67 replies to this topic

[FerretGR]

Particle Man, on 10 December 2012 - 08:21 PM, said:

or for the opposite reason: to keep this game from devolving into laserboat online and to give people reasons to use something OTHER than lasers.

If they made ERLLs and PPCs viable, would you stop using ballistics?

I think the gauss and UAC and whatnot will always have a place. No matter what they do to make these unviable weapons work, people will still prefer ballistics if they currently do.

[Thragen]

Ultimately, whatever value PGI settles on 2.0, 1.4, etc... they need to have 1 and only 1 value for heatsinks. Having only one value will eliminate some if not all of the advantage that lights have over heavier mechs with respect to dissipating heat i.e. lighter mechs will have to use more of the tonnage available to them for heat dissipation. Couple this with some tweaking of the heat values of certain weapons ( ml, erLL, LL, ppc, erppc ) and I think they'll have a "reasonably" balanced game.

[Joseph Mallan]

FerretGR, on 11 December 2012 - 06:33 AM, said:

If they made ERLLs and PPCs viable, would you stop using ballistics?

I think the gauss and UAC and whatnot will always have a place. No matter what they do to make these unviable weapons work, people will still prefer ballistics if they currently do.

Maybe. i played my first 2-3 years with nothing but energy weapons cause I wanted to reduce ammo explosions. A PPC is a good match for an AC10 on TT. 13 heat sinks and a PPC make a Panther a fair Light fire Support mech. providing long guns to cover Jenners as they approach. Hell 13 singles are supposed to be enough to handle a PPC and running!

[Lonestar1771]

Nillavi, on 11 December 2012 - 06:30 AM, said:

Seriously guys, 2.0 DHS already exists. Internal engine heat sinks are already at 2.0 once you purchase the upgrade for it, and only heat sinks outside the engine are 1.4 (this includes slotted heat sinks).

So, no, your Jenner wouldn't see much benefit at all from externals being converted to 2.0 because you use barely any externals to begin with.

Umm that's the point. It's BS that PGI favors light mechs over heavies and assaults. Assaults hardly benefit from the frankenstein heat sinks because they have to add more out side of the engine, where lights typically only use the engine HS. Nobody here is saying that the jenner needs 2.0 DHS, they are saying assaults need 2.0 DHS.

[MaddMaxx]

Zaptruder, on 10 December 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

So that players will continue favouring ammo based weapons, to keep the c-bill sink up, and by extension the desire to buy premium time up.

Search within yourselves mechwarriors. You know this to be the truth.

Then the recent introduction of ECM was obviously a C-Bill sink reversal mistake on their part...

[Byk]

1.4 heatsinks are fine. I get them in every mech and they literally make all of my heat problems go away, usually with just the engine double heat sinks. Anything more than 1.4 would be ridiculous. I do make very heat neutral builds to begin with, and that may have some effect on my experiences.

[MustrumRidcully]

Byk, on 11 December 2012 - 09:19 AM, said:

1.4 heatsinks are fine. I get them in every mech and they literally make all of my heat problems go away, usually with just the engine double heat sinks. Anything more than 1.4 would be ridiculous. I do make very heat neutral builds to begin with, and that may have some effect on my experiences.

I am not sure why I even bother.

If you follow it to its logical conclusion:
1) Any "reasonable" strength (e.g not 10-Tuple Heat Sinks, but even QUintuple Heat Sinks) of heat sinks will not make heat go away or irrelevant. Good builds will always rely on heating up a bit, so they can get more DPS when it counts (before the enemy is dead) and not when it doesn't count anymore (after the enemy or your mech is destroyed)
2) Heat Sink upgrades affect the pace of the game. THe better heat sinks, the more weapons people can use, and the more damage can be put out, and the shorter mechs last in a firefight. The real question is - what level of heat sinks would make the game too fast, and how can we still have balanced weapons, and viable stock mechs, without making this game a twitchy version of Hawken with hit locations.

[nom de guerre]

Zaptruder, on 10 December 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

So that players will continue favouring ammo based weapons, to keep the c-bill sink up, and by extension the desire to buy premium time up.

Search within yourselves mechwarriors. You know this to be the truth.

I run a balistics/srm atlas and pay for R/R every match w/o premium and make $ you don't need premium to run any mech in game currently.