14 replies to this topic

[Mahws]

Heatsinks:

TL;WR:
DHS/SHS are poorly balanced, especially when compared to other upgrades. SHS builds are straight up inferior. Set SHS engine sinks to 2.0 to make SHS viable and make DHS less of a definite upgrade.

The Problem:
DHS are, quite simply put, a straight upgrade. The only reason not to use them is if you can't afford them. Naturally this presents a problem to the games balance as it essentially means that an established player gets a ten tonne/ten slot advantage on their mechs (before additional out of engine heatsinks, which only increases the advantage) over newer players or any trial mech. You have to make a decision on whether ES/FF/Artemis is right for your build, the answer for DHS is always YES.

My Proposal:
Set Single Heatsink Engine sinks to the same value as doubles (2xCurrent value). Outside the engine they work as they do now, but both heat sink types both have the same baseline heat cap/dissipation.

Effects:
Better balance. A SHS mech is not at a huge disadvantage against a DHS mech.

Better choices. Although DHS will still be better for most builds removing the huge Engine Heatsink advantage means that the space/tonnage choice between SHS/DHS actually matters and in some extreme builds SHS may be a better choice. More options = Better game play.

Better trial mechs. One of the greatest barriers to getting into the game is the poor viability of most trial mechs. Part of this is down to armament (I'm looking at you Cicada 3A), but for most of them the real disadvantage is the lack of DHS. A trial Atlas-D has 20 SHS, for the same amount of slots in DHS the same build would have an effective 24 SHS, plus seven extra tonnes to spend on better weapons, armor or a larger engine. Setting SHS to the same engine rating as DHS still gives the DHS Atlas a decisive advantage, but no longer makes a SHS mech laughably inferior.

Better weapon balance. A weapon with a heat/damage ratio balanced for SHS becomes twice as effective with DHS, for DHS half as effective for SHS builds. A PPC is a sensible choice for a DHS build but a joke for a SHS one. Setting HS at the same base line makes for better overall weapon balance.





<250 Engines

TL;WR:
Engines under 250 are disadvantaged by requiring extra external heatsinks, having less internal heatsinks (and thus benefiting far less from DHS upgrades) and by having slower movement/turn speeds. Slower speeds are enough to balance them, the added heatsinks disadvantages are unnecessary and make them needlessly disadvantaged.

The problem:
Engines under a 250 rating are an extremely poor choice because of the requirement for extra out of engine HS. This is unnecessary as they are already balanced by the lower speed/less in engine sinks. Small engines are never a good option for Assaults/Heavies as the decrease in speed is worth less than the increase in free weight, but they're supposed to be a viable choice for lights/mediums. As is, that's not the case. A lower rated engine is already disadvantaged enough by the decrease in speed and in engine heatsinks (making DHS much less effective), forcing the player to take extra tonnage and space in out of engine heatsinks makes them completely useless. This constricts light/medium mechs to higher engine ratings and makes the lower rated engines completely unused.

My proposal:
Revert to the old system without the min required HS and set all engines to 10 HS. A 200 rated engine is already balance against a 250 by lower speeds, it doesn't need further handicaps. A 150 Commando is disadvantaged enough by running <100kp/h, forcing it to take 4 tonnes of heatsinks is just kicking it whilst it's down. This is even more of a problem when it comes to DHS, a 250 engine gets 20 free SHS with DHS, a 150 only 12.

Effects:
A weakening of the Faster = Better effect for lights, a lower rated engine actually gives a meaningful advantage that makes it worth considering for some builds.

Smaller lights are better balanced. A Commando will never have as many guns as a Jenner, but it makes up a little bit of the distance if it can run at the same speed with a smaller engine and use that extra weight to narrow the tonnage gap a little.

Smaller mechs benefit from DHS. A Commando can only have a max engine of 210, this puts it at a massive disadvantage to other lights as a DHS upgrade only gives it 16, rather than 20 in equivelant SHS engine heatsinks, leaving a mech like the Death's Knell massively disadvantaged.

Edited by Mahws, 20 February 2013 - 04:36 PM.

[MasterErrant]

A mech with a small engine is only suppoed to pay for the "spaces" of the engine heat sinks over ER\25 (RD) if you have to pay for weight too that really screwed. The light are badly out of balance. but this doesn't seem to me to be the right way to fix that.

In the TT a commando has exactly as much internal space as an atlas. the engine rule is one of the things that adds some realism to the size difference even though it's small.

Edited by MasterErrant, 20 February 2013 - 09:11 PM.

[Calimaw]

I suggest Double Heat Sinks be reduced to 2 slots and are 25% more effective ( thats less per slot than current, but more viable for placement in legs )

[focuspark]

I'd prefer

SHS (engine intrinsic and added) = 1.0 dissipation
DHS (engine intrinsic and added) = 1.5 dissipation

I think this easier to understand and fair given the triple size of DHS addons

[Calimaw]

Double Heat Sink where 'mechs use 250+ engines and do not add additional weight ( not slots, since +25 per engine rating adds "free space" ) is an obvious advantage.
'Mechs using 250 engines while using NO additional heat sinks while using DHS get a clear 10 + (10 * 0.4) advantage versus a 'mech using the same engine size that does NOT use DHS.

I don't rely on DPS for my builds. There are other factors like evasive actions such as clinch evasion ( mobile/agile), terrain, obfuscation ( misdirection; preying on slow-minded ), ect.

I usually get 300 in bad conditions on my 3M, 700 in good conditions.
On my A1 I get any where between 100 to 1.1K damage; directly related to ECM (SSRM "Poop Cat")

Both run hot when firing at often as possible. I try to choose my encounters and thus avoid too much heat.

If DHS were reduced to +25% more heat reduction for 2 slots, they'd still weigh more ( tonnage has a limit, as do slots ) I think that you'd be able to place them in more places, but you'd then run into tonnage restrictions for the majority of builds, so the fact they COULD be placed in legs, they may need that extra 2 tons to do it.

Edited by Calimaw, 20 February 2013 - 11:10 PM.

[Roadbuster]

Calimaw, on 20 February 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

Double Heat Sink where 'mechs use 250+ engines and do not add additional weight ( not slots, since +25 per engine rating adds "free space" ) is an obvious advantage.
'Mechs using 250 engines while using NO additional heat sinks while using DHS get a clear 10 + (10 * 0.4) advantage versus a 'mech using the same engine size that does NOT use DHS.

As far as I know the DHS included in the engines are real DHS with a 2,0 value. Only the ones you add beyond that are 1,4.
So by changing from SHS to DHS you basically get 10 free heatsinks without added weight or crit slots.

I agree that the bonus DHS give is really big. You have to spend more crit slots but if you don't need more than the engine heatsinks (plus the heatsinks you can implement to the engine) it's a big boost.
I love DHS as they are but it's a bit sad that there is no real benefit for using SHS over DHS.

Heatsinks still require some fine tuning.

[Stringburka]

I kind of agree with your solution on SHS/DHS; there might be better solutions but I'm not against it.

I don't like your suggestion on <250 engines though. It's hard to put a finger on but I guess I don't like seeing loads of gimmicky stupid builds with insane damage and no movement. Because we WOULD see stupid stuff like jumpjetting 2xUAC Spider 5K's.

It's not that these things would be broken good, they'd just be broken irritating and doesn't fit how I'd prefer the game to be flavorwise and gameplaywise.

I agree <250 engines aren't very useful as is, but I don't like that specific solution.

[Peter Thorndyke IV]

Mahws, on 20 February 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

Heatsinks:

TL;WR:
DHS/SHS are poorly balanced, especially when compared to other upgrades. SHS builds are straight up inferior. Set SHS engine sinks to 2.0 to make SHS viable and make DHS less of a definite upgrade.


Effects:
Better balance. A SHS mech is not at a huge disadvantage against a DHS mech.

Well the OP is right,
SHS are a huge dissadvantage compared to DHS,

but you know what, thats supposed to be that way !

Its almost like comparing a WW2 Tank with a modern Tank, the WW2 model will be inferior in almost any aspect.

On the other hand i agree that the 10 default Heatsinks, at least per BT TT rules do not add to the total weight of the engine, so of the engine is rated less then 250 the additional heatsinks that are not placed in the engine itself should be allocated as critical space without additional weight up to the total of 10 Heatsinks.

[Mahws]

So you're okay with a broken mechanic that puts new players at a massive disadvantage and essentially forces you to equip it to be viable because the numbers look closer to the ones in the TT game? Heat doesn't even work remotely like it does in TT, even if HS did have the exact some stats.

The TT game is built around completely different dynamics, primarily that you can throw more crappy mechs at fewer good mechs. MWO doesn't work that way and deliberately disadvantaging a group of players for the sake of cannon is bad design at best, Pay2Win at worst.

Stringburka, on 21 February 2013 - 02:54 AM, said:

I kind of agree with your solution on SHS/DHS; there might be better solutions but I'm not against it.

I don't like your suggestion on <250 engines though. It's hard to put a finger on but I guess I don't like seeing loads of gimmicky stupid builds with insane damage and no movement. Because we WOULD see stupid stuff like jumpjetting 2xUAC Spider 5K's.

It's not that these things would be broken good, they'd just be broken irritating and doesn't fit how I'd prefer the game to be flavorwise and gameplaywise.

I agree <250 engines aren't very useful as is, but I don't like that specific solution.

If people want to build a glass cannon Spider what's the problem? Gimicky stupid builds are called gimicky stupid builds for a reason, a low engine rated light is just an under-armored medium, a low engine Assault would be LRM/Light mech bait. They're a poor choice for plenty of reasons already, making them actually plausible to use wouldn't make them immediately sensible or popular to use.

Calimaw, on 20 February 2013 - 10:56 PM, said:

I suggest Double Heat Sinks be reduced to 2 slots and are 25% more effective ( thats less per slot than current, but more viable for placement in legs )

That's Clan heatsinks, same rate as DHS but only take up two slots. I don't really think they need a buff in effectiveness, the numbers on DHS seems fine at the moment, and that's coming from a laser boater/PPC user.

Edited by Mahws, 21 February 2013 - 09:35 PM.

[DeadlyNerd]

the OP wants to make a 3xSRM6 commando but can't due to tonnage issues. The system is working perfectly.

[Taiga Gunman]

One of the best decision I know (already discussed earlier) is the possibility to combine SHS and DHS in one mech.

[Stringburka]

Mahws, on 21 February 2013 - 09:34 PM, said:

If people want to build a glass cannon Spider what's the problem? Gimicky stupid builds are called gimicky stupid builds for a reason, a low engine rated light is just an under-armored medium, a low engine Assault would be LRM/Light mech bait. They're a poor choice for plenty of reasons already, making them actually plausible to use wouldn't make them immediately sensible or popular to use.

It was just an example, but if you look at the game currently, gimicky stupid builds rule the day and has since closed beta (gausskat, 4xuackat, splatcat, ac-40kat, 6ppc-stalker, 4-ppckat etc etc). Good light-weight engines will open another venue for that kind of stupid builds. And I'll have to play with loads of people using them. I think that kind of builds should be discouraged.

[Mahws]

What good light engines though? Moving at 30-40 k/ph is punishment enough without the heatsinks. A splatcat with a 200 engine would get outrun by an Atlas and a 6PPC stalker would turn so slowly that it'd be even more of a one trick pony than it is now. XL engines are they keystone of cheesebuilds, small engines will still be the inferior choice for almost any build.

DeadlyNerd, on 21 February 2013 - 11:08 PM, said:

the OP wants to make a 3xSRM6 commando but can't due to tonnage issues. The system is working perfectly.

Oh yeah, that would be the bomb. 15 shots of ammo, 6 heatsinks and two of them firing through a 4 tube launcher. And at the blistering speeds of 97kp/h! No Raven 3L would fear me! Atlai would tremble at my approach!

Or alternatively instead of resorting to strawman arguments you could actually come up with some kind of reason why sub-250 engines not being completely worthless is a bad idea?

[Stringburka]

Mahws, on 22 February 2013 - 01:11 AM, said:

What good light engines though? Moving at 30-40 k/ph is punishment enough without the heatsinks.

The AC-40 Catapult K2 would get a direct extra 2 tons to play around with as it's already so heat efficient, to take an actual example of something that many already find annoying. So it's two extra tons of ammo or armor or adding two medium lasers to an already good, stupid gimicky build. You'll see dualgauss cicadas, 3-4 PPC jenners (especially if a standard 100 engine gives 20 HS worth of cooling when combined with your other idea) et cetera.

I'm not good with coming up with build ideas, but I've seen enough crazy stuff to know that more would come if those who are are given the chance.

The engines are balanced with heatsinks in mind, not just speed - that part of your premise is just faulty. Do you think the 250 costs 1.5 tons more than the 245 because of the 2 kph or whatever difference it'll make in most 'mechs?

Edited by Stringburka, 22 February 2013 - 02:44 AM.

[Mahws]

No, but I also don't think an XL255 weighs exactly the same as an XL250 for the 2kph difference it'd make either. Engine weights are borked.

A Dualgauss Cicada would move at 40kp/h with three tonnes of ammo. A PPC Jenner would neither be fast enough nor heat efficient enough to even be considered as a practicality. A mech that moves at the speed of an Assault, with the firepower of a medium and the armor of a light isn't exactly intimidating or attractive.

The only build I can think of that would benefit is the 20xAC20 K2, but honestly it's a poor man's Gaussapult as is, lowering your move speed by 12/kph to give you as much ammo/extra lasers/armor as an XL toting Gauss seems balanced enough.