A Clear And Reasonable Scale For Heat Penalties

65 replies to this topic

#1Homeless Bill

Member

• The 1 Percent
• 1,968 posts
• LocationA Box Near You

Posted 19 July 2013 - 08:46 PM

Before you say "heat penalties won't work": It's time to stop bitching and be realistic - they're rolling with heat penalties. This is what we will have at launch, so it's time to fix them as much as we can. Whether or not heat penalties are the right way to go is irrelevant - they're going with heat penalties, and I'd rather it be a system players can understand.

THE CURRENT SYSTEM
After reading the post on the math behind heat penalties, it's become apparent that the current system has two glaring flaws: player communication and lots of weapon combinations.

First, it's very difficult to understand and to communicate to players. HUD feedback will come eventually, but players won't be able to know easily how bad things will be. Even in the Mechlab, it will be very difficult to explain - particularly to new players.

There's this scale, and it has a coefficient for each number of weapons. You take your weapon's unique multiplier and multiply it with that. Times the number of weapons you're firing minus the number of weapons it's okay to fire. Or something? It's all a big, unintuitive pain in the ***.

I contend that this will only get worse because, let's face it: PGI is going to have to lump all the big-damage (and perhaps all) weapons together to prevent frankenbuilds from avoiding the penalties.

The PPC, ERPPC, AC/10, AC/20, Gauss Rifle, and possibly even (ER)LL and LPL will be thrown in together because players will continually shift builds around to avoid the issue. And what about the rest of the weapons? What about 6xML+1xAC/20? 7xML is bad, 2xAC/20 is bad, but 6xML+1xAC/20 avoids the penalty? My point is that it's all very inconsistent and difficult to arbitrarily link weapons together. Are we fixing boating in general, or is it fine to alpha 6xML+3xSRM6 something we want avoiding the penalty?

In addition, heat penalties are applied based on the hottest weapon, but how will that work when many different weapons are linked together? At the point where lots of weapons are linked together out of necessity, do you want to apply the ERPPC penalty to a large laser? Does a medium laser deserve the same treatment as an AC/20?

THE PROPOSAL
So, for those of you that have read my balance proposal, this is going to look super familiar.

A new scale like the heat scale would be implemented. Let's call it the Heat Buffer Level (thanks, Phaesphoros for the name). Each weapon would have an associated Heat Buffer value. When a weapon is fired, it would add its Heat Buffer value to the 'mech's Heat Buffer Level. Once a 'mech's Heat Buffer Level went over 100%, an exponential heat penalty would be applied. The Heat Buffer value would be displayed in the Mechlab just like heat.

PGI can do one of two things with this scale:
• Do it their way and hide it. Just like what's there now, you can hide it from the player. There's simply a half-second window (though I advocate making it one full second) where the heat penalties can be triggered.
• Try out my way and show it to the player. Make it dissipate at a rate of 100% per second, put some sort of Alpha bar on the HUD, and maybe even change the weapon group icon's colors based on what the heat penalty will be. I advocate transparency and showing the player everything, but I can understand not wanting to overwhelm the player with additional HUD information.
Spoiler

THE NUMBERS
Keep in mind that these numbers are meant to demonstrate the spirit of what I’m going for. Don’t get caught up in the minutia - it’s just a starting point.

The Numbers I Think Are Right:
Spoiler

Numbers Closer to PGI's:
Spoiler

TL;DR
I'm totally not a fan of heat penalties, but if we're going to roll with them, let's do it right. This is surely a more thorough and intelligible method than coupling random weapons with each other and imposing a difficult-to-understand-let-alone-calculate heat penalty. Read The Proposal and glance over The Numbers.

Thoughts?

Edited by Homeless Bill, 02 August 2013 - 12:28 AM.

#2TurboChickenMan

Clone

• 41 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:15 PM

Simpler = better!

(Note: Not an invitation for PGI to turn MWO into Serious Sam.)

#3thatrobotguy

Member

• Liquid Metal
• 48 posts

Posted 19 July 2013 - 10:36 PM

I like it!

#4jeffsw6

Member

• 1,258 posts
• LocationLouisville, KY (suburbs)

Posted 19 July 2013 - 11:21 PM

Homeless Bill, on 19 July 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Let's call it the Alpha Scale.

I'm glad you are calling the game what it is.

Seriously ... you expect the people who think 2xSRM2 is over-powered to get your system right? The guy who thinks MGs would be devastating if they were buffed 100%, then gradually buffed them 150% plus added range and ... nothing happened, because they still suck?

If someone is too stupid to be trusted with a match, you don't hand him a flame-thrower. You want to give PGI the flamer. Lucky for us, that weapon is also devastatingly worthless.

I appreciate your constructiveness, Bill, but they need to understand why they are failing in order to improve future results.

#5Homeless Bill

Member

• The 1 Percent
• 1,968 posts
• LocationA Box Near You

Posted 20 July 2013 - 01:53 AM

Exiled again. Jesus Christ. Why do the other ten suggestions get to sit in Gameplay Balance?

#6Chavette

Member

• Mercenary
• 2,862 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 02:17 AM

Homeless Bill, on 20 July 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Exiled again. Jesus Christ. Why do the other ten suggestions get to sit in Gameplay Balance?

They get more likes than their own balance announcements so they hide em

Tbh, I liked the targeting computer one more, but the penalty has to be change to not convergence now, but something else, otherwise it was spot on.

#7Brilig

Member

• Philanthropist
• 667 posts
• LocationTexas

Posted 20 July 2013 - 03:17 AM

At this point lowering the heat cap, and adding mech performance penalties for maintaining heat above 50 or 60% might work out better.

Instead of adding a complicated system of fire x amount of y weapon adds a heat penalty just lower the heat cap. A lot of people suggested it. There is nothing new to learn, and no extra hurdles for new players. Coupled with a performance penalty for maintaining a high heat, and taking damage after overheating it could work.

#8Homeless Bill

Member

• The 1 Percent
• 1,968 posts
• LocationA Box Near You

Posted 20 July 2013 - 03:39 AM

Exiled again. Jesus Christ. Why do the other ten suggestions get to sit in Gameplay Balance?

Bah. I'm just being grouchy. I can just spam it / link it in my signature if I want to get it more attention. I'm just jealous that none of my threads to get to stay around =[

jeffsw6, on 19 July 2013 - 11:21 PM, said:

I appreciate your constructiveness, Bill, but they need to understand why they are failing in order to improve future results.

It's clear they intend to roll with this system and see how it plays out. Incessant bitching is not going to get them to change their mind. Only time will. At the very least, they need to make this thing air-tight so people can't just skew the metrics by changing their builds to avoid the whatever weapons get paired together.

I dislike heat penalties, but I'd take sensible numbers that don't hit new players with such a "what the ****" factor. Make no mistake: we will have this **** at launch. It's time to get realistic and try to improve what they're doing, rather than wasting time fighting the inevitable.

#9Spirit of the Wolf

Member

• Legendary Founder
• 454 posts
• LocationEarth... I think. (Hey, you don't know if you're in the matrix either, do you?)

Posted 20 July 2013 - 08:57 AM

Since the day one of my CJF clan members linked to your post on QQmercs, I've been an avid fan of your proposal -- I very much prefer the convergence one over this idea, namely because the first one negates the need for this harebrained scheme. Now, if PGI had actually listened to your idea in the first place...

But I digress.

Anyways, because I thought your idea was so awesome, guess what I put for my ATD 43 question? (With 129 likes as of now, I REALLY hope it gets picked, and answered -- answered to a degree which is sufficient to actually provide useful information.)

*EDIT*

Edited by Spirit of the Wolf, 20 July 2013 - 08:58 AM.

#10LTGear

Member

• 87 posts
• LocationPhilippines

Posted 20 July 2013 - 09:20 AM

Jaegers do not deserve heat penalty will not spend a dime on this game until they fix it. and screw to players who hate to fight against 2 ac40's in a normal way

#11EchoMike

Member

• Philanthropist
• 149 posts
• LocationSomewhere on Rigel III

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:32 AM

Homeless Bill, on 20 July 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Exiled again. Jesus Christ. Why do the other ten suggestions get to sit in Gameplay Balance?

PGI has a 'chart' on you Bill.

Homeless Bill, on 19 July 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

TL;DR
I'm totally not a fan of heat penalties, but if we're going to roll with them, let's do it right. This is surely a more through and easily understandable method than coupling random weapons with each other and imposing a difficult-to-understand-let-alone-calculate heat penalty. Read The Proposal and glance over The Numbers.

Thoughts?

I had the same thought: 'if PGI is going to go down the heat scale path and no plans to improve how a 'mech handles it's wepaons - as Pht would say, why not apply to all weapon systems and 'do it right' as you say. Your numbers seem reasonable, I have no issues with ML AV being 6 though. Good call.

Edited by EchoMike, 20 July 2013 - 11:37 AM.

#12Homeless Bill

Member

• The 1 Percent
• 1,968 posts
• LocationA Box Near You

Posted 20 July 2013 - 12:52 PM

Spirit of the Wolf, on 20 July 2013 - 08:57 AM, said:

Anyways, because I thought your idea was so awesome, guess what I put for my ATD 43 question? (With 129 likes as of now, I REALLY hope it gets picked, and answered -- answered to a degree which is sufficient to actually provide useful information.)

When I saw you asked, I did what I could to get people to vote for it. Seems like it's currently #2 next to my question about launch =D

But don't get your hopes up about them answering it. That'll be one they're just like "no ******* way." Either way, <3 for the support.

LTGear, on 20 July 2013 - 09:20 AM, said:

Jaegers do not deserve heat penalty will not spend a dime on this game until they fix it. and screw to players who hate to fight against 2 ac40's in a normal way

Your build is bad and you should feel bad. I have zero sympathy for you. If you're leaving because you can't run cheese, then good riddance.

EchoMike, on 20 July 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

PGI has a 'chart' on you Bill.

They're out to get me, I tell you!

Though, honestly, I'm pretty sure there's some moderator that legitimately doesn't like me.

#13Phobic Wraith

Member

• 252 posts
• LocationUtah

Posted 20 July 2013 - 01:55 PM

Bill, you're the best.
That being said, I still don't like it. To be perfectly clear though, I don't like any heat penalty solution.
This is a far better system than an arbitrary mess of "large and many."
At least Bill's way the broken game functions are mitigated, but It can only get more complex from here boys. How can a system that nobody really understands be communicated to an all new playerbase when this game goes full release?

At this point I think the issue isn't useful ideas, or even "implementability," It's pride. I don't think the devs want to listen to anyone else's ideas because the ideas aren't theirs. If they did, then in some twisted sense MWO would no longer be PGI's Of course they could never allow that to happen.

So their solution? go forward with the broken game, no matter the result. At least that way they own their results, right?

Jeez, I'm not normally this pessimistic! I'm an optimistic guy. I like giving people the benefit of the doubt. Big robot stompy fun is usually enough for me, but this added obstinate complexity in the game is really a buzzkill. I no longer tell my buddies and co-workers that my favorite game series from my childhood has a new iteration, and they should join me.

It's just not worth explaining to them why they blew up after getting faced by a 732 cheese king, and any time they try to fight back, they blow themselves up from overheating.

edit: grammar

Edited by Phobic Wraith, 20 July 2013 - 01:57 PM.

#14Trev Firestorm

Member

• The Boombox
• 1,240 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 05:08 PM

Better than what they put in place, but heat penalties really aren't the way to go... since they think it is this would be the way to do it.

#15Wildgrin

Member

• 21 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 07:49 PM

While I would have preferred your original solution Bill, using numbers this way is something that I could get behind.

I have seen a couple suggestions about changing heat threshold to a static value as well(30) and going from there, which I would also be willing to try.

As it stands the current system is un-intuitive and ineffective in hurting the alpha strike as a primary firing control. I think we have seen more brawling because of the 2.0 srm damage buff than anything to do with the heat scale.

#16pencilboom

Member

• Elite Founder
• 268 posts

Posted 20 July 2013 - 11:54 PM

Homeless Bill, on 20 July 2013 - 01:53 AM, said:

Exiled again. Jesus Christ. Why do the other ten suggestions get to sit in Gameplay Balance?

Seems like PGI has put a bounty on your head Bill. Calling all moderators to exile your ideas because clearly you're a "threat" to them. Simply clever, and makes Paul looks bad hahaha

Edited by pencilboom, 21 July 2013 - 12:00 AM.

#17LTGear

Member

• 87 posts
• LocationPhilippines

Posted 21 July 2013 - 02:33 AM

Quote

Your build is bad and you should feel bad. I have zero sympathy for you. If you're leaving because you can't run cheese, then good riddance.

Homeless Bill,

@@ actually in reality it would take a thousand of rounds of ammunition if i fire 2x AC20 onto your face before my ac guns wud sustain an overheating yet douchers like you made PGI add more heat penalty to it i no longer feel comfortable using my jagger. i'm here for fun and they took that away from me with the last patch. so i didn't mean am not gonna play will still do but not spend a dime until i think everything is normal again. i would still play and and start killing players like you. I do hope your forum name is the same as your IGN coz you're in my list of mech pilots imma gonna @##&%#&@%*&\$#&\$&\$&\$

One more thing I DO NOT NEED YOUR SYMPATHY you hairless alien bug by the way where do you live? seemed like you're homeless aahahahhaha

Edited by LTGear, 21 July 2013 - 02:37 AM.

#18Gaan Cathal

Member

• Bridesmaid
• 2,107 posts

Posted 21 July 2013 - 03:04 AM

LTGear, on 21 July 2013 - 02:33 AM, said:

Homeless Bill,

@@ actually in reality it would take a thousand of rounds of ammunition if i fire 2x AC20 onto your face before my ac guns wud sustain an overheating yet douchers like you made PGI add more heat penalty to it i no longer feel comfortable using my jagger. i'm here for fun and they took that away from me with the last patch. so i didn't mean am not gonna play will still do but not spend a dime until i think everything is normal again. i would still play and and start killing players like you. I do hope your forum name is the same as your IGN coz you're in my list of mech pilots imma gonna @##&%#&@%*&\$#&\$&\$&\$

One more thing I DO NOT NEED YOUR SYMPATHY you hairless alien bug by the way where do you live? seemed like you're homeless aahahahhaha

Never go full ******.

#19Mega Prawn

Rookie

• 9 posts
• LocationUK

Posted 21 July 2013 - 03:18 AM

I haven't got much to say other than to echo what people are already saying:

This solution is nowhere near as interesting and fun-sounding as your original convergence once, but it definitely looks better than what's in place at the moment.

There is one 'concern' I have at the moment though, concerning a weapon's like ultras or AC2s:

Although, being ACs, they do their damage in discrete chunks, they play more like spray-canons in that you are generally endeavouring to keep a string of rounds on target. As such, I can see it being a royal pain to try and simultaneously keep an eye on those HUD pips to see exactly the moment that you'll start to go over the Alpha limit. I thought it wouldn't be so much of a problem with your original convergence system, because you'd notice a loss of accuracy and convergence and then just scale your shooting back. But in this new system, you'd be firing away and would suddenly start generating massive heat. You would be able to circumvent this by watching the pips, but I'm not sure how easy this would be when you're concentrating on keeping the stream on target and maybe even trying to get them all on a side torso or something. I guess the key difference is DPS (which I know you talked about quite a lot in your original article); with the TCS convergence system your DPS would remain the same, but in this alternative system it would be ramped down (presumably quite heavily), and seeing as those kinds of weapons (Ultras and AC2s) are very DPS-y weapons, could that mess them up?

One thing I would quite like (for this disfigured love-child of TCS and Heatscale) would be a little Alpha-load bar running vertically up the side of the reticle in the middle of your screen. Yes, I know some people would moan that this is just more info thrown in the players face (give the option to switch it off?) but it would be a nice, compact, peripheral indicator of how far you are pushing it with your continuous fire. Just a thought...

Also, in case PGI is listening - please swallow your pride and listen to your community, only a very few people here want belligerence, but pretty much everyone would like well thought-out and popular player-made solutions discussed and considered in an open and frank manner. The only way to get people to shut-up about solutions like this is to atleast discuss them, not secret them away on some other part of the forums and hope they'll go away.

Cheers Bill.

Member