200 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

FiveDigits, on 24 April 2013 - 12:55 AM, said:

The thread moves to a new forum again. The issue is still unresolved.

No problem is so urgent that it couldn't get a bit more urgent by waiting!

[DeadlyNerd]

There are no "real" heatsinks. All heatsinks are 1.4, this thread is pointless and information incorrect. Please, don't make up data just so you can make graphs. Please do not necro it as there wasn't a post for over a month.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 24 April 2013 - 01:17 AM.

[FiveDigits]

DeadlyNerd, on 24 April 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

There are no "real" heatsinks. All heatsinks are 1.4, this thread is pointless and information incorrect. Please, don't make up data just so you can make graphs. Please do not necro it as there wasn't a post for over a month.

Talk about being misinformed ...

[MustrumRidcully]

DeadlyNerd, on 24 April 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

There are no "real" heatsinks. All heatsinks are 1.4, this thread is pointless and information incorrect. Please, don't make up data just so you can make graphs. Please do not necro it as there wasn't a post for over a month.

You're wrong. Source:
http://mwomercs.com/...0089-breakdown/

Thomas Dziegielewski said:

HEATSINKS SINGLE VS DOUBLE

EXTERNAL

Single : 0.1 heat dissipation per heatsink per second. Heatbase -1.0 per heatsink.
Double : 0.14 heat dissipation per heatsink per second. Heatbase -1.4 per heatsink.


INTERNAL - each engine has a set amount of internal heatsinks depending on its strength.

Single : 0.1 heat dissipation per heatsink per second.
Double : 0.2 heat dissipation per heatsink per second.

[FiveDigits]

Thanks for digging up the source dear Archchancellor. <3
I really couldn't be arsed to do it with all the forum shuffeling happening right now.

Edited by FiveDigits, 24 April 2013 - 01:53 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

FiveDigits, on 24 April 2013 - 01:50 AM, said:

Thanks for digging up the source Mustrum. <3
I really couldn't be arsed to do it with all the forum shuffeling happening right now.

Me neither, someone else found it for one of my threads, and I still know how to find my threads.

[MustrumRidcully]

MiG77, on 14 February 2013 - 11:20 AM, said:

Where it totally fails is that MWO dont follow TT rules in heat generation (weapons shoot faster and generate different heat per shot). This result overall better "alpha builds" and less efficient "DPS builds" compared to TT.

Exactly.

And this is what those PPC snipers "exploit". Being able to deliver more alpha alone wouldn't be enough, of course - it helps that that damage converges on one point on the target, and that the total of the damage is sufficient to cause the enemy some real trouble.

The devs seemed to have build their heat capacity around the assumption that an alpha strike of a mech always has to mean it fires all the weapons at the exact same point in time. But the table top is turn-based, it describes only what happens within a 10 second turn. It could very well be that an "alpha-strike" is actually someone chain-firing all his guns in that turn.

[Nihtgenga]

If it comes to me, the flaw is not just DHS values, the heat management itself has inherent flaws, which are distorting the effects of the values!

Mentioned over-and-over, the Multi-PPC-ing issue is not an issue of dissipation, and not even the heat capacity alone. Hexastalkers or similar builds are simply encouraged by the two facts, that there is no disadvantage in running hot and you can exploit the heat capacity system by pumping out another Hex-PPC-alpha at 97% heat capacity without blowing your mech up. There would additionally be the standard availability of zooming (maybe a feature for the currently unused targeting computer, imho), but i do not want to get off-topic.
Point being: DHS at >0.14 dissipation would do no considerable harm to the game, if high-heat-penalties get introduced. Not being able to use the exploit ('cause of BOOOM) and having disadvantages like impaired targeting, loss of zoom, etc. when hitting the heat capacity deck is enough to correct the possibility for Alphasniper-PPC-builds. What makes them annoying is not the duration being in shutdown to short, hence the dissipation of their heatsinks; it is their ability to evaporate your mechs CT by highly-precise, high-damage weapon fire before they even feel that downside of their build.

[Vapor Trail]

Crosshair bloom from heat production would solve the 6 PPC issue quick. If you weren't sure of being able to hit your intended target with a massive salvo, you wouldn't try.

The 6PPC issue is produced by the confluence of:
Pinpoint accuracy at all times.
Increased rate of fire.
High heat capacity with no downside other than shutdown.

The first allows increased exploitation of the second. The second allows increased exploitation of the third. The third allows allows increased exploitation of the first. Add in a Cool-shot or two and you've got a vicious circle right through three alphas and shutdown.

I personally have two PPC builds currently. One is a 4 PPC Stalker built with single heat sinks. The other is a fully tricked out 2 PPC, 2 ERPPC, DHS build.

I'm of the opinion that if you remove pinpoint accuracy (most likely through the introduction of a scaled crosshair bloom) the problem of single- or double-salvo PPC mechs will go away, because Alpha output will no longer outweigh sustained DPS output by so large a margin.

[Davers]

What does everyone think of the original premise of this article, that DHS at 1.4 are a nerf to heavy and assault mechs making them less valid choices than mediums and lights? Do heavy and assault mechs need to have 2.0 DHS to be competitive?

I know when I get my medium mech split in half by a high alpha strike I am thinking "Poor guy, how can he even be viable without true DHS."

[FiveDigits]

Davers, on 24 April 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

What does everyone think of the original premise of this article, that DHS at 1.4 are a nerf to heavy and assault mechs making them less valid choices than mediums and lights? [...]

That is a little one dimensional. The original point was that the current DHS implementation is convoluted and that the return on investment (crits, tonnage) is diminishing whenever you diverge from 10 DHS in a 250+ engine.

One effect of this implementation was that large energy weapons on large mechs (think 3 PPC Awesome) were not viable. At the same time Lights/Mediums with lots of Medium Lasers and ten true DHS ruled supreme.

PGI's "fix" to that situation was to decrease heat production on (ER)PPCs and Large (Pulse) Lasers. This is what lead to the status quo. PGI is treating the symptoms of a broken heat mechanic isntead of fixing it.

[Yokaiko]

Vapor Trail, on 24 April 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Alpha output will no longer outweigh sustained DPS output by so large a margin.

If I only need to alpha you twice to cripple you (think 733) and and you are trying to DPS with 7-8 heat weapons with a 3.6 heat per second dissapation (that is 1.6 DHS + cool run) I still have the upper hand.

[MustrumRidcully]

Yokaiko, on 25 April 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

If I only need to alpha you twice to cripple you (think 733) and and you are trying to DPS with 7-8 heat weapons with a 3.6 heat per second dissapation (that is 1.6 DHS + cool run) I still have the upper hand.

Without pinpoint accuracy on your two alphas, two alphas aren't crippling. They are just 60 damage spread across your target. Say, 40 damage to the left arm, 40 damage to the left torso, and 40 damage to the center torso. Instead of 120 damage to the center torso.

[Yokaiko]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 April 2013 - 05:01 AM, said:

Without pinpoint accuracy on your two alphas, two alphas aren't crippling.

Yeah, but convergence isn't going away, its someones special project. Even then if you made perfect convergence on the arms only you would catch 20/40 somewhere.

[Vodrin Thales]

FiveDigits, on 25 April 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

That is a little one dimensional. The original point was that the current DHS implementation is convoluted and that the return on investment (crits, tonnage) is diminishing whenever you diverge from 10 DHS in a 250+ engine.

One effect of this implementation was that large energy weapons on large mechs (think 3 PPC Awesome) were not viable. At the same time Lights/Mediums with lots of Medium Lasers and ten true DHS ruled supreme.

PGI's "fix" to that situation was to decrease heat production on (ER)PPCs and Large (Pulse) Lasers. This is what lead to the status quo. PGI is treating the symptoms of a broken heat mechanic isntead of fixing it.

I think your premise is a more than a bit flawed. Several of the builds that people complain about being overpowered (6PPC stalker comes to mind immediately, and 1 gauss, 3PPC Highlander) include using large energy weapons on large mechs. Arguing that these builds are "gimped" by the current DHS implementation seems to fly in the face of what I see in game now.

Also unless something has changed since January (when I last tested it), the first 10 heat sinks regardless of location are true doubles (leveling the playing field with smaller and larger engines) and any additional double heat sinks are 1.4 effect.

Edited by Vodrin Thales, 25 April 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Yokaiko, on 25 April 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

Yeah, but convergence isn't going away, its someones special project. Even then if you made perfect convergence on the arms only you would catch 20/40 somewhere.

Well, but why are you then replying about a post that worked under the assumption that "someone's special project" would be done?

You could have just said "Convergence is not going to change, so that's not the way it can be fixed." Which is a perfectly fine and valid statement.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 25 April 2013 - 08:47 AM.

[Yokaiko]

MustrumRidcully, on 25 April 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

Well, but why are you then replying about a post that worked under the assumption that "someone's special project" would be done?

You could have just said "Convergence is not going to change, so that's not the way it can be fixed." Which is a perfectly fine and valid statement.

No really, I got that from PGI way back in CB.....its seriously someone's baby.

I still don't see 6ppc stalkers as overpowered, I actually look for them at this point.

Edited by Yokaiko, 25 April 2013 - 10:41 AM.

[FiveDigits]

Vodrin Thales, on 25 April 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

I think your premise is a more than a bit flawed. Several of the builds that people complain about being overpowered (6PPC stalker comes to mind immediately, and 1 gauss, 3PPC Highlander) include using large energy weapons on large mechs. Arguing that these builds are "gimped" by the current DHS implementation seems to fly in the face of what I see in game now.

I just explained this misunderstanding. I am not claiming that big energy boats are "gimped" by the current DHS implementation with the current weapon balancing numbers.
But: The current heat values for PPC et al are direct result of those weapons being unviable with the 1.4 DHS implementation. PIG tried to treat a symptom and created even more issues.

What this analysis shows is merely that the DHS mechanics are unnecessarily complicated and that there are diminishing returns which complicate balancing.
In the discussion we also discovered fixes that would allow for a balanced uniform DHS implementation. Namely, decoupling heat dissipation (which should be 0.2 HPS for all DHS) from heat capacity. The high heat capacity gains DHS (even at 1.4) provide are a prime reason (the other being pinpoint accuracy) why high alpha boats (6 PPC Stalker etc.) are a problem currently.

Vodrin Thales, on 25 April 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

Also unless something has changed since January (when I last tested it), the first 10 heat sinks regardless of location are true doubles (leveling the playing field with smaller and larger engines) and any additional double heat sinks are 1.4 effect.

That was never the case. You can check the resulting heat efficiencies with a sub-250 engine vs. a 250+ engine in smurfy's Mechlab (Weaponlab tab). It is based on the packed config XML files. Those were datamined way back when. And the analysis was backed by player testing. I don't know what else to tell you.

[MustrumRidcully]

Vapor Trail, on 24 April 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Crosshair bloom from heat production would solve the 6 PPC issue quick. If you weren't sure of being able to hit your intended target with a massive salvo, you wouldn't try.

The bloom would need to happen before you fire the PPCs, though. I don't think that will be enough. I think the "safest" thing to do for this is to lower the heat cap so a mech simply shuts down. Shutting down the moment you left cover is not the best idea. Even poptarters at least have to deal with their heads taking severe damage if they keep doing their thing. if there is also some internal damage for going too far over the heat cap, this could even be made more pronounced.

[FiveDigits]

My trifecta of favorite balancing measures right now:

• Lower heat cap (<40 with PPCs @ 10 heat, DHS with 0.2 HPS dissipation)
  
• Heat penalties (firing 6 PPCs at once should fry a mech's internals)
  
• Torso-mounted weapons fire straight ahead without conversion (maybe add little helper reticules)

Sorry for (partial) OT-ness.