200 replies to this topic

[MiG77]

Thontor, on 14 February 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Well, that's a completely different discussion... You wondered why MWO's heat capacity was 30+(heat dissipated per 10 seconds) and I think I explained why that is.

Whether or not its the best way for MWO to handle heat capacity is a different question.

Actually my point was that because increasing heat capacity causes more problems, why it is not fixed:)

[Particle Man]

if DHS arent good enough, dont use them.

[Yokaiko]

MiG77, on 14 February 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Sure, but making heat capasity fixed 45 (just example), would pretty much rule out 6PPC alpha builds etc

6PPC alpha builds are kind of a laugh, they are good now because fast brawlers are hard to come by, but they are seriously about the last thing I worry about unless everyonoe is playing peak a boo in a pug.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Muffinator, on 14 February 2013 - 03:04 AM, said:

You know what? I actually play the game heaps in all different weight classes and heat sink mechanics and heat balance are spot on. Heat is a tactical issue that you have to manage in your builds and in combat to be effective, exactly as it should be.

You got that right. I run an AWS-8Q with 3 ERPPCs and it's very heat efficient. The last thing I want is a hexa-PPC stalker belching out multiple alphastrikes and not shutting down.

[Yokaiko]

JohanssenJr, on 14 February 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

You got that right. I run an AWS-8Q with 3 ERPPCs and it's very heat efficient. The last thing I want is a hexa-PPC stalker belching out multiple alphastrikes and not shutting down.

That is easy, as we have been suggesting since they put DHS in only raise the cap ONE POINT per heatsink, be they double or single.

That way you are still cappping out with doubles at like 50, and that is with nothing but a couple lasers and a big engine.

[Deathlike]

Personally, I simply accept what the heat scale and cooling system is for the most part, because neither you nor I have any idea what ultimately this system is supposed to benefit or hurt. Changing it to classic TT or whatever customized scenario will change the complete dynamics of what is a feasible build in this game, and I believe the devs are very mindful of that.

The DHS short changing aspect IMO is to stop light (and bigger) mechs from dumbing down their engine so much as to benefit from tonnage savings for use in other things.

Also, the coolrun bonus is a major factor (especially when doubled) as something that has to be considered.

Having DHS outside the engine being limited is supposed to suppress the effectiveness of larger mechs (heavies and assaults) from using their free tonnage to cover really strong heat/energy dependent build. Imagine the 6 PPC/ERPPC boats becoming significantly more effective...

Although, the greatest benefit of the current system is for lights (and meds) is to be able to use reasonably stronger weapon loadouts that probably would not be possible... adjusting the current DHS # in the engines would certainly decrease the DPS on lighter mechs.

A fixed number for DHS across the board would probably not work as it would still favor heavier mechs than it would light mechs.

[MustrumRidcully]

Thontor, on 14 February 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Because essentially, that's how it worked in TT. If you extrapolite the 10 second turn as happening in real time.

Let's say you have a stock AWS-8Q.. you have 3 PPCs (and a small laser) and 28 heat sinks

At the start of the 10 seconds represented by the turn, you fire your 3 ppcs and your heat spikes to 30. Then over the next 10 seconds your heat sinks dissapate 28 heat, leaving 2 heat.. and this is what is shown on your heat scale at the end of the turn.

so essentially, the TT heat scale is 30 + Heat dissipated by your heat sinks per 10 seconds.

If it was just a fixed heat capacity of 30 in TT, your heat would spike to 30.. and this would shut you down immediately.

Yes, that's the logic behind it. But it's flawed.

There is nothing demanding you to fire these 3 PPCs at once. Why not chain fire them? Fire the first PPC, fire the second PPC 3 seconds later, the third PPC 6 seconds later. Repeat at 10 seconds. Result is that you reach your full rate of fire for PPCs (well, in this example, it's 1 shot per 10 seconds), and thus your expected DPS. But you don't fire it all together.

This basically means that maybe the reason why Battletech doesn't have convergence and instead requires you to make an attack roll for every shot - mechs are not safely able to fire all weapons together at once -it's already "hot enough" if they fire them chained!

This fits some of the lore/novel descriptions of mech fights as well, where eve a single shot with a PPC can lead to a notable heat spike that has the mech pilot worried.

[Vlad Ward]

I haven't read this thread, but I just wanted to point out that OP forgot to take the 15% Coolrun bonus into account when comparing TT DHS to MWO DHS. This results in a faulty premise from the get-go. You don't actually get less overall heat dissipation per sink until your 15th DHS (assuming Engine>250).

Edited by Vlad Ward, 14 February 2013 - 01:39 PM.

[AndyHill]

I ran a quick check to see how true doubles would affect the PPC-Stalker. For one example build the effect is 12,7% - or 1,8 extra true double sinks. ( http://mwo.smurfy-ne...07939d7c2043968 )

It's not an insignificant amount, but not a revolution. As we can see from the result (PPC Stalkers exist), it certainly does not stop PPC boats.

Edited by AndyHill, 14 February 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[FiveDigits]

Thontor, on 14 February 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Sustained DPS is irrelevant. That is simply the DPS capability after you have reached a heat level where the next shot would put you past 100% heat.

You are missing the point.. it's the amount of damage that can be dished out before that heat level is reached.

And we should take into account all relevant mech efficiences, because you have to assume that everyone will have those at some point.

so..

[...]

total damage done: 180

-------------------------

now let's try that with true 2.0 DHS

[...]

total damage done: 270

As I said earlier, in the post you quoted, 50% more shots at full rate of fire dealing 7.95 DPS

I rest my case

How can sustained DPS be "irrelevant"? The difference is three more shots for 90 damage (big deal). After that you are back in sustained DPS land.

What is irrelevant when looking at DPS potential and the effect of DHS implementation on it are the pilot efficiencies as they just apply linear scaling. They do now and they would with real DHS.

Do I really need to show you how the current HBK-4SP beats the true DHS Cicada in total damage done at any given time?

Both mechs fire in 4 sec intervals. SRM6s have a cooldown of 4 sec. MLAS have 1 sec burn time and then a cooldown of 3sec. I will not include Fast Fire as it would push the SRM6 and MLAS out of sync. Remember, it's just a flat scaling modifier that doesn't change the outcome of the comparison. I will include Cool Run and Heat Containment though to get closer to "real world" values.

HBK-4SP
4 MLAS, 2 SRM6, 10 DHS @ 2.0, 6 DHS @ 1.4
 
damage per alpha: 50.0
heat per alpha: 24.0
heat per second: 6.0
heat cap: 64.24 (58.4 +10%)
heat dissipation: 3.27 (2.84 +15%)
 
time | damage | heat
00s |	 50 | 24.00
04s |   100 | 34.94
08s |   150 | 45.88
12s |   200 | 56.83
16s |   250 | 67.76 (overheat)
 
--
 
CDA-2A
6 MLAS, 20 DHS @ 2.0
 
damage per alpha: 30.0
heat per alpha: 24.0
heat per second: 6.0
heat cap: 77.0 (70.0 + 10%)
heat dissipation: 4.6 (4.0 + 15%)
 
time | damage | heat
00s |	 30 | 24.00
04s |	 60 | 29.96
08s |	 90 | 35.29
12s |   120 | 41.88
16s |   150 | 47.84
20s |   180 | 53.80
24s |   210 | 59.76
28s |   240 | 65.72
32s |   270 | 71.68
35s |   300 | 77.64 (overheat)

It takes the HBK-4SP four alphas at full rate of fire to do 200 damage. It would overheat on the fifth. So it is now down to it's sustained DPS of 5.88.
That means it would do 5.88 * 4 = 23.52 more damage every 4s interval after the fourth without overheating.
By the time the Cicada fires its last full DPS volley (32s) the HBK-4SP has done 5 * 23.52 = 117.6 more damage bringing its total output to 317.6 at 32s.
The Cicada is at 270 damage at 32s having fired at full DPS in the mean time.
From 35s on both mechs deal damage at their sustained DPS rates: 5.88 DPS for the HBK-4SP with current mixed DHS, 5.0 DPS for the hypothetical CDA-2A with true 2.0 DHS.

So, in conclusion, neither does the Cicada do more total damage before overheating than the Hunchback does in the same time nor does it do more sustained DPS.

Edited by FiveDigits, 14 February 2013 - 04:18 PM.

[DrBlue62]

To those of you saying to switch the internal and slotted DHS values.

That's a terrible idea.

You're nerfing everything that can't mount a minimum of 10 External DHS. Most mechs cannot do that without destroying their crit slots.

There is no cerdible issue of Lights and Mediums getting a significant advantage over Heavies and assaults when using DHS. This small advantage is further reduced when Cool Run and Doubled Cool Run is taken in to account which makes up for most DHS inefficiencies as the Developers had intended.

[FiveDigits]

Thontor, on 14 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Sustained DPS is irrelevant because for the Cicada, if you reach your heat limit you can just run away.

and why are you comparing the Cicada vs the Hunchback..

this is about the current double heat sinks vs all 2.0 double heat sinks.. and how much it would buff mechs that use a lot of additional DHS

I am comparing a Hunchback under current DHS mechanics to a Cicada with potential real DHS to show that there is nothing game breaking about it.

And how is sustained DPS not relevant when the Hunchback does more damage without running away to cool down than the Cicada that does disengage?

[Lightfoot]

DrBlue62, on 14 February 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

To those of you saying to switch the internal and slotted DHS values.

That's a terrible idea.

You're nerfing everything that can't mount a minimum of 10 External DHS. Most mechs cannot do that without destroying their crit slots.

There is no cerdible issue of Lights and Mediums getting a significant advantage over Heavies and assaults when using DHS. This small advantage is further reduced when Cool Run and Doubled Cool Run is taken in to account which makes up for most DHS inefficiencies as the Developers had intended.

Well, what I think flipping the DHS 1.4's to the default Engine DHS and the 2.0's to External DHS is better Heat Management balance because the DHS 1.4 value would not be enough and thus it would be raised to a valid viable amount, like 1.7.

Having Ballistic Boats running around without ever overheating is not Heat Management as described in Battletech or previous MechWarrior games.

[Bleary]

MustrumRidcully, on 14 February 2013 - 02:51 AM, said:

I think one of the biggest problems with the current implementation is that it rewards lights and mediums considerably.

It's obviously designed to reward lights and mediums. Is that a problem? With the exception of the 3L (which is a mobile ECM platform) light and medium 'Mechs aren't exactly tearing it up.

[Bleary]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

You know what would have been adhering to KISS when you increase rate of fire to about thrice of that in TT for your real time game?

• Decrease damage and heat production of all weapons to one third.
  
• Triple ammo per ton.
  
• Keep SHS and DHS as they are.

What did PGI do?

• Keep damage and heat of weapons at TT values.
  
• Double armor.
  
• Tweak LRM damage.
  
• Tweak SRM damage.
  
• Tweak heat values of various weapons ... repeatedly.
  
• Introduce a convoluted DHS mechanic with non-linear returns.

And they are still nowhere near balance. I wonder why ...

Sure they are. SRMs work. Lasers work. PPCs work. ACs mostly work. LRMs would work if ECM wasn't so prevalent. The only completely broken weapons at the moment are the machine gun, flamer, and LB-10X.

The weapons in tabletop Battletech are hilariously unbalanced. Decreasing weapon heat by one third to keep them in line with TT values would've been a terrible idea.

And even if you don't agree with all of that, like it or not, the game is already committed to the current heat dissipation model. If we are actually talking about the game we have as it exists now, the KISS option is to keep making minor tweaks to existing weapon heat values, not totally revamping how DHS work.

Edited by Bleary, 14 February 2013 - 09:46 PM.

[CrashieJ]

ok how bout a test that we can have in MWO
have EVERYTHING at TT values, from A-Z
keep the FPS/SIM skin and gameplay
see how balanced the game is.

no, just do it and then come back to me, I want to know if it is more or less balanced.
seriously, I freaking want to know.

[DrBlue62]

Lightfoot, on 14 February 2013 - 08:32 PM, said:

Well, what I think flipping the DHS 1.4's to the default Engine DHS and the 2.0's to External DHS is better Heat Management balance because the DHS 1.4 value would not be enough and thus it would be raised to a valid viable amount, like 1.7.

Having Ballistic Boats running around without ever overheating is not Heat Management as described in Battletech or previous MechWarrior games.

Ballistic boats do overheat, they also sacrifice a lot in tonnage, are restricted by ammo and have the ability to fully miss their shots and when they're out of ammo. They're kaput. In my experience, the 3x UAC 5 builds or 4x UAC5 AC5 combo builds are effective but they have more than one Achilles heel.

[sC4r]

to op:
http://mwomercs.com/...l-dhs-whinners/

i just made it for you and the likes of you please read

[AndyHill]

Some people have made a good point about going back and rethinking the entire heat mechanism is hard to do at this time. The game is theoretically in beta, which would make it possible, but the situation in reality is different. However, at least the people lobbying for a change have been consistent, one of the reasons for the outcry before going open beta was the feeling that the game was not ready for fine tuning but required drastic changes instead.

In my opinion the current balance is reactionary and based on treating symptoms. It does work somewhat, but every change done because of a symptom makes the underlying system more complex. Such a complex system is inherently vulnerable to any changes and changes are coming (Spoiler: Kerensky's people are going to attack at some point). I don't think the clans are going to appear very soon, but I bet PGI are currently facing a huge game balance challenge because of them. If you think nerfing PPC boat Stalkers, Splatapults and Streak Cats would make the game balanced, get ready for a _nasty_ surprise. The clan 'mechs ALL have boating potential on a massive scale that dwarfs any of the existing designs.

If the game mechanics are already being stretched to the limits by some designs (as I feel they are), the clans will simply rip them apart. Or be nerfed to heck in a desperate attempt to cure symptoms once more, causing facepalms and worse across the mechwarrioring people. I'm curious to see how things play out.

[Aluminum Adjuivant From Vaccines]

The impact of OP's post is like a ^{nuclear explosion} on Korean peninsula–no one really cares, and things are going to stay the same.

*EDIT LOL, I HAVE A SECOND ACCOUNT, WTH. I FORGOT THAT.

Edited by John Basilone, 14 February 2013 - 11:47 PM.