200 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

You don't really alpha with them. You either chain fire (which probably is more heat friendly) or you group fire (2 groups of 3, or 3 groups of 2). It can kinda work, but then again, I'm not a stalker pilot (yet), so that does remain to be seen.

Best theoretical build I could come up with, trying to max DHS but somehow managed to optimize speed pretty crazily.
Pretty Bad Stalker

[Ralgas]

you dont get short changed (using a 250+) until your 13th dhs due to cool run? past that it's an attept to limit alpha 2 shotting mechs with no consequences on stalkers....... instead they have to stagger weps which imo is working as intended

Using Deathlikes build as an example.
as it sits it disapates 28.4 heat
10 doubles in the engine = 20
6 dhs @ 1.4 = 8.4

true dhs should be 16 x 2 = 32

inculde cool run and the dissapation becomes
28.4 x 1.075 (7.5%) = 30.53
total loss, less than 3/4 of a sink over "true" dhs using 16 sinks.........

Edited by Ralgas, 17 February 2013 - 01:58 AM.

[AndyHill]

The 6 PPC stalker currently has 88,75% of the heat efficiency of the true-DHS version. Yes, they would be more powerful, but not incredibly so. But, most importantly,

the 6 PPC stalker is a failure of the heat capacity mechanism, not heat dissipation.

The cool run perk doesn't really factor into anything, because it's a multiplier and thus does not change the relation between SHS and DHS. If you consider the TT, a(n approximate) boost of 300% to heat generation is not offset by a 15% boost to heat dissipation.

PS. Deathlike, your Stalker build is as good as any I've seen, that's basically how they roll.

[Yokaiko]

Deathlike, on 16 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

You forgot endosteel, so you could easily buff the armor or speed... so, please build a better mech example.

Deathlike, on 16 February 2013 - 05:47 PM, said:

You forgot endosteel, so you could easily buff the armor or speed... so, please build a better mech example.

yeah prove me wrong.

[Yokaiko]

DrBlue62, on 16 February 2013 - 06:34 PM, said:

Drop two heat sinks and add armor.

The survivablitly gained is well worth it.

I agree that was also the point.

[Ralgas]

AndyHill, on 17 February 2013 - 03:00 AM, said:

The 6 PPC stalker currently has 88,75% of the heat efficiency of the true-DHS version. Yes, they would be more powerful, but not incredibly so. But, most importantly,

the 6 PPC stalker is a failure of the heat capacity mechanism, not heat dissipation.

The cool run perk doesn't really factor into anything, because it's a multiplier and thus does not change the relation between SHS and DHS. If you consider the TT, a(n approximate) boost of 300% to heat generation is not offset by a 15% boost to heat dissipation.

PS. Deathlike, your Stalker build is as good as any I've seen, that's basically how they roll.

which would be fine if op related his findings to a SHS/DHS correlation. By not factoring it his assumptions based on comparing "true" dhs 2.0 vs what mechs have now his whole charting system (and some of his conclusions) are flawed. Ingame current EHS values (with cool run applied) should read as follows:-

200+2 sinks -> 20.21 dissipated
225 +1 sink-> 20.885
12 sinks -> 24.51
14 sinks -> 27.52
16 sinks -> 30.53
18 sinks -> 33.54
20 sinks -> 36.55
22 sinks -> 39.56

It also means his sub 250 engine rating theory is flawed as from 200->250 the actual dissipation is more heat than his 2.0 "true" comparisons (although lights running sub 250's need to consider crit space, no matter which value is used). Now as i pointed out above the point at which you see diminished return is 13 sinks over just a straight 2.0 dhs.

If you're piling more than 13 sinks into a mech it's to dissipate excessively high heat alpha strikes, which as i understand was an issue in cb (same reason we got double armor) diminished return is another balance solution. Said stalker build used above in my previous example is actually 95.3% the efficiency compared to true 2.0 dhs to a pilot who has cool run for the chassis. Can't see anyway anyhow they are going to let us have 2.0 DHS and cool run given what someone will turn assaults into with them, hence why i don't add these factors to 2.0 dhs...........

Edit: spelling

Edited by Ralgas, 17 February 2013 - 04:47 AM.

[StingerPryde]

disadvantages high heat builds on large mechs.

That's the whole point of the 1.4DHS, to curb the high heat build of large mechs...Like the 6xPPC stalker. The fact that we have 6xPPC build means Large mechs still aren't curb enough.

[Yokaiko]

StingerPryde, on 17 February 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

disadvantages high heat builds on large mechs.

That's the whole point of the 1.4DHS, to curb the high heat build of large mechs...Like the 6xPPC stalker. The fact that we have 6xPPC build means Large mechs still aren't curb enough.

Capactiy and disapation are two different thing. Capacity allows the x6 PPC stalker NOT dissipation

[AndyHill]

Ralgas, on 17 February 2013 - 04:37 AM, said:

It also means his sub 250 engine rating theory is flawed as from 200->250 the actual dissipation is more heat than his 2.0 "true" comparisons (although lights running sub 250's need to consider crit space, no matter which value is used). Now as i pointed out above the point at which you see diminished return is 13 sinks over just a straight 2.0 dhs.

If you're piling more than 13 sinks into a mech it's to dissipate excessively high heat alpha strikes, which as i understand was an issue in cb (same reason we got double armor) diminished return is another balance solution. Said stalker build used above in my previous example is actually 95.3% the efficiency compared to true 2.0 dhs to a pilot who has cool run for the chassis. Can't see anyway anyhow they are going to let us have 2.0 DHS and cool run given what someone will turn assaults into with them, hence why i don't add these factors to 2.0 dhs...........

I'm not sure I understood correctly, but apparently you're not adding the cool run to true DHS values? I don't think that's a straight comparison, they are two different issues. Also as I mentioned earlier, a 15% boost is hardly a huge thing even on top of true 2.0 sinks considering the 300% heat production increase. But as I said, I think I may have misunderstood your points.

The pinpoint alpha thing, however, is entirely relevant and not just CB, it has existed since MechWarrior 2 and still exists today in MWO. It's the main point to consider when transitioning from TT dice-throwing game to a real-time simulation. The ability to pinpoint-alpha immense amounts of damage is what kills the gameplay and no amount of heat dissipation gimping is going to stop it. You can afford to wait for cooldown if your opponent is dead. The only ways to alleviate that problem are lowering the heat cap and/or preventing group/alpha fire altogether.

Reduce the amount of heat dissipation and you will nerf constant fire -builds equally as much as the high-alpha monsters and the ability to produce instant pinpoint-damage will always win out. Drop the heat cap and increase the penalties and the PPC Stalker will meltdown after the first shot. Remove the ability to group fire and the Stalker won't even be able to do pinpoint damage before shutting down.

[StingerPryde]

Yokaiko, on 17 February 2013 - 05:04 AM, said:

Capactiy and disapation are two different thing. Capacity allows the x6 PPC stalker NOT dissipation

I was responding to the OP, who trying to argue that the heat scale should be raisin to help larger mechs. I was saying that they still need to scale down the high heat builds of larger mechs. And that what he called a disadvantages was intended for balance.

I'm not understanding how your reply fits in with what I was saying.

[AndyHill]

It's hardly intended balance if the current implementation is in fact the result of a bug left in the system. The resulting nerf of assaults may or may not be a good thing.

However, since you presented the 6 PPC Stalker as an example, he was correct in pointing out that heat dissipation has little effect on it. To stop high-alpha builds the heat cap needs to be lowered, not heat dissipation.

[Zyllos]

AndyHill, on 17 February 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

...
The pinpoint alpha thing, however, is entirely relevant and not just CB, it has existed since MechWarrior 2 and still exists today in MWO. It's the main point to consider when transitioning from TT dice-throwing game to a real-time simulation. The ability to pinpoint-alpha immense amounts of damage is what kills the gameplay and no amount of heat dissipation gimping is going to stop it. You can afford to wait for cooldown if your opponent is dead. The only ways to alleviate that problem are lowering the heat cap and/or preventing group/alpha fire altogether.
...

PGI actually has many different ways to fix this issue. Not to mention, PGI is allowing multiple weapons to be fired out of the same port at the same time. Almost every mech has multiple hardpoints for each physical barrel on a mech, which leads to high alpha strikes for each bullet.

Also, I personally think they need add more emphasis on the usefulness of arms. If you notice, nobody aims at the arms of almost all the mechs in the game. Unsurprisingly, Mediums are the mechs in which arms are aimed at. It is most likely due to arms of Medium mechs are easy to take off, low armor, but usually have lots of weapons on them.

I have also noticed that PGI has not made any mention about what the various actuators actually do. This is my suggestions on arm actuators:

Arm -
Shoulder actuators make weapons mounted on arms converge.
Upper Arm actuators will allow vertical deviation from the Torso crosshair.
Lower Arm Actuators will allow horizontal deviation from the Torso crosshair.
Hand actuators allow the use of hand related actions (might be added in the future).

With this implemented, then I suggest that all torso mounted weaponry only fires straight ahead, with no convergence. The Torso crosshair is aimed straight ahead from your point of view and all torso mounted weaponry fire in relation to that line.

What this would do is place a large emphasis on mechs that mounted weaponry on arms, which allow their pilots to easily choose to converge all their arm weaponry (if the Shoulder actuator is still functioning) onto a single point, thus making weapons on those arms deadly. This will also make mechs which mounts a lot of various weaponry spread much more of their damage across the mechs they are aiming at because it will be physically impossible to converge any torso mounted weaponry. It will also place a larger emphasis on weaponry in the arms due to their ability to converge multiple weapons on a single point.

But to continue back on point of DHS, I also personally think they need to make them 0.17 dissipation for all DHS and 1.0 capacity. This will give a good balance between DHS and SHS and not destroy the balance between many external DHS and engine only DHS.

Edited by Zyllos, 17 February 2013 - 07:14 AM.

[Deathlike]

Yokaiko, on 17 February 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

yeah prove me wrong.

Built two of those before you even wrote this message.

[FiveDigits]

Ralgas, on 17 February 2013 - 04:37 AM, said:

[...] which would be fine if op related his findings to a SHS/DHS correlation. By not factoring it his assumptions based on comparing "true" dhs 2.0 vs what mechs have now his whole charting system (and some of his conclusions) are flawed. Ingame current EHS values (with cool run applied) should read as follows:-

[...]

It also means his sub 250 engine rating theory is flawed as from 200->250 the actual dissipation is more heat than his 2.0 "true" comparisons (although lights running sub 250's need to consider crit space, no matter which value is used). Now as i pointed out above the point at which you see diminished return is 13 sinks over just a straight 2.0 dhs.

If you're piling more than 13 sinks into a mech it's to dissipate excessively high heat alpha strikes, which as i understand was an issue in cb (same reason we got double armor) diminished return is another balance solution. Said stalker build used above in my previous example is actually 95.3% the efficiency compared to true 2.0 dhs to a pilot who has cool run for the chassis. Can't see anyway anyhow they are going to let us have 2.0 DHS and cool run given what someone will turn assaults into with them, hence why i don't add these factors to 2.0 dhs...........

I purposefully excluded pilot skills from the charts to keep the numbers cleaner. Pilot skills are entirely inconsequential for the purpose of the charts. A flat modifier which would be added in both situations changes absolutely nothing. The charts do relate to EHS/SHS.
And how can the 250 engine / 10 DHS setup not be the most effective? It is the only one which currently uses full DHS values. In all other builds the addition of "crapsinks" lowers the value of each individual heat sink.

StingerPryde, on 17 February 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

disadvantages high heat builds on large mechs.

That's the whole point of the 1.4DHS, to curb the high heat build of large mechs...Like the 6xPPC stalker. The fact that we have 6xPPC build means Large mechs still aren't curb enough.

StingerPryde, on 17 February 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

I was responding to the OP, who trying to argue that the heat scale should be raisin to help larger mechs. I was saying that they still need to scale down the high heat builds of larger mechs. And that what he called a disadvantages was intended for balance. [...]

There was nothing remotely "intentional" about the current DHS implementation. It is the kneejerk fix of a bugged fix of a bug in the initial DHS implmentation which PGI found to be working okayish and subsequently declared intentional. The initial bug (engine DHS being SHS) and the final implementation (2.0 in-engine, 1.4 outside) as opposed to what PGI told us (global 1.4 DHS) were found and reported by community testers.
The Stalker was not even released back then.
And riddle me this: PGI thinks heavy energy mechs are a balance problem. They then implement diminishing returns on DHS. Then they go ahead and repeatedly reduce the heat output of large energy weapons? How does that even remotely make sense?

I do agree that the alpha potential of Double Heat Sinks that increase the mech's heat capacity by 2.0 heat each is too high. We acknowledged that long ago. The goal is to get uniform DHS with true double dissipation of SHS. The heat threshold should be fixed or increase by the same amount as per SHS (1.0) ... but I am repeating myself.

[Yokaiko]

Deathlike, on 17 February 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

Built two of those before you even wrote this message.

Link or it didn't happen

Remember that WAS NOT supposed to be a running build, that was jamming as many heatsinks on to a Cicada as possible, and I ran out of tonnage. Cicada engine caps at 340, you aren't getting anymore heatspace there, endosteel costs you at least 3 heatsinks worth of space

Gee look with a 325, max engine sinks and endo, still ran out of weight.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...0ed2d85a8d8d7a3

With endo+300 20 DHS
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...db6e33a3c076c30

300 no endo steel 19.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...bcfbc14feec5840

....and all of them grossly underarmored.

This is the "3 second" Cicada? Three seconds alright, it would take about that long to kill them.


For reference I have a couple of Cents that are in that heat range, they all hit harder as well.

Unless you are a mythical being that can be 100% accurate with a 1 second burn over 140kph, I know I'm not.

Edited by Yokaiko, 17 February 2013 - 10:54 AM.

[Deathlike]

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1904935

If you are still optimizing for speed, you're crippling yourself too much. You don't have to have to the fastest Jenner, you just have to be effective with it. The Raven 4X with the AC20 works under those principles (but I wouldn't use/build it).

[Yokaiko]

Deathlike, on 17 February 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1904935

If you are still optimizing for speed, you're crippling yourself too much. You don't have to have to the fastest Jenner, you just have to be effective with it. The Raven 4X with the AC20 works under those principles (but I wouldn't use/build it).

I agree, that wasn't the point of the exercise, I know good and well pretty much the first thing you do with a Cicada is add about 3 tons of armor, If I'm not mistaken, my -2A likely has a 340, I think a 320 in my -3M and I don't remember on the -2B I only rode that long enough to get the basics/elites filled in.

In the case of the Cicada you BETTER be near as fast as what you are fighting, because a good JJ jenner can eat it up, and dealing with Ravens and Commando's is difficult if you aren't fast enough to to clear out. They can just park on your tail and all you can do is hope for help.

Pulling the speed down below 130 in favor of weapons is something of a false economy, its a glorified light, a Centurion is a frigging brick next to it.

[Grendel Toot]

DHS not working as the table top game had them working is a crime.

What is also a crime is playing on Forest Colony I scampered from one cover to the next and got shot at!!!! I was like "REPORTED! It was my turn to move and I had enough movement points to get under cover before it was your turn to fire!"

I hope the sarcasm is apparent to everyone. Its a different game to TT, learn to play it as it is.

[Krzysztof z Bagien]

Currently the highest number of DHS that can be fitted on a mech is 28. You can't put any more of them because you will run out of crit space or tonnage. Let's look at some numbers (I can make some charts if you want ):
Current DHS:
for 28 DHS: 4.52 heat dissipation; 75.2 heat threshold
for 22 DHS: 3.68 heat dissipation; 66.8 heat threshold

True 2.0 DHS:
for 28 DHS: 5.60 heat dissipation; 86.0 heat threshold
for 22 DHS: 4.40 heat dissipation; 74.0 heat threshold

The difference in heat dissipation wouldn't be higher than 1.08, it's equivalent of 10 standard heat sinks, and for 22 DHS it's as high as 0.72 - like having 5 of current external DHS more. So it's not THAT much of a difference.
The problem might be with heat threshold - it would be significantly higher for true 2.0 DHS (up to 10.8, it's one ERPPC shot). But there is simple solution for that: decrease base heat threshold for DHS from 30 to 20. I'd also raise base heat threshold for SHS to 40, so they would be more usefull (right now DHS are mandatory anyway in almost every build).
Problem solved, plain and simple.

Edited by Krzysztof z Bagien, 17 February 2013 - 12:13 PM.

[FiveDigits]

I would like to have this thread moved to the new Game Balance forum please.