33 replies to this topic

[Blackadder]

How do you propose to stop people from just switching to the next best thing? in this case i would imagine its going to be a shift to LL weapons being boated, or insert "most effective weapon system" here based on proposed changes. while i like the idea of lowering the heat cap and increasing dissipation is it enough? There has to be more of an impact from heat, then what we have now, and i do not think overheating is enough of one. there needs to be some impact for running at high heat constantly as well.

[stjobe]

Just a quick note after doing some more math: I believe tripling the dissipation may indeed be a bit much.

With those rates I couldn't get a 6 ML, 10 DHS JR7-F to overheat ever (the dissipation time for the alpha heat was shorter than the weapon recycle), nor a stock 3 PPC AWS-8Q. Perhaps not the intended behaviour.

At double the current dissipation rate (0.2 per SHS equivalent), a stock JR7-F with 4 ML and 10 SHS would have exactly the same heat efficiency as a custom JR7-F with 6 ML and 10 DHS - they would both overheat in 15s of continuous alphaing, and the stock AWS-8Q would overheat in 72s, or after 18 alphas (standing still, a stock AWS-8Q in BT would overheat after 15 rounds).

[Renthrak]

stjobe, on 20 May 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

Just a quick note after doing some more math: I believe tripling the dissipation may indeed be a bit much.

It seems like the safest thing would be to either start at 2x and tweak lower, or start at 1.5x and tweak higher to find the sweet-spot where we see the best result for the least trouble.

Blackadder, on 20 May 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

There has to be more of an impact from heat, then what we have now, and i do not think overheating is enough of one. there needs to be some impact for running at high heat constantly as well.

Going by what I've proposed, if heat penalties were implemented, they would begin at 15 points of heat below 100%, forcing shut down at 15 points above 100%. With heat sinks taking damage and being destroyed when exceeding 100% heat under any circumstances, an energy boat could burn out all of their heat sinks if they play like they do right now. Every destroyed heat sink lowers capacity and dissipation, so they overheat quicker and cool slower. That damage could also be applied to ammo, so both heat sinks and ammo could be destroyed. Ammo explosions are nasty, so this may or may not be overkill.

For more specific ideas on aiming, I have another suggestion thread here:
http://mwomercs.com/...out-randomness/

[General Taskeen]

Renthrak, on 20 May 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

The hitch in all BattleTech games is that customized, optimized builds can be made more effective than the stock variants. Consequently, if you attempt to balance the game so that stock builds are equal to custom builds in effectiveness, you will inevitably fail. Unless you are going to implement significant bonuses specifically for running stock configurations, any change to improve stock builds will improve custom builds at the same time, and the imbalance is maintained.

Here's the main problem Renthak. Each Mech added to the game is a stock Mech. Its entirely based on a record sheet. Any user can buy one with MC or C-Bills, thus encouraging to use IT or customize it. This is something we can all agree on, and we can agree that in some context a stock Mech must not be a suicide trap, since this is a real-time game.

If PGI didn't want a stock Mech to be balanced better vs. customized builds, there wouldn't be variants ripped straight out of canon, and simply not added variants at all and just added a base Mech for someone to do what they wished with.

This game is still in a state where these things can be taken into consideration. SHS and DHS are already items that are programmed to take the according crit space or weight. Its just a matter of changing numbers and testing it. With the upcoming test server, PGI may be more willing to do this.

I am personally used to 'heat management' the way other Mech titles did it. The problem with other Mech games is that they simply allowed full customization. If proper heat management, penalities, and thresholds are added to MWO combined with the already existing hardpoint limitations, I think would be a lot better and to the "spirit" of Battle Tech and we can finally get closer to a Mech Warrior game not plagued with these problems. And this being an MMO, we can all hope it will exist for many years with various additions. MW:LL, for instance, while they never got around to making a Mech Lab, included both Stock builds and custom variants for players to use, which all work pretty well with their heat/weapon balance.

Heat Scale, Heat Sinks, Heat Balance, etc. definitely need attention at some point before launch.

Renthrak, on 20 May 2013 - 03:06 PM, said:

Going by what I've proposed, if heat penalties were implemented, they would begin at 15 points of heat below 100%, forcing shut down at 15 points above 100%. With heat sinks taking damage and being destroyed when exceeding 100% heat under any circumstances, an energy boat could burn out all of their heat sinks if they play like they do right now. Every destroyed heat sink lowers capacity and dissipation, so they overheat quicker and cool slower. That damage could also be applied to ammo, so both heat sinks and ammo could be destroyed. Ammo explosions are nasty, so this may or may not be overkill.

I'm not sure if you have played MW:LL or not, but that is exactly what they added in their last version. Staying in a critical heat zone will constantly degrade heatsinks to the point that they are destroyed. After heatsinks are destroyed, the armor is destroyed, basically melting away. After armor is destroyed, the Mech will just blow up if overheating again. So there are penalties, but they aren't completely over the top and make sense.

In their Terrain Control game mode, a vehicle or Mech can also retreat to a main base to repair those heat sinks or the armor since the game mode matches last well over an hour. They also had modes like MWO, with no repair/rearm/respawn, but they never were as popular.

Edited by General Taskeen, 20 May 2013 - 03:43 PM.

[Pale Jackal]

Increase PPC (and ER PPC) heat by 1. Increase PPC and ER PPC cooldown by 1.

Currently, PPCs have 50% greater DPS than LL, superior range and pinpoint damage, the only downside is within 90m... and PPCs weigh 40% more, but their DPS is also 50% greater.

Cause internal damage if you exceed certain heat limits.

Tweak from there.

Blackadder, on 20 May 2013 - 02:06 PM, said:

How do you propose to stop people from just switching to the next best thing? in this case i would imagine its going to be a shift to LL weapons being boated, or insert "most effective weapon system" here based on proposed changes.

LLs being boated would be much less of a problem, since keeping a laser on target for a full second to achieve max damage is difficult, especially when pop-tarting.

[Renthrak]

General Taskeen, on 20 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

Here's the main problem Renthak. Each Mech added to the game is a stock Mech. Its entirely based on a record sheet. Any user can buy one with MC or C-Bills, thus encouraging to use IT or customize it.

I must admit, I am a bit lost. I think there is a fundamental miscommunication here, perhaps in the definition of a 'stock' 'Mech, and the relative effectiveness of such.

Comparing a 'stock' or default loadout Awesome 8Q (28 SHS, 240std engine) with a customized 8Q (21 DHS, 300std engine), the customized version obviously has an advantage. Thus I assert that attempting to alter game balance so that the stock 8Q performs as well as the customized 8Q is folly. If we don't disagree on that point, then there is no conflict.

As far as regular gameplay goes, the inadequate cooling of stock 'Mechs due to changes in heat generation from TT is probably the biggest contributor to the poor performance of unmodified variants and trial 'Mechs. The change to heat threshold that I propose will narrow that gap. The stock Awesome 8Q would have a slightly higher heat threshold than the customized version with DHS. It's not much, but certainly preferable to a stock 'Mech having a significant disadvantage in cooling and threshold.

Also, MWO is a different environment, so weapon selections that are perfectly functional in TT can be woefully underpowered in MWO. Staying with the Awesome 8Q as an example, the 90m minimum range on the PPCs can be a fatal disadvantage in MWO, while melee allows an 8Q to defend itself at close range in TT. Unavoidable differences like this will ensure that unmodified designs are always at a disadvantage to some degree.

Naturally, it's a significant problem if a decently piloted stock 'Mech is guaranteed to lose to any customized 'Mech. In some cases, little can reasonably be done about this, such as the Jagermech. The stock variants have so little armor that even other stock 'Mechs are a deadly threat, but I don't think that is really the issue we're discussing. As far as I'm concerned, most stock 'Mechs should be usable in combat, without the expectation that they would excel.

General Taskeen, on 20 May 2013 - 03:36 PM, said:

I'm not sure if you have played MW:LL or not, but that is exactly what they added in their last version. Staying in a critical heat zone will constantly degrade heatsinks to the point that they are destroyed. After heatsinks are destroyed, the armor is destroyed, basically melting away. After armor is destroyed, the Mech will just blow up if overheating again. So there are penalties, but they aren't completely over the top and make sense.

I have not played MW: LL. I was not even aware that it existed before I joined the MWO beta.

Rather than the armor melting, I would prefer to have the internal structure melt, but it sounds like the effect would be the same: eventual destruction of that section (and possibly the whole 'Mech) once all heat sinks are gone.

[General Taskeen]

Renthrak, on 20 May 2013 - 06:17 PM, said:

Also, MWO is a different environment, so weapon selections that are perfectly functional in TT can be woefully underpowered in MWO. Staying with the Awesome 8Q as an example, the 90m minimum range on the PPCs can be a fatal disadvantage in MWO, while melee allows an 8Q to defend itself at close range in TT. Unavoidable differences like this will ensure that unmodified designs are always at a disadvantage to some degree.

This is entirely off-topic, but I have been advocating PGI add the true functionality of a PPC to turn on or off the minimum range modifier. When the Field Inhibitor is turned off, the player can attempt to fire within 0-90m for full damage, but with major risks (Mech Damage or the weapon exploding). That's a better risk-reward than getting face-hugged with suddenly useless weaponry.

Edited by General Taskeen, 20 May 2013 - 06:25 PM.

[Nubsternator]

Either we need internal damage to happen sooner or we need an automatic shutdown to be a real threat to people who run high heat builds. Right now, people start the mech back up as soon as the mech is able to. Give people a consequence for that. Make the mech take damage if it restarts too soon after overheating, much like overriding the shutdown before the overheat. Make the damage proportionate to how much they overheated by. Otherwise the mech must wait to be below a certain % of heat to restart normally. This would reward those heat efficient builds, not punish the rare shutdown/override, and still make shutdown in a firefight a liability.

[Kaldor]

This is the kind of info the devs need to consider. I dont think that the boated weapons fix or whatever they want to call it is going to actually help anything. They need to find a solid solution that will work for the entire life of the game.

[Renthrak]

Kaldor, on 21 May 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

This is the kind of info the devs need to consider.

That's what I'm hoping for.

[Ezekeel666]

I like the general idea, but why so complicated? Why not simply divide the total heat capacity by some value X, let us say 2 and multiply the total dissipation rate by X? On average this would have no effect on neither the maximum sustained dps nor the alpha dps, but it would force players boating lots of energy weapons to divide them into two groups (for example fire 2 PPC, wait 2 seconds and then fire the 2 other PPC).

[Ralgas]

Ezekeel666, on 30 May 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

I like the general idea, but why so complicated? Why not simply divide the total heat capacity by some value X, let us say 2 and multiply the total dissipation rate by X? On average this would have no effect on neither the maximum sustained dps nor the alpha dps, but it would force players boating lots of energy weapons to divide them into two groups (for example fire 2 PPC, wait 2 seconds and then fire the 2 other PPC).

that being te case why not tweak the mech trees? I've always said drop heat containment for a start (-20% of current caps across the board) and tweak cool running?

Edit: I could also see the dev's proposed multi wep system working, using seperate scales for small/large over 9 dmg)weps and exponential penatlies getting severe past 3 weps. the "over time" component would be applied to firing faster than chain fire so macros couldn't be used to defeat the system.

uac5 drops the 2 wep penalty from its base heat to compensate for a double tap

Edited by Ralgas, 30 May 2013 - 02:21 AM.

[Renthrak]

Ezekeel666, on 30 May 2013 - 01:35 AM, said:

I like the general idea, but why so complicated?

What concerns me is that simplifying the heat system is what created this mess to begin with.

BattleTech uses various means to make certain weapons and 'Mech loadouts more or less viable. The weight of the weapons, the heat generated, ammo or heat sinks to support the weapon, the critical slots required to carry it, all balanced against the weight and critical slot limits of a 'Mech chassis, the size of the engine, cooling capacity and so on.

As an example, it was clearly determined that a single 'Mech carrying more than 3 or 4 PPCs is bad. Thus, the weight and heat produced by PPCs combined with the limitations on the heat scale mean that firing more than 3 or 4 PPCs at a time has serious negative consequences.

An example of this is the clan Masakari, which carries 4 ERPPCs and an LRM10. The 'Mech is 85 tons, so it has enough weight to carry the ERPPCs. It also carries 20 double heat sinks, which is quite a few. Despite having so many heat sinks, if the Masakari fires all four ERPPCs at the same time, even if it takes no other actions and generates zero heat from anything but firing its weapons, the result is extremely dangerous. That amount of heat would slow the Masakari's movement speed, reduce its weapon accuracy, trigger a reactor shut down that is difficult to override, and possibly cause the ammo for its LRM to explode.

So, even though the 'Mech can carry the weapons, it can't use them all at once except as a desperate last resort, risking the destruction of the 'Mech in the process. The heat produced by the weapon, the heat scale itself, and the heat penalties on that scale work together to make doing this a very bad idea.

The reason for a complicated system is so that even a skilled 'Mech designer can't find a way around enough of the limitations to make it work. I am applying the same principle to my suggestion.

[Renthrak]

So the devs are still considering a penalty for boating the same weapon. There are a few reasons why this is not the best idea. I went into detail on this point in the feedback thread, but I'll copy that here to add to this discussion.

Quote

Quote

We considered the notion of doing a max heat threshold reduction but this would have ended up nerfing every weapon system and every Mech in the game. This is why the heat scale penalty path was chosen since it lets us address every weapon individually and also allows us to take into consideration all Mech builds.

I understand your reasoning, but I disagree with your conclusions.

With differences in rate of fire and tweaks made to heat generated, weapons in MWO produce heat at 1.83x (current LPLAS) to 20x (AC/2) the rate of the TT scale. Heat Sinks, on the other hand, operate at or below the TT rate. The disparity between the two already allows you to adjust each weapon individually.

A reduction in the heat threshold, without any change to heat dissipation, <em>would</em> be an unpleasant nerf for all 'Mechs and weapons. That is why this has been repeatedly proposed in conjunction with a modest increase in cooling rate. Reducing the heat threshold by 15 points and increasing the cooling rate of heat sinks to 1.2x, for example. If you keep the cooling rate (1.2x TT) below the lowest heat production rate for weapons (1.83x TT), you can maintain the relative balance that you have already created.

Using arbitrary heat penalties for firing multiples of the same weapon opens a rather troublesome can of worms. Essentially, it creates an arms race between players who wish to fire massive-damage Alpha Strikes and the developers trying to encourage chain fire. Without a change that applies to <em>every</em> weapon and <em>every</em> 'Mech build, you allow players to find creative ways of bypassing the arbitrary limitations. This means that you will need to anticipate <em>every</em> possible weapon combination that would result in the huge-concentrated-damage effect that boating achieves.

For your Hunchback example, someone who wanted to fire all 9 weapons at once could simply switch out three of the Medium Lasers for another energy weapon, such as Medium Pulse Lasers (which actually <strong>increases</strong> the Alpha Strike damage for this build), and continue to fire them all together. So perhaps you would then include both regular and pulse lasers of the same size in the heat penalty. The player then changes the 3 MPLAS to 2 Small Lasers and 1 Large Laser, maintaining the 45 damage Alpha Strike of the 9xMLAS build that you were trying to discourage in the first place.

Now for the 6xPPC Stalker example. First, I would say that firing 3 PPCs and then 3 more PPCs half a second later is not a big improvement over firing all 6 together. Second, that 0.5 second delay would be easy to incorporate into a macro, ensuring that the pilot never triggers the heat penalty, while still using all 6 PPCs together. You have already stated that the 0.5 second delay is the limit to avoid interfering with chain fire, so I don't know what could be done to fix this scenario with your system.

A lower heat threshold is a limit that simply cannot be circumvented. Particularly with the heat damage above 150% heat that you also mentioned. In both 'Mech examples that you cited, the effect of lower threshold, even with an increase in cooling rate, would be to force players to wait longer between firing groups of their weapons. This also makes chain fire more attractive, because the 'Mech cools while the weapons cycle, which effectively reduces the heat output of each weapon or group by the amount of heat dissipated during the delay. The fewer weapons that are fired together, the larger the effect would be on a per-weapon basis. In this way, the heat-per-shot of any given weapon becomes the limiter for Alpha Strikes, while the heat-per-second and cooldown serves as the limiter for chain fire. Manipulating these values independently then allows for balancing each weapon individually.

I strongly request that you reconsider your proposed heat penalty system in favor of a change to threshold and cooling rate.