55 replies to this topic

[Lagster]

From your charts this seems like an overall buff to heat dissipation, which means an overall reduction in TTK, which means PGI will never implement this.

Two situations come to my mind:

1) Alpha strike with 4 PPCs or whatever not allowed by Ghost Heat, then run off and enjoy improved cooldown as a reward for spiking your heat up. Which might actually encourage more boat alphas.

2) Alpha striking (especially as an opening salvo) becomes a necessity rather than an option, as everyone will want to max out their rate of dissipation.

While ghost heat is a bad idea, this doesn't seem like a good solution to prevent high FLD alpha boats. I'm not sure what the ultra competitive may think, but I have found chain-firing to be sometime more effective when I'm using weapons that cause cockpit shake. If all weapons caused some form of "disturbance" to the target, players would have to choose between alpha and leave a window for retaliation, or chain fire and create increased cockpit shake to prevent effective retaliation. The extra shake all around will also throw off precision aiming.

[Ancient Demise]

Lagster, on 24 September 2014 - 01:59 AM, said:

From your charts this seems like an overall buff to heat dissipation, which means an overall reduction in TTK, which means PGI will never implement this.

Two situations come to my mind:

1) Alpha strike with 4 PPCs or whatever not allowed by Ghost Heat, then run off and enjoy improved cooldown as a reward for spiking your heat up. Which might actually encourage more boat alphas.

2) Alpha striking (especially as an opening salvo) becomes a necessity rather than an option, as everyone will want to max out their rate of dissipation.

While ghost heat is a bad idea, this doesn't seem like a good solution to prevent high FLD alpha boats. I'm not sure what the ultra competitive may think, but I have found chain-firing to be sometime more effective when I'm using weapons that cause cockpit shake. If all weapons caused some form of "disturbance" to the target, players would have to choose between alpha and leave a window for retaliation, or chain fire and create increased cockpit shake to prevent effective retaliation. The extra shake all around will also throw off precision aiming.

Sustained dps will be higher but mixed weapon alpha strikes will be much less numerous, so it gets difficult to really tell without an in game test. I think that the you will be able to run at MAX DPS for a much shorter time as this essentially requires full alpha strikes, but you will be able to fire with a slightly higher max sustained DPS for a longer period.

Just an example (not based on anything), but
MWO:
Initial MAX dps: 11.0 from t=0 to t=6 seconds
max sustained dps: 6 at t=6+ seconds
= 90 damage for 10 seconds

New heat:
Initial max dps: 11.0 from t=0 to t=1 seconds
max sustained dps: 7 at t=1+ seconds
= 74 damage for 10 seconds

Arguably, based on the actual damage output, the TTK may even be less than the MWO model.

Again, these are all just numbers I made up for a random build, but I think it outlines my point - we will not know how it will affect the TTK until we can see a real time test, and the TTK may very different from what we can guess.


Generating lower heat will still dissipate faster overall, simply because there is just less there. The only time when this might not be true is in the range of 1-2 heat, at which point you are close enough to zero anyways.

Remember that with a lower max heat, you will need X+Y heat sinks to stay safe from alpha striking with X heat. That 4 PPC build might seem good until you realize you need 40+ eHS to make it viable for a single alpha strike which is a lot of tonnage/pod space. Add in heat penalties for prolonged max heat levels and suddenly firing 4 PPCs at once doesn't seem like a good idea.

Edited by Ancient Demise, 24 September 2014 - 05:11 PM.

[Sirius Drake]

Awsome work Demise.
I support this.

[Calamus]

This thread is getting overwhelming support. It should be taken seriously by PGI.

[MadLibrarian]

I like it. Thanks for writing it up so well. Definitely deserves testing first.

In the grand scheme of things, however, I'd rather that PGI added the gameplay modes and make a game out of this sim sandbox.

While their customers are just playing (and paying) for the ability to 'play' with different mechs, which we then only use to 'play' for the ability to 'play' with different mechs, et infinitum, all else is low priority.

[Cimarb]

MadLibrarian, on 06 October 2014 - 01:45 PM, said:

I like it. Thanks for writing it up so well. Definitely deserves testing first.

In the grand scheme of things, however, I'd rather that PGI added the gameplay modes and make a game out of this sim sandbox.

While their customers are just playing (and paying) for the ability to 'play' with different mechs, which we then only use to 'play' for the ability to 'play' with different mechs, et infinitum, all else is low priority.

They have this thing coming out soon, called CW (community warfare). It should fix your issue.

In all seriousness, though, this is an attempt to get it put on "the list" to be worked on eventually. Nothing we expect next month (though we would not complain, lol)

[Leo Kraeas]

changes to the heat system have been cropping up in town halls, EXCITEMENT IS BUILDING!

[General Taskeen]

Also what Climarb said. Mech Warrior 2 even had ammo explosions with too much heat, and MW3 and MW4 simulated heat affects by disabling the hud and otherwise obscuring your view and situational awareness since the radar scope would go dead.

The AWS should have no penalties, in TT it runs absolutely cool with 28SHS firing 3 PPC's or 2 in a turn, then 1 the next. Having "too much" heat sinks should not even apply in its heat scale math "fearing the Awesome" is a joke in MWO for many reasons (profile and hitboxes for one), even though its an powerful Mech in TT even in stock form.

I also I recommend getting a hold of the original copies of old Mech Warrior games and compare how they did it. All MW games that I know of MW2/3/4/LL had a hardcap heatscale. So every mech had the same heat capacity, where as heat capacity did not scale at all with the more heat sinks you had, the more heatsinks you had just cooled you down faster, subsequently SHS were far more usable as they are in TT. MW3 had a cap at 30 or 40, where as MW4 had a cap at 60 (those caps could not be increased through "skills" or more heatsinks, so the balance was relatively fair in that regard).

While that was a good read and an interesting take on it, I think exponential or linear heat scale should be scrapped for something simplistic and not overly complicated to program by completing redoing the heat system and removing ghost heat completely and replace it with a hardcap that would have to be decided on (the old games are a good starting point) (between 30-50) and go from there. And at the same time add "soft" penalties to the scale that simulates, but is not exactly like the TT per turn rising heat penalties, such as lower speed and turn rate at a certain percentage, ammo explosions, soft shutdown (can be over ridden), hud and radar distortion at highest temps, etc.

Edited by General Taskeen, 09 October 2014 - 07:32 AM.

[Cimarb]

General Taskeen, on 09 October 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

Also what Climarb said.

Why does everyone seem to add an "L" in my name?.... lol

[Ancient Demise]

General Taskeen, on 09 October 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

While that was a good read and an interesting take on it, I think exponential or linear heat scale should be scrapped for something simplistic and not overly complicated to program by completing redoing the heat system and removing ghost heat completely and replace it with a hardcap that would have to be decided on (the old games are a good starting point) (between 30-50) and go from there. And at the same time add "soft" penalties to the scale that simulates, but is not exactly like the TT per turn rising heat penalties, such as lower speed and turn rate at a certain percentage, ammo explosions, soft shutdown (can be over ridden), hud and radar distortion at highest temps, etc.

It is really really simple to program and can be done in just a few lines, if that. The hard part is translating this equation to y=a*e^bx form, but most programming lets work around this. If you want to really get into it I have come up with an approximation, but that is beside the point.

I believe that a hard cap would limit heavier mechs while really buffing lighter mechs. While this is not necessarily a bad thing, it could be abused (mechs using 10 dhs and all the remaining weight for weapons for a high (30-50) heat limit). This is why I am in favor of a heat level dependent on the number of heat sinks - more weight for HS will take away tonnage for weapons.
You are correct (as far as I can tell) about the flat limit for previous titles, but I believe this system is an improvement on that. Despite this, MWLL DOES (afaik) have an exponential decay system, albeit less prominent as this one.

I have added a scaled list of penalties to the original post. I divided the ammo explosion chances by 10 each because I felt [without testing them in game] they were too punishing.

[Cimarb]

I really, REALLY like the heat penalties addition. I think that is crucial to having a good heat system, regardless of whether it is exponential or not. That was really the only thing I thought was missing from your proposal. As you said, it would need testing for balance, but I think you have a great system explained here.

[DrXitomatl]

I agree with the principle of this idea. Values would almost certainly have to be adjusted. This does seem a little too forgiving of high heat, but I like that it makes the whole heat system more realistic. I hadn't even thought about exponential vs linear rates of cooling.

A system of penalties for running hot would provide a counterweight against how forgiving this system seems to be, but if the penalty system is too complex then we end up with one of the problems of the current Ghost Heat system -- complexity/confusion/you have to be an expert to know what's going on.

Overall, I am very intrigued and if it's not too difficult to implement I would be interested in an extended public server test. I would NOT endorse simply implementing this system and scrapping the current one immediately. The current system, while confusing to newcomers, unrealistic, and arbitrary, does accomplish its goal pretty well, and the game is super fun to play. So let's not toss it out until we're sure this system is superior in actual gameplay.

*EDIT* Also, a big thanks to Ancient Demise for putting in so much time and energy to this. Someone made a joke about getting college credit for reading it, but seriously, that was some pretty high level work. Thanks.

Edited by WM Xitomatl, 22 October 2014 - 02:50 PM.

[Nightmare1]

So...are there Cliff Notes for this post?

[pbiggz]

not sure how well this would work, but +1 for actually including math, because the LEAD ******* DESIGNER couldn't back up his half baked excuse for balance with real math, just a set of arbitrary line graphs that have since been removed from the forums.

[Throe]

I don't see this as having a negative effect on the way or the frequency with which people currently Alpha. Assuming Ghost heat is still left in the game in some fashion, I think this could dramatically improve the actual game play we see in PUG matches and competitive matches. Let's be honest, as much as we all hate Ghost Heat, it does benefit actual game play by effectively limiting some loadouts which would be otherwise overpowered.

Mainly what I'm getting at is that people have been saying Brawling is dead. This would bring a benefit back to those players who prefer to engage, and stay engaged. The current playstyle for most high-heat 'Mechs is to Alpha-strike, back-off to cool-off, rinse repeat. This would grant an incentive to stay engaged with the enemy for longer durations overall.

I voted to test extensively, because while I believe it's a good *idea*, I don't think good ideas on paper always work out in-game. I also did not read the entire post. I know what you're getting at, and I don't need a technical explanation of basic physics. Suffice to say, making things realistic is not always the best argument for implementing changes in a game. Making the game more fun(for everyone, not just certain playstyles), IS. After all, it's a game, and if we're not here to have fun, why ARE we here?

[Burktross]

Throet, on 17 November 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

I don't see this as having a negative effect on the way or the frequency with which people currently Alpha. Assuming Ghost heat is still left in the game in some fashion, I think this could dramatically improve the actual game play we see in PUG matches and competitive matches. Let's be honest, as much as we all hate Ghost Heat, it does benefit actual game play by effectively limiting some loadouts which would be otherwise overpowered.

Mainly what I'm getting at is that people have been saying Brawling is dead. This would bring a benefit back to those players who prefer to engage, and stay engaged. The current playstyle for most high-heat 'Mechs is to Alpha-strike, back-off to cool-off, rinse repeat. This would grant an incentive to stay engaged with the enemy for longer durations overall.

I voted to test extensively, because while I believe it's a good *idea*, I don't think good ideas on paper always work out in-game. I also did not read the entire post. I know what you're getting at, and I don't need a technical explanation of basic physics. Suffice to say, making things realistic is not always the best argument for implementing changes in a game. Making the game more fun(for everyone, not just certain playstyles), IS. After all, it's a game, and if we're not here to have fun, why ARE we here?

Don't be a ****, it's impolite to read my mind like that!