108 replies to this topic

[Syllogy]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 December 2012 - 08:44 AM, said:

But was that a problem of the Medium Laser, or was it a problem of DHS?

Because I can tell you, you couldn't alpha strike 3 PPCs with real Double Heat Sinks, and they deliver less damage than 8 medium lasers. And you can already alpha strike 2 Gauss Rifles with single heat sinks for 5 minutes without ever overheating.

If you were to employ 9 medium lasers in an Alpha strike, you generate 36 heat per Alpha Strike.

3 PPC's would generate 27 heat per Alpha Strike.

So 3 PPC's is more heat efficient than 9 medium lasers, so you could keep Alpha striking them even longer than the Medium laser test.

You could even go with 4 PPC's, and achieve the same heat generation, so you could be doing 40 damage every 3 seconds for 2 minutes and never overheat.

That's 1600 damage in 120 seconds, and never overheating.

Edited by Syllogy, 10 December 2012 - 08:54 AM.

[DeadlyNerd]

Syllogy, on 10 December 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

If you were to employ 9 medium lasers in an Alpha strike, you generate 36 heat per Alpha Strike.

3 PPC's would generate 27 heat per Alpha Strike.

So 3 PPC's is more heat efficient than 9 medium lasers, so you could keep Alpha striking them even longer than the Medium laser test.

You could even go with 4 PPC's, and achieve the same heat generation, so you could be doing 40 damage every 3 seconds for 2 minutes and never overheat.

That's 1600 damage in 120 seconds, and never overheating.

U mean 9 med lasers are 27 alpha and 3 PPCs are 30 alpha. so lets see, 45 damage vs 30 damage at better heat efficiency.

EDIT: Oh and lets not forget the 9 tonnes of med lasers vs 21 tonnes of PPCs. See where I'm going with this?

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 10 December 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[Syllogy]

DeadlyNerd, on 10 December 2012 - 08:59 AM, said:

U mean 9 med lasers are 27 alpha and 3 PPCs are 30 alpha. so lets see, 45 damage vs 30 damage at better heat efficiency.

Medium lasers generate 4 heat per laser per shot.

9 x 4 = 36 heat per Alpha Strike.

PPC's generate 9 heat per PPC per shot.

4 x 9 = 36 heat per Alpha Strike.

45 damage with Medium lasers vs. 40 damage with PPC's.

120 seconds / 3 sec (Recycle) = 40 shots * 40 damage = 1600 damage.

The benefit of PPC's is that they do all of their damage to 1 component at a faster rate of fire than lasers, which do their damage over the course of their duration and is more likely to be spread out over a number of components.

In either case, the ability to do such massive damage over 2 minutes without overheating is absurd.

Gauss rifles are moot since they rely on Ammunition to do damage over time, not on heat dissipation.

Edited by Syllogy, 10 December 2012 - 09:07 AM.

[DeadlyNerd]

http://www.ign.com/w...rior-online/PPC

http://www.ign.com/w...ne/Medium_Laser

And don't go with "over time damage". As if it's hard to keep a steady aim while shooting the laser which lasts a few seconds. Also the laser doesn't spread damage, PPC does. Also a PPC flies, laser is instant.

Seriously tho this is a DHS thread, not med vs PPC thread, and you're still failing at comparing the 2.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 10 December 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 10 December 2012 - 08:53 AM, said:

If you were to employ 9 medium lasers in an Alpha strike, you generate 36 heat per Alpha Strike.

3 PPC's would generate 27 heat per Alpha Strike.

So 3 PPC's is more heat efficient than 9 medium lasers, so you could keep Alpha striking them even longer than the Medium laser test.

You could even go with 4 PPC's, and achieve the same heat generation, so you could be doing 40 damage every 3 seconds for 2 minutes and never overheat.

That's 1600 damage in 120 seconds, and never overheating.

You spend 8 tons on 8 Medium Lasers that fire for 24 heat every 4 seconds. I spend 21 tons on 3 PPCs that fire for 27 heat every 3 seconds.

3 PPC DPS: 10
3 PPC HPS: 9
8 ML DPS: 10
8 ML HPS: 8

You can have 13 extra heat sinks. If they are single heat sinks, that's -1.3 HPS per turn. If they are double heat sinks, that's now -1.82 HPS:

So,for the same tonnage:
8 Medium Lasers and 13 extra heat sinks generate 10 DPS and 6.18 HPS.
3 PPCs generate 10 DPS and 9 HPS.

And for Bonus:
You could also take 9 Medium Lasers and 12 extra heat sinks 11.25 DPS and 7.23 HPS
Or 10 Medium Lasers and 11 extra heat sinks for 12.5 DPS and 8.46 HPS.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 December 2012 - 09:12 AM.

[Syllogy]

DeadlyNerd, on 10 December 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

http://www.ign.com/w...rior-online/PPC

http://www.ign.com/w...ne/Medium_Laser

And don't go with "over time damage". As if it's hard to keep a steady aim while shooting the laser which lasts a few seconds. Also the laser doesn't spread damage, PPC does.

Seriously tho this is a DHS thread, not med vs PPC thread, and you're still failing at comparing the 2.

The PPC heat generation on that website is incorrect.

http://mwomercs.com/...s-excel-inside/

MustrumRidcully, on 10 December 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

You spend 8 tons on 8 Medium Lasers that fire for 24 heat every 4 seconds. I spend 21 tons on 3 PPCs that fire for 27 heat every 3 seconds.

3 PPC DPS: 10
3 PPC HPS: 9
8 ML DPS: 10
8 ML HPS: 8

You can have 13 extra heat sinks. If they are single heat sinks, that's -1.3 HPS per turn. If they are double heat sinks, that's now -1.82 HPS:

So,for the same tonnage:
8 Medium Lasers and 13 extra heat sinks generate 10 DPS and 6.18 HPS.
3 PPCs generate 10 DPS and 9 HPS.

This is MWO, not Table Top.

Turns do not exist.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 10 December 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

Turns do not exist.

I believe you quoted the wrong post.
And the post that I remember using turns I used it interchangeably with "salvoes". And salvos do exist in MW:O.

[focuspark]

Rocket2Uranus, on 09 December 2012 - 01:27 PM, said:

try again. DHS *needs* to be as is, because of the Trial Mechs that new players use.
if all owned mechs had 2.0 DHS, Trial mechs would be plowed down even faster than they get plowed right now.

So you agree with me? Your words seemingly agree with me but your tone suggests that you do not.

Regardless of all this bickering are DHS actually broken as is? I assert that they are not. I run a 2x PPC + 2 LL CAT-K2 and heat management is fine. I do good damage and have a high survivability so long as some annoying light doesn't close to quickly. PPCs craptasticness is due to min-range not heat issues IMO.

Yes I understand that lexiconally "double" means twice and that the actual heat dissipation of DHS is only 1.4. Oh the travesty! Seriously, this is what people are complaining about.

The whole Ballistics vs Energy weapons discussion is a separate issue, even though I understand that heat plays a role in it.

[Syllogy]

focuspark, on 10 December 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

I assert that they are not. I run a 2x PPC + 2 LL CAT-K2 and heat management is fine. I do good damage and have a high survivability so long as some annoying light doesn't close to quickly. PPCs craptasticness is due to min-range not heat issues IMO.

Yes I understand that lexiconally "double" means twice and that the actual heat dissipation of DHS is only 1.4. Oh the travesty! Seriously, this is what people are complaining about.

The whole Ballistics vs Energy weapons discussion is a separate issue, even though I understand that heat plays a role in it.

You and I don't typically agree.

However, for this, i have to give you a +1 for Truth.

I run 2 Large Lasers, 2 UAC 5's, and 3 SRM6's on my Atlas, and I rarely have heat issues when using DHS, even on Caustic Valley.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 10 December 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

You and I don't typically agree.

However, for this, i have to give you a +1 for Truth.

I run 2 Large Lasers, 2 UAC 5's, and 3 SRM6's on my Atlas, and I rarely have heat issues when using DHS, even on Caustic Valley.

You're using the weapons that either never needed DHS to work, or were rebalanced about four times so they would work somewhat reasonable with single heat sinks.

[Syllogy]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 December 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

You're using the weapons that either never needed DHS to work, or were rebalanced about four times so they would work somewhat reasonable with single heat sinks.

Before DHS, I had major heat issues.

By upgrading to DHS, my heat feels much more manageable, and my damage per match has gone up considerably.

DHS is worth the upgrade, but you might have to sacrifice where your ammo goes, or even how much you bring to a fight.

[focuspark]

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

Do you think in Star Craft 2 you should get an advantage over the newbie because you spent twelve hours longer playing the game than him?

If this is a game of unlocking the baddest mech, sure, but this is a multiplayer game, not something with 'YOU ARE LEVEL 50 YOU NOW CURBSTOMP LEVEL FIVE NOOBIES.'

StarCraft 2 isn't an MMO. It's a single player networked game. At best it's a multiplayer online game, completely lacking the "massively" and persistence. It is designed this way by Blizzard to avoid competing with thier bread winner World of WarCraft.

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

I was running it on _single_ heat sinks. I'm pretty sure that's what I said. _Single_ heat sinks. And I recently gave the Awesome in trial a go, and, y'know what? It's still an effective machine. You just use it to engage at PPC range. Which is 500-600 metres, boosted up a tad thanks to the ER PPCs.

Awesome, another vote for "you don't need DHS and really don't need DHS to be 2.0 HDR"

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

Edit: Re spending C-bills to be Pay2Win? You convert MC into C-bills very, very rapdily by buying a mech with MC and selling it for C-bills. We used to do this in closed beta after a reset with the 'free' MC they gave us so we could customize mechs.

Yup, sure. This is great. Why? Because it's an additional incentive for people to purchase MC and MC is what keeps PGIGP in business and MWO going. Without the sale of MC the whole show comes to a stop and we can all just go home.

[MustrumRidcully]

Syllogy, on 10 December 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Before DHS, I had major heat issues.

By upgrading to DHS, my heat feels much more manageable, and my damage per match has gone up considerably.

DHS is worth the upgrade, but you might have to sacrifice where your ammo goes, or even how much you bring to a fight.

Oh, DHS is undoubtedly worth the upgrade. Just for the engine heat sinks alone.

The problem is not that it isn't an upgrade, the problem is that stock mechs that relied on DHS will be even worse than the existing stock mechs that are based on SHS.

PGI should have, from the start, worked to balance the stock configurations to be reasonably balanced, to have the type of heat problems they had (if any) from the table top. Or they should have just forgotten about stocks and made their own mechs, customized for their game.

The current approach is just horrible, and decisions like DHS 2.0/1.4 are just adding on top of it. It frustrates me to no end that they didn't show more cleverness here.

Unless I am assuming competence before malevolence, as usual, and the true reason they made the system as is was to make stock mechs horrible and force people to buy new mechs as fast as possible.

I want to sit in one of their game designer meetings where they discuss weapon and mech balance and actually show them the errors of their ways, and I fully know how fracking arrogant that sounds. But it's just so damn frustrating that we could bring this up in Closed Beta and it was ignored - not even discussed, not even disproven, just ignored, and it keeps doing that. What's the point of the Beta?

And there are so many other things still to consider. 3049+ is a time of transition to new, more advanced tech in the Battletech Universe. Tech that majorly affects how mechs are designed, and how the game is played. All these upgrades will affect the pace of the game considerably, and it seems to me as if PGI never really thought about how to deal with this. If this game is sitll around in 2 years and the Clan wars is in full motion, and Clan mechs are around that can twice the firepower 3025 mechs will arrive, but still have the same armour levels, they will have another big pacing problem at their hand...
And how can I believe they will be able to handle this if they made their first mistake in translating the ruleset when they made their rate of fire changes without considering how it affects heat generation/dissipation... and when they see "heat management is important" but still say "we may add other heat effects at a later data"....
[/nerdrage]

[focuspark]

CBT/TT stock mech are going to suck in MWO. They're completely different games. PGIGP should design all the "stock" mechs to work in MWO or people just need to get over the fact that a mech optimized for a turn base table top game isn't going to be great in a real time first person shooter / mech simulator.

[MustrumRidcully]

focuspark, on 10 December 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

CBT/TT stock mech are going to suck in MWO. They're completely different games. PGIGP should design all the "stock" mechs to work in MWO or people just need to get over the fact that a mech optimized for a turn base table top game isn't going to be great in a real time first person shooter / mech simulator.

But it could be good. It just depends on how you implement it. But in the end, it may be irrelevant what they choose - rebalance the game so that stocks make sense, or make stocks that are working for this game, as long as they don't keep what they are having - a mess of shoehorning mechs from another game into a game that works just too different.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 10 December 2012 - 10:05 AM.

[HighTest]

I figured I'd just post a link to my previous topic on this subject, in case PGI is actually reading this one.

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

On the discussion of Medium Lasers vs. PPCs... AAAAGH! NOT ALL WEAPONS SHOULD BE BALANCED THE SAME. Lasers are not PPCs and never will be, and vice versa. If you're going to load up 21 tons of PPC, it sure as heck better do more damage than 8 tons of MLAS, because otherwise why the heck would anyone bother with PPCs? We'd all be cruising around in 9-MLAS Hunchbacks and that's it.

If it wasn't for hardpoints, I'd just cram 25 MLAS on an Atlas and be done with it... 125 damage per Alpha, sweeeeet. Oh wait -- aren't hardpoints already a balance?

Besides, where in any logical world is everything 'balanced'? Oh, right -- iPad vs. Playbook. Ferrari vs. Hyundai. F-35 vs. Spitfire. Plasma vs. CRT TVs.

If you want balance, let's just make every mech the same, all run at 64 kp/h, same armor, same heat dissipation, and one medium laser sticking out of somewhere. There, now we're all balanced. That should be great fun...!

Anyone can acquire DHS with simple play time (CBills). What is unbalanced about that?

I have yet to hear one logical reason where DHS should not be 2.0x.

[DeadlyNerd]

Syllogy, on 10 December 2012 - 09:12 AM, said:

The PPC heat generation on that website is incorrect.

http://mwomercs.com/...s-excel-inside/

I'm not going to question mwo wiki although it's definitely possible. Still 50% damage boost from MLs for just a 30% heat increase. You may talk about alpha overheating all you want but your own numbers still fail you as THAT is not a valid heat vs damage tradeoff.

Again, 9 vs 21 tonnes.

PPCs, LLs, LPLs, ER LLs and ER PPCs should come with built in heatsinks, and those heatsinks should be DHS 2.0, just like the engine DHSs. That way the heat efficiency of mechs using them could be balanced without making other mechs, not using them, OP.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 10 December 2012 - 11:44 AM.

[HighTest]

Doubt you'll ever see HS built into weapons as the franchise never allowed for that, at least as far as I know. But if you actually made double heatsinks really double (2.0x), the math does work out a little more sanely and you'd find you would have quite a bit more flexibility in mounting weapons.

[MustrumRidcully]

HighTest, on 10 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

I
If it wasn't for hardpoints, I'd just cram 25 MLAS on an Atlas and be done with it... 125 damage per Alpha, sweeeeet. Oh wait -- aren't hardpoints already a balance?

Nope, hard points cannot really serve as balance, because there will be new mechs that will need new hard points, and at some point, broken combinations will be possible again.

Quote

If you want balance, let's just make every mech the same, all run at 64 kp/h, same armor, same heat dissipation, and one medium laser sticking out of somewhere. There, now we're all balanced. That should be great fun...!

Please, not that strawman.

I am not arguing that all weapons need to have the exact same stats. That's like saying that all weights must be the same, otherwise scales cannot possibly function.

[focuspark]

HighTest, on 10 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

NOT ALL WEAPONS SHOULD BE BALANCED

You sir are looking for a single-player game. This is not that game.

Nothing to see here.

Edited by focuspark, 10 December 2012 - 12:39 PM.