200 replies to this topic

[Flapdrol]

The only purpose of double heatsinks in this game is making mechs 1.500.000 cbills more expensive. It's a straight up upgrade on pretty much everything.

only 2 out of 32 mechs in my mechlab have singles. both lights with a sub 200 engine with endo, ferro and lowheat weapons. Niche builds.

[Lexeii]

Flapdrol, on 14 February 2013 - 03:33 AM, said:

only 2 out of 32 mechs in my mechlab have singles. both lights with a sub 200 engine with endo, ferro and lowheat weapons. Niche builds.

what builds? they work? how? wtf? (why not double? normally there should be enough crits left)


Edit: ok scratch that. Gauss?

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

[dario03]

I always wondered why they didn't do it the other way around. Make in engine heatsinks be the weaker doubles or not doubled at all and the ones that actually have the disadvantage of taking up 3x the space be the true double heatsinks.

[DrBlue62]

"Cool Run" Needs to get removed from the mech tree before all DHS are 2.0

[FiveDigits]

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.

But why more so for Heavies and Assaults than for Lights and Mediums?

Lexeii, on 14 February 2013 - 03:18 AM, said:

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)

The balance of this game is very much in flux right now and so is what people use. My problem with this implementation is that it is unnecessary and violates the fundamental KISS design principle. It will cause more and more balancing problems in the future

Aym, on 14 February 2013 - 03:29 AM, said:

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

Even if they were, the issue would remain for all DHS beyond the tenth. I don't know where you get the idea of magically doubled 10 HS. The tests people ran and the item stats in the game files say differently.

armyof1, on 14 February 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

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.

Yeah, thanks to PGI's backwards design ...
A solution for the "high burst" scenario has been suggested many times: Leave the heat threshold increase of DHS at 1.0 (like SHS) and only increase their dissipation to 0.2 HPS. Thus a mech with 20 DHS would have a heat threshold of 50 while one with 30 SHS would have 60.
This would also give SHS a purpose (high burst vs. DHSs' high sustain). Talk about two birds with one stone ...

DrBlue62, on 14 February 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

"Cool Run" Needs to get removed from the mech tree before all DHS are 2.0

Totally fine with me though I don't think it's necessary as mechs produce about three times the heat of their TT counterparts.

Edited by FiveDigits, 14 February 2013 - 03:57 AM.

[Flapdrol]

Lexeii, on 14 February 2013 - 03:37 AM, said:

what builds? they work? how? wtf? (why not double? normally there should be enough crits left)


Edit: ok scratch that. Gauss?

AC20 raven
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...005f3ec0b78d62a

the other one is the ssrm 2D commando with the same engine.

Edited by Flapdrol, 14 February 2013 - 03:56 AM.

[Brilig]

I thought all the heat sinks engine included worked at 1.4. I think it was the patch way back on Nov 6th that fixed it. I suppose I could have missed a change since then though. :/

http://mwomercs.com/...10142-06112012/
GAMEPLAY•Double heat sinks are now 1.4 times as effective as standard heat sinks. This includes DHS's that you place on your Mech as well as those integrated into the engine.

EDIT:
Poked around in MustrumRidcully's signature links. I guess someone got into the game data and ran tests to find that built in engine heat sinks work at 2.0. So it either changed since the patch, or I'm reading it wrong. Kudos to those who got in and did the math.

Edited by Brilig, 14 February 2013 - 04:17 AM.

[Muffinator]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

But why more so for Heavies and Assaults than for Lights and Mediums?

If my hottest heavy and assault builds were much more heat efficient with weapons than they are now, they would be completely broken. For example my 6 LL stalker can get off 2 shots with the third leading to shutdown. Most of the time 2 good hits with 6LL can kill a medium and 3 can kill a heavy. Imagine if I could pop off 4, 5, 6 shots without overheating?

Edited by Muffinator, 14 February 2013 - 04:00 AM.

[armyof1]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

Yeah, thanks to PGI's backwards design ...
A solution for the "high burst" scenario has been suggested many times: Leave the heat threshold increase of DHS at 1.0 (like SHS) and only increase their dissipation to 0.2 HPS. Thus a mech with 20 DHS would have a heat threshold of 50 while one with 30 SHS would have 60.

Yeah we could do that, but I'm not sure what you want to achieve ultimately? That heavier mechs should have better heat dissipation compared to mediums and lights? I mean looking at how much damage a decent heavy mech player can do, I really don't see the need.

[Lucian Blackwynd]

dario03, on 14 February 2013 - 03:44 AM, said:

I always wondered why they didn't do it the other way around. Make in engine heatsinks be the weaker doubles or not doubled at all and the ones that actually have the disadvantage of taking up 3x the space be the true double heatsinks.

Do you have any background in computer or automotive work? If you did, you'd know that dissipating heat closer to the source is almost always more effective than dissipating heat further away from the source.

It's like the difference of trying to dissipate the heat of your Central Processing Unit (CPU) with a simple heat sink and a couple of fans generating airflow through the computer case, which can work for small, low-clock-cycle CPU's. For something more powerful, though, you'd need a set of copper heat pipes mounted on the CPU, channeling heat off of the CPU and toward a heatsink with a fan mounted on it.

Even though Mech's are completely fictional (for the most part), I can imagine that the same physics and engineering principles still apply.

[Flapdrol]

When DHS were introduced the engine heatsinks were still 1.0, the ones you installed were actual doubles. It worked fine. Dunno why they "fixed" it.

Even with this system you can make a light mech heat efficient, but at the cost of a little speed. That would actually be an interesting tradeoff.

Edited by Flapdrol, 14 February 2013 - 04:08 AM.

[PurpleNinja]

Muffinator, on 14 February 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

If my hottest heavy and assault builds were much more heat efficient with weapons than they are now, they would be completely broken. For example my 6 LL stalker can get off 2 shots with the third leading to shutdown. Most of the time 2 good hits with 6LL can kill a medium and 3 can kill a heavy. Imagine if I could pop off 4, 5, 6 shots without overheating?

Then people will fear assault mechs, and thats wrong, people should fear light mechs with ECM.

[FiveDigits]

Large energy weapons just became viable after their heat production was nerfed repeatedly. This would have been completely unnecessary if they had implemented DHS properly.
That's exactly why I call their design and balancing bass ackwards.

[MustrumRidcully]

armyof1, on 14 February 2013 - 04:01 AM, said:

Yeah we could do that, but I'm not sure what you want to achieve ultimately? That heavier mechs should have better heat dissipation compared to mediums and lights? I mean looking at how much damage a decent heavy mech player can do, I really don't see the need.

They only should have better heat dissipation if they install more heat sinks. And the improvement in dissipation should be proprortional to the heat sink investment.

That isn't true as long as one type of DHS is "True-Dubs", and the other are "Poordubs":

[Craftyman]

Brilig, on 14 February 2013 - 03:58 AM, said:

I thought all the heat sinks engine included worked at 1.4. I think it was the patch way back on Nov 6th that fixed it. I suppose I could have missed a change since then though. :/

http://mwomercs.com/...10142-06112012/
GAMEPLAY•Double heat sinks are now 1.4 times as effective as standard heat sinks. This includes DHS's that you place on your Mech as well as those integrated into the engine.

Sized hardpoints and DHS 2.0 would have to go hand in hand. And I would be totally fine with this.

[dario03]

Lucian Blackwynd, on 14 February 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

Do you have any background in computer or automotive work? If you did, you'd know that dissipating heat closer to the source is almost always more effective than dissipating heat further away from the source.

It's like the difference of trying to dissipate the heat of your Central Processing Unit (CPU) with a simple heat sink and a couple of fans generating airflow through the computer case, which can work for small, low-clock-cycle CPU's. For something more powerful, though, you'd need a set of copper heat pipes mounted on the CPU, channeling heat off of the CPU and toward a heatsink with a fan mounted on it.

Even though Mech's are completely fictional (for the most part), I can imagine that the same physics and engineering principles still apply.

Well why do the engine heatsinks become 3x the size but don't take up any extra space? Plus don't the weapons generate heat and the external heatsinks are often times closer than the engine heatsinks in that case. And we are comparing shs to dhs so if you want to say that the engine heatsinks should be better, then shouldn't the external shs only be working at 0.7.

But the biggest thing is its a video game and the downside of dhs is supposed to be it taking up more space.

[DrBlue62]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 03:54 AM, said:

Totally fine with me though I don't think it's necessary as mechs produce about three times the heat of their TT counterparts.

I believe I know where PGI was coming from when they implemented DHS as they are right now.

Doubled cool run makes up for most of the lost heat sinks in DHS builds, up to 18DHS (10 internal 250 engine and 8 external or slotted) at 35.88 SH

22DHS with 2x Coolrun makes to 42.32/44 SH, a much lower loss in heat dissipation compared to no cool run or 36.8/44 SH

All DHS being at 2.0 with 2x Coolrun would make them 2.3 sinks. Currently if you have your mechs elited, then DHS aren't bad. I can agree however that people shouldn't have to elite a chasis to get DHS to even out.
If it were the current system VS. 2.0 DHS with Coolrun still in the Mech Tree, I'd choose the current system.

[FiveDigits]

dario03, on 14 February 2013 - 04:13 AM, said:

[...] the downside of dhs is supposed to be it taking up more space.

with logarithmically increasing heat dissipation returns apparently.

[SinnerX]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

Large energy weapons just became viable after their heat production was nerfed repeatedly. This would have been completely unnecessary if they had implemented DHS properly.
That's exactly why I call their design and balancing bass ackwards.

What happened to KISS? Every other weapon is about where they want it, but you would rather they buff DHS to make large energy weapons viable, then nerf every other weapon that became OP from being able to fire forever.

[Adrian Steel]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

That's exactly why I call their design and balancing bass ackwards.

We can hem and harp with math and stats all we want. Doesn't look like it makes a lick of difference. The fact is Paul and David couldn't balance a game of Tetris and they'd rather fix a crooked roof when the foundation is collapsing.

I'm maxing out my apathy on the direction of MWO.