 10 seconds to fully shed heat from a shutdown, not 4.78), then there will always be some residual heat after every alpha. eventually leading to an overheat condition.

Probably not a great argument since I'm missing some key variables, and even questioning if said Awesome could even exist in that build, but food for thought I suppose.

My point is, it always boils down to a complex optimization equation. Even if you allowed 2.0x DHS, which I strongly propose, you still have to balance:

- tonnage
- critical slots
- heat ceiling
- heat dissipation
- hardpoint restrictions
- weapon choice
- pilot playstyle

Adjusting DHS efficiency is only part of the equation, and one that I think sorely nerfs larger mechs thus giving smaller ones a distinct and unwarranted advantage. Proving 2.0x DHS would at least make some energy build a little bit more viable relative to some of the killer AC/missile builds out there.

I'd still rather see better netcode, proper matchmaking, and new features put into the game rather than tinkering with 'balance'. Yesterday I experienced some of the worst matchmaking yet -- 8 on 5 (started 8 vs 7, lost one to yellow screen and one immediate DC), PLUS they had 2 Atlases and a few heavies on their side, and the biggest mechs we had were 2 Awesomes (one was the DC) plus a bunch of mediums and lights. In active mechs I'm sure they out-tonned us by at least 200 tons. Let me tell you, all the DHS tweaking in the world wasn't going to even out that battle.

I can understand how brand new PUGs can get frustrated and leave when I see stuff like that.

Yes, I completely agree that players should be allowed to create completely overheated mechs to get large alpha strikes.

But that doesn't overshadow other mechs. What is overshadowing are mechs that can mount smaller weapons but still deal as much damage as the larger weapons at MUCH better efficiencies. And this is because RoF being so high that it is much more efficient to equip an array of smaller heat efficient weapons than large weapons.

And when you make this game have lower RoF, trial mechs are in a much better position because while they are hot, other mechs can not mount the smaller weapons and constantly firing for the same damage.

In regards to better netcode/matchmaking/ect, this is being worked on. So it is a non-issue in this discussion. It will be fixed in due time.

[Theodor Kling]

As the OP said: Doble Heat Sins are not named onepointfortimes heat sinks for a reason

But Seriously:DHS are superior equipment in the lore, andthat´s fine. They are expenise, but became the new standart during the 3050s for a reaosn.

As for the side discussion about clan tech: If clan tech is balanced in the same way DHS are now you just don´t need to introduce it at all. Clan Tech is DESIGNED to be overpowered. And that gap stays until the late 3060s at least. The only sensible way to balance it , is maing it cost realy a lot of C-bills. Like : hmm I could by a Clan ER PPC.. or a light mech.

[HighTest]

Zyllos, on 12 December 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Yes, I completely agree that players should be allowed to create completely overheated mechs to get large alpha strikes.

But that doesn't overshadow other mechs. What is overshadowing are mechs that can mount smaller weapons but still deal as much damage as the larger weapons at MUCH better efficiencies. And this is because RoF being so high that it is much more efficient to equip an array of smaller heat efficient weapons than large weapons.

Did you think we disagreed here? No no, I fully agree with that statement. 1.4x DHS result in being a big nerf to larger mechs. I have some calcs on this in other posts around here. Like:

http://mwomercs.com/...s-bug-with-dhs/

Right now the fact that some of these small mechs can run circles around heavies and assaults and still never need to back off is a huge balance issue. They might be forced to back off once in a while if the bigger guy could actually sustain some rate of fire (since they can barely target the little guy anyway as things stand.)

I'm quite not so sure about adjusting rate of fire... I wouldn't be against lowering it some (as the game can seem a little twitchy at times), but I think lowering them too much might suck some of the fun out of the game. I think you'd need to tweak that carefully. I kind of like the way the game 'feels' at the moment, at least overall.

[Shroomicide]

Zyllos, on 12 December 2012 - 07:38 AM, said:

Yes, I completely agree that players should be allowed to create completely overheated mechs to get large alpha strikes.

But that doesn't overshadow other mechs. What is overshadowing are mechs that can mount smaller weapons but still deal as much damage as the larger weapons at MUCH better efficiencies. And this is because RoF being so high that it is much more efficient to equip an array of smaller heat efficient weapons than large weapons.

And when you make this game have lower RoF, trial mechs are in a much better position because while they are hot, other mechs can not mount the smaller weapons and constantly firing for the same damage.

In regards to better netcode/matchmaking/ect, this is being worked on. So it is a non-issue in this discussion. It will be fixed in due time.

If RoF was lowered without anything else, trial mechs would have a much rougher time. A new person is going to think their mech is made for firing its weapons as soon as it can in the heat of a battle. This will just lead to even more shutdown kills.

Not to mention Ballistic weapons which have almost no heat restrictions. An AC20 cat or a Gauss Cataphract could literally kill an Atlas in 4-5 hits. As it stands, AC20s and Gauss rifles have a recycle time of 4 seconds. They can already murder medium mechs easily, and if not for RoF, would kill a Hunchback coming around a corner before it could retreat. Also? SRM 6 Catapults. Recycle time of 4, and that's 90 damage per shot. They could kill an Atlas in roughly 4-5 shots at a distance, given random distribution, and in only 2-3 at close range.

Energy weapons would also just run much hotter. Sure, they could dish out more damage quickly, but that wouldn't help the heat efficiency. They would have to run from battle every few seconds to recharge their heat. Any given ballistic/missile build doesn't have to do that. At the very least they don't have to do it often.

However, I do like the idea of 2.0 DHS. You can read any of my previous posts for my reasoning on this.

[focuspark]

Shroomicide, on 12 December 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

SRM 6 Catapults. Recycle time of 4, and that's 90 damage per shot. They could kill an Atlas in roughly 4-5 shots at a distance, given random distribution, and in only 2-3 at close range.

Fitting 6xSRM6 means stupid slow and/or very low armor. Also, due to damage spread the likihood of this happening is extreamly low. Complete stawman argument here.

[HighTest]

focuspark, on 12 December 2012 - 09:41 AM, said:

Fitting 6xSRM6 means stupid slow and/or very low armor. Also, due to damage spread the likihood of this happening is extreamly low. Complete stawman argument here.

Umm... huh? A CPLT-A1 already has a 64km/h engine, near max armor, and already carries 14 tons of LRM-15s, with ammo. 6 SRMS6s would be 6x3 = 18 tons, plus ammo. Once you add Endo Streel (saves 3.25 tons) or DHS (saves tons, and both torsos are largely free to load them into) or strip the jump jets -- that isn't possible? Sounds pretty possible to me.

Actually, that sounds interesting. I might just build one today for giggles. See what I can do to some poor overheating Atlases and Awesomes.

[focuspark]

HighTest, on 12 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Umm... huh? A CPLT-A1 already has a 64km/h engine, near max armor, and already carries 14 tons of LRM-15s, with ammo. 6 SRMS6s would be 6x3 = 18 tons, plus ammo. Once you add Endo Streel (saves 3.25 tons) or DHS (saves tons, and both torsos are largely free to load them into) or strip the jump jets -- that isn't possible? Sounds pretty possible to me.

Actually, that sounds interesting. I might just build one today for giggles. See what I can do to some poor overheating Atlases and Awesomes.

Without Artemis SRMs are a real PITA. With Artemis SRM6 is 4 tons each, so 6x4 = 24 tons.

[HighTest]

True, Artemis would make it better. Agreed there.

But if you can catch an Atlas from point blank range behind it using 64 km/h and jump jets, even with regular SRMs, I think it would go badly for the Atlas.

I suppose you could always go with 4 ArtemisSRM6s at 16 tons and leave a couple of tons for even more ammo or a couple of MLAS on a C4. Still an up-to-70 point Alpha, and you still have a little recourse once you bury all of your SRMs into opponents' backs.

[focuspark]

6x SRM4 is better. Faster reload rate. ;-)

[HighTest]

Also true!

I love mech design theory -- that's the best part of the whole franchise. But I don't want to hijack this thread entirely, so feel free to PM me if you want to take this any further.

[Zyllos]

Shroomicide, on 12 December 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

If RoF was lowered without anything else, trial mechs would have a much rougher time. A new person is going to think their mech is made for firing its weapons as soon as it can in the heat of a battle. This will just lead to even more shutdown kills.

Not to mention Ballistic weapons which have almost no heat restrictions. An AC20 cat or a Gauss Cataphract could literally kill an Atlas in 4-5 hits. As it stands, AC20s and Gauss rifles have a recycle time of 4 seconds. They can already murder medium mechs easily, and if not for RoF, would kill a Hunchback coming around a corner before it could retreat. Also? SRM 6 Catapults. Recycle time of 4, and that's 90 damage per shot. They could kill an Atlas in roughly 4-5 shots at a distance, given random distribution, and in only 2-3 at close range.

Energy weapons would also just run much hotter. Sure, they could dish out more damage quickly, but that wouldn't help the heat efficiency. They would have to run from battle every few seconds to recharge their heat. Any given ballistic/missile build doesn't have to do that. At the very least they don't have to do it often.

However, I do like the idea of 2.0 DHS. You can read any of my previous posts for my reasoning on this.

How would lowering the RoF make trials rougher to handle?

I think you are thinking I mean lowering CD (which means increasing the RoF).

RoF = CD / Delta T

So if you decrease RoF, your increasing your CD or Delta T. But Delta T is just the amount of time passed, so the only variable to change is CD.

Increasing the CD means weapons produce less heat over time. Or, more weapons can be fired for the same heat.

[Zyllos]

Look, 4 Medium Lasers @ 3.0s CD produces 48 heat. And over a 10s time period, that is 4.8 heat per second. You would need 48 SHS to dissipate that much.

4 Medium Lasers @ 6.0s CD produces 16 heat. And over a 10s time period, that is 1.6 heat per second, or 16 SHS.

This is the problem with high RoF (low CD). The Solaris rules even had this problem. It invalidates larger, higher heat weapons due to high RoF.

The two most imbalancing factors in this game in are, in my opinion, weapon convergence and RoF.

If those two factors was made inline with the TT 10.0s, many of the issues with weapon balance would disappear. The only issue left standing is the usefulness of range. Range was extremely important in TT to have in TT but in this game, range is only mildly important.

[HighTest]

Zyllos, on 12 December 2012 - 10:44 AM, said:

Look, 4 Medium Lasers @ 3.0s CD produces 48 heat. And over a 10s time period, that is 4.8 heat per second. You would need 48 SHS to dissipate that much.

4 Medium Lasers @ 6.0s CD produces 16 heat. And over a 10s time period, that is 1.6 heat per second, or 16 SHS.

This is the problem with high RoF (low CD). The Solaris rules even had this problem. It invalidates larger, higher heat weapons due to high RoF.

The two most imbalancing factors in this game in are, in my opinion, weapon convergence and RoF.

If those two factors was made inline with the TT 10.0s, many of the issues with weapon balance would disappear. The only issue left standing is the usefulness of range. Range was extremely important in TT to have in TT but in this game, range is only mildly important.

Not to nitpick, but:
4 MLAS @ 3.0s would allow for 4 shots in 10 seconds, so produces 64 heat, or 6.4 (fire at 0,3,6,9s)
4 MLAS @ 6.0s would allow for 2 shots in 10 seconds, so produces 32 heat, or 3.2 (fire at 0,6s)

Either way, that does make sense, and it would increase the relative heat efficiency of every mech in the game if you changed the recycle rate (RoF) for all weapons across the board.

I guess my question is -- would that be any fun? Some people like to ride that thin line between high heat and overheat. Plus if you slow down the RoF too much, even basic combat might be too much "OK I'm in position, when the heck do I get to fire?"

As far as range goes, again, that makes it interesting. The varied ranges of weapons is what dictates your engagement strategy -- LRM/snipe from afar vs. up-close brawling, etc. If everything had the same range and different damages, people would only pick the weapons that had the best damage/heat ratio. Might get a tad boring, no?

Part of the problem with range is that the maps aren't quite big enough and radar is short range and based on line of sight. Usually by the time you can spot the enemy mechs, they're barreling straight at you (since they are headed to your base, which is generally behind you), so you only have time for a couple of long-range salvos maybe before they're on top of you. I think that's largely why most custom builds are focusing on close-range weaponry, because ultimately most battles degrade into circling and brawling. (Plus relative heat efficiencies of smaller weapons are better since DHS aren't 2.0x, so bigger weapons suffer). 2.0x DHS, bigger maps and/or a semi-intelligent radar might help this quite a bit.