41 replies to this topic

[LordBraxton]

So confused, how can anyone claim ballistics are overpowered right now?

PPC>Gauss>AC20>Everything Else

[Kraven Kor]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 08:43 AM, said:

I think that the game being more difficult for all players would be a GOOD thing. There are already tons of easy shooters out there. PGI is a small outfit, they need to cater to a niche market instead of competing on the Big boy's turf.

Except it makes it exponentially more difficult for a "bad" player than for a good player.

Slower convergence and torso / arm speed, for instance, would be "somewhat" harder for a good player to adjust to, but anyone could in fact adjust to it.

Cone of Fire would make a good player's shots spread a bit, which isn't bad, but would make a bad player's shots miss significantly more often than the current implementation, with much less "skill" involved in compensating for it - it is more luck than skill to overcome, and those without the skill will be relying wholly on luck.

I could be wrong on all this; just my take on Cone of Fire or any "random" system of nerfing pinpoint aim.

LordBraxton, on 17 May 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

So confused, how can anyone claim ballistics are overpowered right now?

PPC>Gauss>AC20>Everything Else

Opinions are like... you know the rest.

There are people who honestly believe that they can pray away homosexuality, and you think us disagreeing on which weapon is best is strange?

[Hotthedd]

Kraven Kor, on 17 May 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

Except it makes it exponentially more difficult for a "bad" player than for a good player.

Slower convergence and torso / arm speed, for instance, would be "somewhat" harder for a good player to adjust to, but anyone could in fact adjust to it.

Cone of Fire would make a good player's shots spread a bit, which isn't bad, but would make a bad player's shots miss significantly more often than the current implementation, with much less "skill" involved in compensating for it - it is more luck than skill to overcome, and those without the skill will be relying wholly on luck.

I could be wrong on all this; just my take on Cone of Fire or any "random" system of nerfing pinpoint aim.



Opinions are like... you know the rest.

There are people who honestly believe that they can pray away homosexuality, and you think us disagreeing on which weapon is best is strange?

But the beautiful thing is: Bad players can BECOME good players. And when they do, they can appreciate the dedication it took to BECOME good, instead of this "everyone is equal" sputum. We deserve equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

[Kraven Kor]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 09:41 AM, said:

But the beautiful thing is: Bad players can BECOME good players. And when they do, they can appreciate the dedication it took to BECOME good, instead of this "everyone is equal" sputum. We deserve equal opportunities, not equal outcomes.

And "Cone of Fire" does not present equal opportunities, in my opinion.

Nor can you "learn to use it better" to mitigate it (beyond learning to stand still, vulnerable, while firing.)

With something like slower arm / torso movement and slower convergence, there is more skill involved, and less random outcomes of your actions. If you miss, it is because you didn't wait long enough, not because the Game Engine picked a trajectory at random that was 1 degree away from hitting your target.

[Mister Blastman]

Extra heat for multiple weapons violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It is a asinine idea.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 17 May 2013 - 09:50 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

Mister Blastman, on 17 May 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Extra heat for multiple weapons violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It is a asinine idea.

Even if the two masses in question are close together?

[Kraven Kor]

Mister Blastman, on 17 May 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Extra heat for multiple weapons violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It is a asinine idea.

Yeah, because fusion reactors powering particle accelerator cannons and lasers certainly doesn't

[Hotthedd]

Mister Blastman, on 17 May 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Extra heat for multiple weapons violates the First Law of Thermodynamics.

It is a asinine idea.

Extra heat would be the way to represent/implement the thermal blanket that would be created by firing multiple weapons at the same time, which IS basic thermodynamics. Remember, it represents the heat of the MECH, not the heat of the weapon.

Edited by Hotthedd, 17 May 2013 - 10:31 AM.

[Shae Starfyre]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Extra heat would be the way to represent/implement the thermal blanket that would be created by firing multiple weapons at the same time, which IS basic thermodynamics. Remember, it represents the heat of the MECH, not the heat of the weapon.

Especially if those weapons are close together in relation to Heat sinks too. If my Heat Sinks are on my left arm, and I have 3 large lasers on my right, I would imagine the heat to climb faster than if I have a Heat sink on each arm, and only one LL on each arm; it may even improve heat dissipation.

Edited by Aphoticus, 17 May 2013 - 10:55 AM.

[trollocaustic]

Quote

Yeah, because fusion reactors powering particle accelerator cannons and lasers certainly doesn't

Ahem.
Fusion reactors make eletricity
Eletricity powers a devices that energizes solid matter, which produces light energy, which is then released through a large lense that focuses it, hence lasers.

PPCs **** logic either way.

[Mister Blastman]

Aphoticus, on 17 May 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

Even if the two masses in question are close together?

Absolutely. It does not matter if they are close together or not. The net sum of energy entered into a system cannot exceed the individual parts. It isn't like these are fusion weapons--about the only time I would see this and even that would be a stretch because we'd be trading mass for energy.

i.e. we'd be taking the atoms within the weapons and fusing them into different molecules and frankly that's pretty damn far-fetched because the weapons would cease to work after a couple of shots due to them changing.

Sorry. It just doesn't happen.

If two weapons put 1000 joules of energy into a system each, the net sum is 2000, not 2250. Unless you're converting mass for energy which you aren't because it'd be destructive.

[Mister Blastman]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Extra heat would be the way to represent/implement the thermal blanket that would be created by firing multiple weapons at the same time, which IS basic thermodynamics. Remember, it represents the heat of the MECH, not the heat of the weapon.

Uh. No. At best you could argue the extra heat would increase the time for dissipation.

The net sum WILL NOT EXCEED THE ENERGY INPUT.

Repeat after me:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

It can only be transferred/converted using mass/energy equivalency. This is basic stuff--Newtonian physics. I'm not even delving into quantum physics but I'll gladly do so if you'd like. At most we're touching relativity briefly with mass-energy equivalency.

Are the mechs getting lighter each time they fire? If the answer is no... well, then where's the energy coming from? We aren't even using string-theory here! There is no proverbial gravity-well or space-time rift and multidimensionality being exhibited. If there were, well, then maybe we could inject mass into the system from elsewhere but I've got news for you, a fusion reactor doesn't output enough energy to do this--at least not one on a battlemech and there's nothing, nowhere in Battletech discussing m-theory.

It just isn't going to happen. This "heat blanket" would only be a detriment to the sinks and their effectiveness, nothing more. Not more heat.

Argh.

[Syllogy]

Because Magic, duh.

You've been out-scienced.

[OneEyed Jack]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Extra heat would be the way to represent/implement the thermal blanket that would be created by firing multiple weapons at the same time, which IS basic thermodynamics. Remember, it represents the heat of the MECH, not the heat of the weapon.

Aphoticus, on 17 May 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Especially if those weapons are close together in relation to Heat sinks too. If my Heat Sinks are on my left arm, and I have 3 large lasers on my right, I would imagine the heat to climb faster than if I have a Heat sink on each arm, and only one LL on each arm; it may even improve heat dissipation.

Neither of which addresses the stupidity of it only applying to similar weapons.

[Hotthedd]

Mister Blastman, on 17 May 2013 - 12:16 PM, said:

Uh. No. At best you could argue the extra heat would increase the time for dissipation.

The net sum WILL NOT EXCEED THE ENERGY INPUT.

Repeat after me:

Energy is neither created nor destroyed.

It can only be transferred/converted using mass/energy equivalency. This is basic stuff--Newtonian physics. I'm not even delving into quantum physics but I'll gladly do so if you'd like. At most we're touching relativity briefly with mass-energy equivalency.

Are the mechs getting lighter each time they fire? If the answer is no... well, then where's the energy coming from? We aren't even using string-theory here! There is no proverbial gravity-well or space-time rift and multidimensionality being exhibited. If there were, well, then maybe we could inject mass into the system from elsewhere but I've got news for you, a fusion reactor doesn't output enough energy to do this--at least not one on a battlemech and there's nothing, nowhere in Battletech discussing m-theory.

It just isn't going to happen. This "heat blanket" would only be a detriment to the sinks and their effectiveness, nothing more. Not more heat.

Argh.

Repeat after ME. It is a GAME MECHANIC that would SIMULATE the effects of the thermal blanket on the MECH. Instead of adjusting heat sink efficiency and the variables involved, it would be REPRESENTED by a heat penalty for firing multiple weapons at once.

OneEyed Jack, on 17 May 2013 - 12:54 PM, said:

Neither of which addresses the stupidity of it only applying to similar weapons.

Quite true. It should apply to simultaneous firing of multiple weapons of ANY type.

Kraven Kor, on 17 May 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

And "Cone of Fire" does not present equal opportunities, in my opinion.

Nor can you "learn to use it better" to mitigate it (beyond learning to stand still, vulnerable, while firing.)

With something like slower arm / torso movement and slower convergence, there is more skill involved, and less random outcomes of your actions. If you miss, it is because you didn't wait long enough, not because the Game Engine picked a trajectory at random that was 1 degree away from hitting your target.

I agree with all of that. You must have me confused with someone else that suggested "cone of fire".

[Mister Blastman]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 01:26 PM, said:

Repeat after ME. It is a GAME MECHANIC that would SIMULATE the effects of the thermal blanket on the MECH. Instead of adjusting heat sink efficiency and the variables involved, it would be REPRESENTED by a heat penalty for firing multiple weapons at once.

The Law > Game Mechanic.

[Renthrak]

I hate to discourage thoughtful solutions, but I can't help myself.

According to the laws of thermodynamics, higher heat actually dissipates at a faster rate.

Other than that, I like the direction you're going. I have some more possibilities here:

http://mwomercs.com/...ce-first-draft/

[Hotthedd]

Mister Blastman, on 17 May 2013 - 06:28 PM, said:

The Law > Game Mechanic.

Really? You know we are talking about a GAME right? Do you have similar issues with faster-than-light travel? Einstein did. How do you feel about cold fusion? How about said cold fusion powering bipedal mechanized 100 ton tanks? You ok with that? Any thoughts on the fact that no sentient life has been found on thousands of discovered planets, many of which are fully capable of supporting human life? Sorry, but as far as our discussion goes: Game Mechanic > Applied Physics

Renthrak, on 17 May 2013 - 06:39 PM, said:

I hate to discourage thoughtful solutions, but I can't help myself.

According to the laws of thermodynamics, higher heat actually dissipates at a faster rate.

Other than that, I like the direction you're going. I have some more possibilities here:

http://mwomercs.com/...ce-first-draft/

Higher heat moves (dissipates) towards areas of lower heat. In the case of multiple weapons firing at the same time, there will be a short amount of time that there is no lower heat area for some of that high heat TO move. (Thermal blanket)

[Mister Blastman]

Hotthedd, on 17 May 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

Really? You know we are talking about a GAME right? Do you have similar issues with faster-than-light travel? Einstein did. How do you feel about cold fusion? How about said cold fusion powering bipedal mechanized 100 ton tanks? You ok with that? Any thoughts on the fact that no sentient life has been found on thousands of discovered planets, many of which are fully capable of supporting human life? Sorry, but as far as our discussion goes: Game Mechanic > Applied Physics

If you want me to delve into physics I will.

Yes, it is a game... but the Law is the Law. Games that abuse the law just... well, the logic behind doing so is so messed up the people behind it should be thrown out and new people should be put in their place. The whole idea of adding additional heat for boated weapons is insane. It will harm far more than help. The devs have REPEATEDLY ignored the REAL problems and instead taken half-assed routes to try and band-aid the issue. The real problems are:

a. Convergence
b. Broken heat system

That's it. That is what broken.

Now, as far as stuff like faster-than-light travel... within a particular frame of reference in common space-time, yes, that's the limit. You don't go faster than it. The energy requirements alone to even reach c are incredible (have you ever calculated it? I have ). HOWEVER... you can get around c theoretically by ... moving spacetime with the craft or riding upon it. The mechanics of which I won't go into right now. By doing this, you still maintain the limit of c and never violate it within localspace. Remember, gravity and spacetime propagate much faster than light does, as is evidenced by the rate of expansion of the universe.

Cold fusion? Meh. But guess what? These mechs don't use cold fusion. They use a toroid, electromagnetic fields and plasma. That is /not/ cold fusion.

Life on other planets? Looking at planets through a telescope (be it radio, infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet, x-ray or more) is not enough to determine if life is on them. In fact, the closest we've been able to come is determine if a planet resides in the goldilocks zone of a star and nearly all of these worlds exceedingly larger than our own. I can really get in-depth here if needed. We've never physically set foot on an extrasolar world. We've never even physically left our own solar system. We know next to nothing about life outside our own little terrarium. In fact, mathematically speaking, it is entirely likely that we could be the only sentient species in our part or even entire galaxy given the known lifespan of any particular species of our own world and the age of the universe. We might indeed be completely alone. However, we might not. The opposite is possible, too. Thus, great projects like SETI exist.

The game mechanic the devs have suggested is extremely, no, utterly inconceivable and a horrifically bad idea.

[Hotthedd]

Mister Blastman, on 18 May 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

If you want me to delve into physics I will.

Yes, it is a game... but the Law is the Law. Games that abuse the law just... well, the logic behind doing so is so messed up the people behind it should be thrown out and new people should be put in their place. The whole idea of adding additional heat for boated weapons is insane. It will harm far more than help. The devs have REPEATEDLY ignored the REAL problems and instead taken half-assed routes to try and band-aid the issue. The real problems are:

a. Convergence
b. Broken heat system

That's it. That is what broken.

Now, as far as stuff like faster-than-light travel... within a particular frame of reference in common space-time, yes, that's the limit. You don't go faster than it. The energy requirements alone to even reach c are incredible (have you ever calculated it? I have ). HOWEVER... you can get around c theoretically by ... moving spacetime with the craft or riding upon it. The mechanics of which I won't go into right now. By doing this, you still maintain the limit of c and never violate it within localspace. Remember, gravity and spacetime propagate much faster than light does, as is evidenced by the rate of expansion of the universe.

Cold fusion? Meh. But guess what? These mechs don't use cold fusion. They use a toroid, electromagnetic fields and plasma. That is /not/ cold fusion.

Life on other planets? Looking at planets through a telescope (be it radio, infra-red, visible light, ultra-violet, x-ray or more) is not enough to determine if life is on them. In fact, the closest we've been able to come is determine if a planet resides in the goldilocks zone of a star and nearly all of these worlds exceedingly larger than our own. I can really get in-depth here if needed. We've never physically set foot on an extrasolar world. We've never even physically left our own solar system. We know next to nothing about life outside our own little terrarium. In fact, mathematically speaking, it is entirely likely that we could be the only sentient species in our part or even entire galaxy given the known lifespan of any particular species of our own world and the age of the universe. We might indeed be completely alone. However, we might not. The opposite is possible, too. Thus, great projects like SETI exist.

The game mechanic the devs have suggested is extremely, no, utterly inconceivable and a horrifically bad idea.

What you are not seeing from my viewpoint is that in a GAME, mechanics exist to SIMULATE scientific phenomena. A heat modifier ON ALPHA STRIKES ONLY, NOT "boating", NOT individual heat penalties, but ALPHAS, would SIM-U-LATE the effects of a thermal blanket (that we both agree would exist).

Perhaps you misunderstood that I was talking about Alpha striking specifically, and not about boating (which I have no problem with)

We are both in complete agreement that both convergence and heat are major flaws/issues with the current game. If we could come up with a game mechanic that realistically simulates the desired effect, would you not accept it if the mechanic did not fit exactly with the science?

We are asked to suspend our disbelief in a game. And in this game we do on so many levels. You do not seem to have a problem with the fact that you can get your mech shot out from under you, and magically re-appear in the same mech on another planet 5 minutes later. THAT is gameplay mechanics, and without it, we would have to wait weeks between matches.

As far as the semantics battle: I use the term "cold fusion" in the sense that there is a controlled fusion reaction taking place inside our mech's innards, and it does not melt the whole machine.

I am unaware of any "space warping" ever mentioned in the Battletech universe, but I AM familiar with the term Faster-than-Light (F.T.L.) travel n said universe. To ME this implies that the speed of the traveler is, indeed, FASTER than light. You have no problem with THIS particular mechanic, I see.

Mathmatically speaking, it would be highly unlikely that humans would be the only sentient race found on over 1,000 planets that DO, in fact reside in the Goldilocks zone.

TL;DR:
In real life, the Law> mechanics, in a Game, Magic> handwavium> mechanics> the Laws of physics.