Gideon Grey, on 18 April 2013 - 07:16 AM, said:
And when someone runs a macro that fires those 6 PPCs in a chain with a 5ms delay between each firing, resulting in all 6 firing within a quarter second or so, which is virtually instantaneous and gets the chain fire "benefit"?
Or you hard code it to prevent this by penalizing any overlapping firing time at all (only pure chain fire) then you massively penalize the light pilot who fires several medium lasers in rapid succession... Or do you do this for only PPCs? Which seems arbitrary...
I think as has been said, the only true and fair fix is to have true heat penalties for running hot as in TT. This solves a multitude of issues.
They could add as you say, a 0.25 sec delay between weapon groups being fired (a sort 'weapon group chain firing') to prevent the pinpoint damage of all those weapons firing at once.... which would make the standard chain fire option more agreeable due to the heat dissipation bonus. That way even if a person places each of the 6 PPCs (or whatever weapon) in its own weapon group and macros all 6 to fire at once with one keystroke, they would each fire 0.25 secs apart...and the damage likely will not all hit the target mech in the same spot (unless its sitting still..).
MeatForBrains, on 18 April 2013 - 07:29 AM, said:
While i think there is some merit, i think the penalty to alpha (2 second penalty) + incentive for chain (-2 heat) aren't necessary.
Both are needed once you run the numbers. If you leave the penalty but no bonus to chain there is little incentive to chain them. If you only leave bonus to chain then the advantage of insta-max damage @ pinpoint location far exceeds the benefit of a chain fire heat bonus.
Quote
Also 2 seconds is too much. Just doing 1 second penalty per each additional weapon and nothing else would get you where you want to be. But then again, what if you were to chain fire weapon groups? 2 med lasers, then 2 large lasers?
How would you address that?
Weapons have a 2-3 second delay in firing already. If you make it 1 second then the penalty just doesnt work as far as the benefit of alpha over chain. The weapon type or size does not matter..the heat bonus/penalty applies to any weapon. 2 med lasers in one group and 2 larges in another group chain fired would still get a -2 heat bonus per weapon.
Think about it... 4 weapons. Lets say its 4 mediums since the penalty is the same no matter the weapon.If its a -1s delay per gun. If we assume 100 heat capacity then:
0 seconds: Fire. 20 heat generated upon alpha'ing 4 med lasers.
1-4 seconds: weapon timer & penalty to cooldown from alpha take place.
5 seconds: 20 heat begin to dissipate.
6 seconds: fire. +20 heat. Total heat is probably now 38-39 since there was no time to dissipate.
7-9 seconds: weapon timer & cooldown penalty
10 seconds: last second of penalty timer & weapon ready to fire. So you fire again. heat is 60 now.
and so on. You can fire about 4 alphas of 4 med lasers. 4 seconds later it begins to cool off. That's not much of a penalty to you that would make you think a bit more about alpha striking. But if you use 2 sec delay the delay after you nearly overheat is 8 seconds before it begins to cool down. That can be a seriously crippling thing for any mech.
Lights and fast mediums have the advantage of controlling when they engage and disengage so for them alpha striking to near shutdown and breaking off to cool off is permissible. Heavies and assaults oth would find alpha striking to be useful in select situations.
Quote
At what point to do decide that a weapon is considered boated? Your definition is after the first weapon?
Or are you just saying that if you shoot ALL weapons does this apply? What if you're carrying LRMS, that would break that mechanic as well.
Its not about boating per say. Its the firing of so many weapons at once. more than 1 weapon in weapon group set to fire at once = alpha striking with that weapon group. Thats the rule of thumb. LRMs are no different than any other weapon.. you chain fire them or alpha fire them.
There are only three that are exempt from the heat penalty and heat bonus: TAG, MG's and Gauss since they generate no heat. Ive never used narc so im not sure if it uses heat when it fires..if it does not add it to this list.
MustrumRidcully, on 18 April 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:
A problem with the alpha example is. Those alpha strike mechs dissipate heat already very slowly compared to how fast they build it up. It doesn't matter to them because they have enough heat capacity to fire 2 alphas or so and deliver so much damage that it can cripple an enemy mech.
If every mech weapon would deal only half the damage it would deal now, then that alpha strike boat would not be interesting anymore - it deals too little damage, if it wants to achieve something, it needs the ability to sustain its fire.
Thats what im trying to get to here except its through heat dissipation penalty/bonus. You cant reduce damage in any way because the alpha strike benefit is high damage applied in one spot at once. If you halve mech damage the alpha strike is still an alpha strike and becomes an even better choice than chain fire. However, if you penalize/bonus the heat dissipation then the alpha becomes dangerous to use but still useful in select circumstances..and chain fire bonus enables sustained fire but without all damage being unloaded into one spot at the same time.
somedood, on 18 April 2013 - 08:15 AM, said:
There are no heat penalties for alpha firing over chain firing right now. The reason you are seeing 5% extra heat after firing on alpha vs. chain fire is because when alpha firing 0 seconds have passed from firing to not firing, but a little more than 2 seconds have passed between firing an not firing when using chain fire. If you wait those same 2 seconds after alpha firing your heat will be the same as chain fire.
Yes I am aware of that. Thats why im saying that it makes no sense to bother with chain fire just for that measly 5%. This is why Im proposing an actual heat dissipation penalty for alpha and heat dissipation bonus for chain.
Edited by Skyfaller, 18 April 2013 - 09:45 AM.
1
