200 replies to this topic

[FiveDigits]

Most people are probably familiar with how Double Heat Sinks (DHS) work in MW:O right now.

• Engines up to a rating of 250 hold one DHS per 25 rating (10 max.) which work like true Double Heat Sinks (+2.0 heat threshold, 0.2 heat per second dissipation).
  
• All additional DHS are "poor dubs" or "crap sinks" operating at +1.4 heat threshold and 0.14 HPS dissipation.
  
  • those slotted in engines of 275 rating or more at one per 25 rating
    
  • those mounted on the chassis

The effects of this are:

• Going below 250 engine rating is inefficient
  
• Mechs who almost exclusively use in-engine heat sinks benefit from "real" DHS.
  
• Mechs with many (external) heat sinks get short changed on tonnage and crit slots spent for DHS.

To better illustrate this situation I have created two charts.



The first chart shows the effective heat sinks (EHS) for various combinations of total DHS and engine rating. Total DHS ranges from the enforced minimum of 10 to 22, the maximum I have ever remotely been able to cram into a reasonable mech build. I have ommitted engine ratings below 200 as they are rarely used.



The red bar shows the difference in EHS of the current implementation to canon Double Heat Sinks. It is evident that the loss in EHS increases the more (external) DHS you mount. The second chart illustrates this as a percentage of EHS lost per installed DHS.



This implementation of DHS

• is arbitrary and inconsistent.
  
• disadvantages high heat builds on large mechs.
  
• is unnecessarily complicated for new players.
  
• limits engine choice.

Please PGI, rethink this design as it serves no purpose.

--

Update: Many possible fixes for the current implementation have been suggested in this thread and elsewhere. Please vote here for what you consider to be the best alternative implementation.

Edited by FiveDigits, 15 March 2013 - 04:38 AM.

[Texas Merc]

thats alot of graphs, is there a test?

[Dr Killinger]

I agree that certain mechs are being punished with not only DHS, but the current upgrade system in general.

[hashinshin]

I remember when this was a relevant topic.

[FiveDigits]

Texas Merc, on 14 February 2013 - 02:22 AM, said:

[...] is there a test?

What test? The mechanics are well understood and have been confirmed by the devs. The charts were created using very simple maths.

hashinshin, on 14 February 2013 - 02:32 AM, said:

I remember when this was a relevant topic.

It remains relevant as long as it remains in its sorry state.

Edited by FiveDigits, 14 February 2013 - 02:35 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think one of the biggest problems with the current implementation is that it rewards lights and mediums considerably. They get 20 free heat sinks to start with from the engine, and you can run with 5 medium lasers without investing a single heat sink and alpha for 12 seoconds or so consequence free. But if you're a heavy or assault that just wants to use 4 Large Lasers, you must invest a lot of tonnage extra in the weapon, and you also produce so much more heat that you need a bunch of extra heat sinks on top, and you only can get them at "poor dub" rates now.

It would be better to put them all on the same value. Simply take a benchmark heat sink amount, and go from there.

Say, we assume the average number of DHS is 15 (10 internal, 5 external). That's 27 effective SHS for 15 DHS. That would put a DHS at effectively 1.8 rate. If you had less than 15 DHS beore the change, you lose heat sink ability, if you had more, you gain.
Or you put it at 20 (10 internal, 10 external). That's 34 effective SHS for 20 DHS. That would the DHS at effectively 1.7 rate. That means anyone with less than 20 DHS would lose abit of heat sink capabilities, anyone with more would gain.
(In my opinion, few people wil lever get more than 20 DHS, so the 1.8 rate seems more reasonable than the 1.7 rate.

[Dagnome]

Oh oh I love it when people make their own graphs. I think the OP missed the DHS frenzy threads.

[GalaxyBluestar]

why can't internal heatsinks be based on the engine tonnage? that way you can have a system that regulates the light mech engines and the assault mech engines accordingly. a 10ton engine carries 1 extra internal heatsink but a 50ton engine carries many many internal heatsink. then dhs can have a standard value regardless of placement in and/or outside the engine.

light's don't get effective cooling to alpha assaults rear armour in 3 seconds and assaults can use 3-5 alphas before a stupis shutdown.

okay i have hardly thought any of this through so i'll let others do something with the idea.

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 February 2013 - 02:58 AM.

[FiveDigits]

Dagnome, on 14 February 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

[...] I think the OP missed the DHS frenzy threads.

No, review them and you'll find posts from me in almost all of them.

The topic needs to be brought up ad nauseum until PGI reacts. I thought some graphs might help inform people who've been oblivious of the problem up until now. I also thought the relative loss of EHS per installed DHS was an interesting new angle.

Edited by FiveDigits, 14 February 2013 - 03:01 AM.

[WolvesX]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

Most people are probably familiar with how Double Heat Sinks (DHS) work in MW:O right now.

• Engines up to a rating of 250 hold one DHS per 25 rating (10 max.) which work like true Double Heat Sinks (+2.0 heat threshold, 0.2 heat per second dissipation).
  
• All additional DHS are "poor dubs" or "crap sinks" operating at +1.4 heat threshold and 0.14 HPS dissipation.
  
  • those slotted in engines of 275 rating or more at one per 25 rating
    
  • those mounted on the chassis

The effects of this are:

• Going below 250 engine rating is inefficient
  
• Mechs who almost exclusively use in-engine heat sinks benefit from "real" DHS.
  
• Mechs with many (external) heat sinks get short changed on tonnage and crit slots spent for DHS.

To better illustrate this situation I have created two charts.



The first chart shows the effective heat sinks (EHS) for various combinations of total DHS and engine rating. Total DHS ranges from the enforced minimum of 10 to 22, the maximum I have ever remotely been able to cram into a reasonable mech build. I have ommitted engine ratings below 200 as they are rarely used.



The red bar shows the difference in EHS of the current implementation to canon Double Heat Sinks. It is evident that the loss in EHS increases the more (external) DHS you mount. The second chart illustrates this as a percentage of EHS lost per installed DHS.



This implementation of DHS

• is arbitrary and inconsistent.
  
• disadvantages high heat builds on large mechs.
  
• is unnecessarily complicated for new players.
  
• limits engine choice.

Please PGI, rethink this design as it serves no purpose.

German Presicion.

[Muffinator]

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.

[Anony Mouse]

I don't get the mindset behind nerfing heatsinks at all. Breaking away from Canon in this creates a cascading discrepancy. The heavier the unit, the heavier the weapon, it all compounds as you scale up to handicap Heavies and Assaults... why?!?! If they insist on borking up DHS by nerfing additional sinks, than reduce them from 3 crit slots to two, that atleast scales well. Make Clan DHS 1 crit, when we get there.

[Lexeii]

I like threads with math and graphs

Math is nice I have a problem with your interpretation of the results.

Yes of course, high heat builds have to get more external heatsinks and yes they are less efficient.
This is necessary for balance, a factor that works against making this game into an armsrace. Could you do it differently? Yes, but there is many factors to consider, this is a possible way that is still being worked on, and it isn't in such a bad place Imho.

Look at what types of mechs are used atm... it's not mostly mediums or lights which are the ones that benefit most of the current implementation, it's already heavies and assaults. (strictly based on my impression, haven't got any statistically valuable data)

[ConnorSinclair]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

Most people are probably familiar with how Double Heat Sinks (DHS) work in MW:O right now.

• Engines up to a rating of 250 hold one DHS per 25 rating (10 max.) which work like true Double Heat Sinks (+2.0 heat threshold, 0.2 heat per second dissipation).
  
• All additional DHS are "poor dubs" or "crap sinks" operating at +1.4 heat threshold and 0.14 HPS dissipation.
  
  • those slotted in engines of 275 rating or more at one per 25 rating
    
  • those mounted on the chassis

The effects of this are:

• Going below 250 engine rating is inefficient
  
• Mechs who almost exclusively use in-engine heat sinks benefit from "real" DHS.
  
• Mechs with many (external) heat sinks get short changed on tonnage and crit slots spent for DHS.

To better illustrate this situation I have created two charts.



The first chart shows the effective heat sinks (EHS) for various combinations of total DHS and engine rating. Total DHS ranges from the enforced minimum of 10 to 22, the maximum I have ever remotely been able to cram into a reasonable mech build. I have ommitted engine ratings below 200 as they are rarely used.



The red bar shows the difference in EHS of the current implementation to canon Double Heat Sinks. It is evident that the loss in EHS increases the more (external) DHS you mount. The second chart illustrates this as a percentage of EHS lost per installed DHS.



This implementation of DHS

• is arbitrary and inconsistent.
  
• disadvantages high heat builds on large mechs.
  
• is unnecessarily complicated for new players.
  
• limits engine choice.

Please PGI, rethink this design as it serves no purpose.

Can I dump my A1 is OP data on you?

[SinnerX]

The first thing that broke from canon was being able to shoot more than once per 10 seconds. Why doesn't anyone argue about setting that back to the TT value?

Second was the double armor values. No one argues about that, either.

Maybe it's because what works in TT doesn't work in a MechWarrior video game. Le gasp.

[PurpleNinja]

A lot of graphs and info, but PGI already stated that "real" DHS is OP.
I don't agree with then, but it's their game.
They also say ECM is OK.

[ConnorSinclair]

SinnerX, on 14 February 2013 - 03:21 AM, said:

The first thing that broke from canon was being able to shoot more than once per 10 seconds. Why doesn't anyone argue about setting that back to the TT value?

Second was the double armor values. No one argues about that, either.

Maybe it's because what works in TT doesn't work in a MechWarrior video game. Le gasp.

Funny that,

It's like PGI took a cupcake recipe and wanted to make 10 cupcakes.

But instead of multiplying the ingredients by 10, they multiplied the sugar x5 and they wonder why things are off.

SRMs get 25% damage boost?
LRMs get 80%?

LL's have less heat and compareable damage to PPC?
Pulse are useless?
Useless mgs?
LBX10 has the range of birdshot with no awesome structure damage?

PurpleNinja, on 14 February 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

A lot of graphs and info, but PGI already stated that "real" DHS is OP.
I don't agree with then, but it's their game.
They also say ECM is OK.

3 Second jenners LOLOLOL

[LordDante]

op reminds me of
http://www.google.de...9,r:0,s:0,i:122

[Aym]

Your premis is wrong. The 10 required heat sinks from ANY engine are doubled. Proof otherwise or your post is totally wrong.

[armyof1]

WolvesX, on 14 February 2013 - 03:03 AM, said:

German Presicion.

OT: Non-linear heat dissipation aside, I find the heat balance is actually quite good. If we changed to 2.0 for all HS then we'd need to look over every weapon's heat again, otherwise we'd make all mechs with huge burst damage too powerful.

Edited by armyof1, 14 February 2013 - 03:38 AM.