200 replies to this topic

[FiveDigits]

Thontor, on 14 February 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

[...] We don't have true DHS for a very good reason... You can see on your graphs how much more effective they are on mechs with many additional DHS.

And yet we do have them on mechs with 250+ rated engines with 10 DHS. And the closer you are to that ideal the closer you are to true DHS.
There is no "very good reason". True DHS would not "break the game" but level the playing field for mechs of all fits and sizes. It has been shown time and time again...

[Kylere]

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

This implementation of DHS

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

If you change the first bullet to "As intended" it makes everything else follow. They wanted to restrict high heat builds on large mechs, the game is bloody complicated regardless and this is just one facet. The limited engine choice is reasonable.

[Zyllos]

Look, I understand PGI's reasoning behind not having 2.0 DHS (even if I disagree with it).

But there is absolutely no reason for making DHS different based on their location. It is hurting balance of various weapon systems. I have built various charts that allows dynamic changes to the heat systems accounting for critical slot size of heat sinks, engine rating equipped, type of engine (STD or XL), dissipation rate and capacity of heat sinks, and total weight used.

From those charts, like many have said, smaller engine sizes are just so inefficient compared to a 250 engine rating or higher. Also, there is a large discrepency between equipping a lot of DHS for high heat builds and just using the bear minimum for dissipation and capacity.

I personally think modifying DHS to have the same capacity as SHS (+1.0 / heat sink) and having DHS dissipate at around 1.7 would still provide a nice balance between using many DHS, only engine DHS, and using smaller engines with DHS. It will also balance between DHS and SHS by making DHS capacity inefficient compared to SHS, when in large numbers. This will give SHS an advantage on heavier mechs with many critical slots and extra tonnage compared with DHS (basically same dissipation but much more capacity due to having more heat sinks).

Of course, when I did this study, I was on the idea that PGI would implement heat penalties for having high heat. But based on "Ask the Devs", this is a LONG term goal and is low on the priority, for some reason.

[FiveDigits]

Thontor, on 14 February 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

Math has been done...

Going from what we have to true DHS would increase the damage a 6ML 20 DHS Cicada could do before overheating by 50%.

True DHS does not just mean extra heat dissipation, but extra heat capacity as well... And both are compounded by mech efficiencies helping hem even more... It comes out to the number shown above.

50% more alpha strikes fired on cooldown without the need to wait for heat to dissipate.

Here we go again...
A Medium Laser has the following stats: 1.25 DPS, 1.00 HPS.
Now let's build a 6 MLAS 20 DHS Cicada.
It's max DPS is 6 * 1.25 = 7.0 DPS.
Right now it produces 6 * 1.0 HPS = 6.0 HPS.
Its 20 (mixed) DHS dissipate 10 * 0.2 HPS + 10 * 0.14 HPS = 3.4 HPS
That makes for a cooling efficiency of 3.4 HPS / 6.0 HPS = 0.57 (rounded to two decimals).
The theoretical 7.0 DPS turn into 7.0 DPS * 0.57 = 4.25 DPS.

Well now, if said Cicada were equipped with real 2.0 DHS then its heat dissipation would increase to
20 * 0.2 HPS = 4.0 HPS
putting its cooling efficiency at
4.0 HPS / 6.0 HPS = 0.67 (rounded to two decimals).
Thus it's sustained damage output would increase to
7.5 DPS * 0.67 = 5.0 DPS.

We get a medium mech that does 5.0 sustained DPS with an alpha of 30 - with beam weapons that it has to hold on target for one second to do full damage.

I now present you the Hunchback HBK-4SP a medium mech that does 5.88 sustained DPS with an alpha of 50 (30 of which are instant SRM damage). In-game right now. With the current DHS implementation.

I rest my case.

Kylere, on 14 February 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

[...] They wanted to restrict high heat builds on large mechs [...]

Then why did they reduce heat production across the board on LLAS, LPLAS, PPC and ERPPC?

[FiveDigits]

*crickets*

[Glucose]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Here we go again...
A Medium Laser has the following stats: 1.25 DPS, 1.00 HPS.
Now let's build a 6 MLAS 20 DHS Cicada.
It's max DPS is 6 * 1.25 = 7.0 DPS.
Right now it produces 6 * 1.0 HPS = 6.0 HPS.
Its 20 (mixed) DHS dissipate 10 * 0.2 HPS + 10 * 0.14 HPS = 3.4 HPS
That makes for a cooling efficiency of 3.4 HPS / 6.0 HPS = 0.57 (rounded to two decimals).
The theoretical 7.0 DPS turn into 7.0 DPS * 0.57 = 4.25 DPS.

Well now, if said Cicada were equipped with real 2.0 DHS then its heat dissipation would increase to
20 * 0.2 HPS = 4.0 HPS
putting its cooling efficiency at
4.0 HPS / 6.0 HPS = 0.67 (rounded to two decimals).
Thus it's sustained damage output would increase to
7.5 DPS * 0.67 = 5.0 DPS.

We get a medium mech that does 5.0 sustained DPS with an alpha of 30 - with beam weapons that it has to hold on target for one second to do full damage.

I now present you the Hunchback HBK-4SP a medium mech that does 5.88 sustained DPS with an alpha of 50 (30 of which are instant SRM damage). In-game right now. With the current DHS implementation.

I rest my case.

Then why did they reduce heat production across the board on LLAS, LPLAS, PPC and ERPPC?

My biggest complaint about this 6MLAS Cicada driving DHS discussions is the thing has no armor. 21 armor on the legs? This thing would be immobile in seconds.

[Kylere]

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Then why did they reduce heat production across the board on LLAS, LPLAS, PPC and ERPPC?

Because it needed to be balanced.

[FiveDigits]

Thontor, on 14 February 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

1 on each empty arm, 30 on each leg (3/4 max).. Max everywhere else...

There goes two DHS in one hit ... there another two ...

But that's beside the point. Even if the 6 MLAS 20 DHS Cicada were practical then it would still be far from game-breaking with DHS working at 2.0 - as I just showed above.

Kylere, on 14 February 2013 - 07:53 AM, said:

Because it needed to be balanced.

So, you introduce a convoluted imbalanced DHS mechanic to disencourage large mechs with large energy weapons. Then you decrease said large energy weapons' heat production because "it needed to be balanced"?
Alright, sounds like PGI game design logic to me.

Edited by FiveDigits, 14 February 2013 - 07:57 AM.

[Orzorn]

Flapdrol, on 14 February 2013 - 03:56 AM, said:

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

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

http://mwo.smurfy-net.de/mechlab#i=35&l=a9b213afd62719b31b6eb208d17d34cf60ba4b6a

Better in every way. Better cooling efficiency, and more tonnage, still using FF armor.

There is no reason to use SHS.

Edited by Orzorn, 14 February 2013 - 08:03 AM.

[Flapdrol]

Orzorn, on 14 February 2013 - 08:00 AM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...echlab#modified

Better in every way. You could even pull off 2 mediums if you wanted.

There is no reason to use SHS.

link doesnt work, I get:

Info: You made changes to the loadout. If you want to share the loadout with the community you need to save it first.

anyway, if you switched to doubles, remember you still have to have a minimum or 10 sinks total, the 195 engine comes with 7 so you have to install 3.

Edited by Flapdrol, 14 February 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[Steven Dixon]

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. 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.

Is that really such a bad thing. Lights and mediums have other pretty significant disadvantages compared to heavies and assaults, such as having far fewer weapons and armor. I'm not saying the system is perfect but I don't really have a problem with it. 4 large lasers or 4 PPCs or a ton of medium lasers shouldn't really be an efficient build, if you want to pack that much firepower then you need to pay the price.

FiveDigits, on 14 February 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

So, you introduce a convoluted imbalanced DHS mechanic to disencourage large mechs with large energy weapons. Then you decrease said large energy weapons' heat production because "it needed to be balanced"?
Alright, sounds like PGI game design logic to me.

They reduced the heat production of PPCs and Large Lasers to make them balanced with other energy weapons not to make assaults generate less heat because they have a harder time using DHS

Edited by Steven Dixon, 14 February 2013 - 08:14 AM.

[Thragen]

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. 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.

I couldn't agree more. The value for DHS must be the same inside and outside the engine to prevent favoring particular weight classes of mechs.

[Orzorn]

Flapdrol, on 14 February 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

anyway, if you switched to doubles, remember you still have to have a minimum or 10 sinks total, the 195 engine comes with 7 so you have to install 3.

Ah yes, forgot about that. Smurfy doesn't enforce that.

Carry on, then.

[Rofl]

If you're trying to go for 100% heat efficient builds with any sort of energy weaponry, you're going to have a bad day.

I run 2 ER-PPCs and 3 MP Lasers (2 weapons I've been told are bad many, many times) with 21 DHS in a 'Phract that runs about 80kph... I have no problems with heat. If 2.0 were true 2.0, I'd be firing like crazy.

It's been said time and time again, if you want TT values, use TT tactics. Run DHS, optimize for a 'balanced' heat loadout, but fire once every 10 seconds. You'll be fine.

If I fire only once every 10 seconds in the above said build, I'd reset my heat bar before I fire again. In TT, those weapons would do 42 heat in 1 turn, and I would be dissipating 42 heat per turn with 21 DHS. Amazingly, it works out the same, because the mediums in MWO do more heat but the PPC does significantly less, making up for the outside engine DHS. (I save 8 heat from the PPCs and gain 3 from the lasers in a MWO to TT conversion, net savings of 5 heat).

The pulse uses more heat because it can get more shots in during a 10 second period than the PPC, perhaps? Who knows, but there IS balance in the game, even if it's not the balance you want.

1.4 DHS are fine. They are not canon, they give less efficiency the more you have, and that is okay. That is totally acceptable.

[SpiralRazor]

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

thats alot of graphs, is there a test?

If there were, you would undoubtedly have to cheat to pass my friend.

[SpiralRazor]

Rofl, on 14 February 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

If you're trying to go for 100% heat efficient builds with any sort of energy weaponry, you're going to have a bad day.

I run 2 ER-PPCs and 3 MP Lasers (2 weapons I've been told are bad many, many times) with 21 DHS in a 'Phract that runs about 80kph... I have no problems with heat. If 2.0 were true 2.0, I'd be firing like crazy.

It's been said time and time again, if you want TT values, use TT tactics. Run DHS, optimize for a 'balanced' heat loadout, but fire once every 10 seconds. You'll be fine.

If I fire only once every 10 seconds in the above said build, I'd reset my heat bar before I fire again. In TT, those weapons would do 42 heat in 1 turn, and I would be dissipating 42 heat per turn with 21 DHS. Amazingly, it works out the same, because the mediums in MWO do more heat but the PPC does significantly less, making up for the outside engine DHS. (I save 8 heat from the PPCs and gain 3 from the lasers in a MWO to TT conversion, net savings of 5 heat).

The pulse uses more heat because it can get more shots in during a 10 second period than the PPC, perhaps? Who knows, but there IS balance in the game, even if it's not the balance you want.

1.4 DHS are fine. They are not canon, they give less efficiency the more you have, and that is okay. That is totally acceptable.

They are not "Fine" as you put it....smaller mechs utilizing only the heat sinks in there engines(Allowing them to Endo) get much more of a benefit then larger mechs who have to mount them externally and often CANNOT take Endo because Competing Space.


So...the way to fix this is that Engine sinks provide 1.4, and externally mounted sinks provide 2.0.


Or all Heat sinks provide 1.8 and thats that... But clearly, unless you are slow, DHS as they are implemented right now are not fine.

[AndyHill]

Steven Dixon, on 14 February 2013 - 08:11 AM, said:

They reduced the heat production of PPCs and Large Lasers to make them balanced with other energy weapons not to make assaults generate less heat because they have a harder time using DHS

I think that originally PPCs and LLs were actually sort of balanced by the bigger 'mechs (that would typically carry a number of such weapons) ability to dissipate more heat. When balancing their output for lower heat dissipation capability they also become more readily available to smaller 'mechs - that also get a heat buff compared to the true heavies with the current DHS system.

I can kind of see how this could be an intentional buff for smaller 'mechs to keep them useful on a battlefield where assaults roam, but somehow I don't think that's the case.

Edited by AndyHill, 14 February 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Yes, I agree. Time is up on the intial testing of DHS 1.4. It's not enough.

External DHS need to be boosted to 1.7 while we are still in Beta to test them at a functional level.

Right now DHS do not confer a greater maximum level of Heat Dissapation over Single heatsinks and the main function of DHS is to provide a greater maximum level of Heat Dissapation over Singles, not make only Ballistic Mechs benefit from DHS which is what MWO has now. DHS are there for Energy heavy Assaults and Heavies as well.

I mean why are you (PGI) giving Ballistic boats DHS, but not Energy configs? That's what you have done by making additional External DHS so weak. Basically you are giving a massive heat reduction to mechs that don't overheat, and applying a massive overheat to the mechs that were already overheating.

Anyway, now is the time to boost the effectiveness of External DHS since DHS 1.4 are a proven failure to anyone who can do math. Fix it now, we are still in Beta, DHS can still be tweaked.

Edited by Lightfoot, 14 February 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[Steven Dixon]

AndyHill, on 14 February 2013 - 08:49 AM, said:

I think that originally PPCs and LLs were actually sort of balanced by the bigger 'mechs (that would typically carry a number of such weapons) ability to dissipate more heat. When balancing their output for lower heat dissipation capability they also become more readily available to smaller 'mechs - that also get a heat buff compared to the true heavies with the current DHS system.

I can kind of see how this could be an intentional buff for smaller 'mechs to keep them useful on a battlefield where assaults roam, but somehow I don't think that's the case.

That's true that the effect definitely might have been unintentional to benefit lighter mechs and I would personally be interested if anyone had any suggestions to other ways to balance energy weapons (this is not a passive aggressive insult, I really would be).

As it is I still see that the effect of the current implementation of DHSs benefits lights and mediums more and I don't have a problem with that. When I pilot my Atlas or Stalker I realize that I'm not going to be able to get all of the upgrades and load my mech up with a gazilion weapons that will vaporize an enemy in seconds, without that trade off I would have less incentive to use my lighter mechs unless I was trying to do base caps (which I'm not a fan of), or I want ECM (and I rarely use ECM, too much qq'ing).

Now if the current game was dominated by mediums and lights then I could see trying to make them more balanced, but I don't know about you but I see a lot more Stalkers and Atlases than Hunchbacks and Centurions. Just my 2cents.

[Splinters]

There was a time when they tested DHS' as the full 2.0 in closed beta and essentially heat became a non-issue for almost all mechs and it basically ruined balance.

I understand OP's post, but having played this game long enough, this game would tilt heavily in favor of assault mechs that there would be no little reason to pilot anything but an assault since you could dps and DHS your way to ensure that lights and mediums were completely outclassed.

Canon exists for a TT game that is a good reference point, but it does not mean that it works well in a tactical simulation. In many ways, following canon is likely to cause game imbalance than bring it back to balance.

Some guys may want big stompy mechs going toe to toe in a heavy-weight match-up, but the Real World of BT/MW was staffed primarily of lights and mediums so in some ways PGI is trying to honor the spirit of canon vs trying to implement canon rules everywhere and I agree the decision. As they balance weapons it is getting clear that true DHS' will imbalance and remove lights and mediums from a common mech stable, instead it would be just a stepping stone to getting an assault.

-S