33 replies to this topic

[Renthrak]

Here we go again, another thread about heat and balance. I suppose it's indicative of the severity of the problem. Still, having read through many such threads, I have yet to see a suggestion that would solve the problem by itself. There are plenty of ideas around, but I am convinced that only a combination of different tweaks will really do the job.

Penalties for using multiples of the same weapon have been floated in several places, including a dev post, as a potential fix. Quite frankly, I just can't agree with the idea. It strikes me as giving up on actually balancing heat and weapons, in favor of an arbitrary restriction. My belief is that fixing heat and weapon balance requires a judiciously applied wrench, rather than hitting it with a hammer.

So, after trying out different ideas, researching various aspects of BattleTech, experimenting with 'Mech configurations and how they would function with different numbers for some aspects of the heat system, I have a set of results that may be useful. None of these ideas would fix the problem individually, but the combination looks like it has potential.

• Regular PPCs should produce 9 heat
  
• 'Mech heat sinks should take some level of damage while overheating, even while shut down
  
• Heat scale should be changed
  
• At a certain point above 100% heat, pilot cannot override shut down
  
• The increase to heat threshold per heat sink should be equal between SHS and DHS
  
• (Optional) External DHS cooling increased from 1.4 to 2.0
  
• (Optional) All heat dissipation rates increased by 50% to better match weapon fire rate
  
• (Optional) Speed/Torso twist/Arm movement speed penalties at higher heat
  
• (Optional) Jump Jets do not regenerate fuel while 'Mech is over 100% heat

Increasing PPC heat from 8 to 9 increases the heat produced by a 6xPPC Alpha strike from 48 to 54, which would ensure that any 'Mech using this loadout would overheat upon firing once. This would place the effective rate of fire for 6xPPCs at a minimum of ~12 seconds between shots.

While the current damage from heat during override is dangerous, it could be more effective. I propose changing it from 'damage to random internal sections' to 'damage to randomly selected external heat sinks'. At the same rate that damage is applied to the internal structure currently, damage should be applied to the non-engine heat sinks while the 'Mech is above 100% heat. This makes overheating less dangerous at first, but repeated overrides become devastating as heat sinks are destroyed. This would also give a benefit to SHS, since more can be carried, thus it will take longer to lose them all.

MWO takes the heat scale from TT, heat sinks +30, with reactor shut down at the top. This is incorrect. Reactor shut down should occur at heat sinks +15 while allowing pilot override.

At heat sinks +30 (which would be 15 points above 100%), shut down override should be disabled until heat drops below heat sinks +30. The reason that it was done this way in TT was to counter massive PPC boats. MWO allows almost 2 PPCs worth of additional heat to accumulate before any shut down is triggered, compared to the TT scale. Small wonder PPC boating is a problem.

In both TT and MWO, heat sinks add to the total heat that a 'Mech can accumulate, equal to the heat dissipation. The devs already determined that a true Double Heat Sink in MWO is overpowered, and decided to reduce external heat sink threshold and dissipation to 1.4 per dhs. According to the math, I think it would be more useful to reduce all DHS heat threshold increase to 1, equal to a single heat sink. DHS would still dissipate more heat than SHS, but would not confer an advantage in capacity. Combined with the above changes, 6xPPC boats would be unable to fire an Alpha Strike without immediately reaching unavoidable shut down. Firing a second Alpha Strike before cooling to 0% would result in being immobile for a considerable length of time, standing where the shot was fired. A Cataphract jump sniper would also immediately shut down when firing an Alpha Strike.

(Optional) With the heat threshold reduction for DHS, it would become practical to allow all DHS to cool at 2.0 without helping Alpha Strike builds.

(Optional) The reduced heat capacity and unavoidable shut down level would reduce the viability of Alpha Strikes to the point where all heat sinks could have increased cooling. All weapons in MWO produce heat at a minimum of double the TT rate, some at 4x or higher, while MWO heat sinks operate at TT or below. The numbers suggest that a 50% boost to heat sink cooling rates would be safe, putting SHS at 1.5 and DHS at 3.0. At those levels, a stock Awesome 8Q would be able to maintain firing three PPCs, then two PPCs, then three PPCs again for an extended period of time before overheating, and continually fire a single PPC while still cooling down.

(Optional) A part of the TT heat balance is the penalties to movement and targeting at higher heat levels. This could be easily accomplished in MWO by having high heat effectively reduce the 'Mech's engine rating temporarily. That would slow the 'Mech, both in movement speed and torso/arm aiming speed.

(Optional) Using Jump Jets to snipe (aka poptarting) would be even more difficult if Jump Jets only regenerate fuel when the 'Mech is below 100% heat. Light 'Mechs using Jump Jets to maneuver would be generally unaffected, as would all non-combat uses.



OK, here's the part where you tell me why these are bad ideas. That way, I can take that feedback and improve the ideas. So, fire at will.

[Diablobo]

Any comparison to TT values is pointless because MWO has tripled firing rates with only single rate dissipation. No matter how you tweak the weapon numbers, triple heat Battlech is going to suck.

[PanzerMagier]

Not really. I like the idea that heatsinks are destroyed first before any internal damage when overheating (even if your mech is shutdown). A reasonable handicap for those with high alpha builds. A-Must for implementation.

[cyberFluke]

This is a far more sensible and much less convoluted system than the proposed system the devs have proposed. Across the board, it just makes more sense.

I'm worried the devs' proposed system will hurt stock mech builds like the AWS-8Q/9M and the Swayback more than the intended target, the excessive boater. I'm okay with the AWS boating PPCs, it's got a front end like a cow house and the swayback is all about that right torso. They have glaring weaknesses, unlike a flying 90-ton abomination that can use cover far more effectively, and carry more armour, weapons and heatsinks to boot.

Edited by cyberFluke, 17 May 2013 - 06:16 PM.

[Renthrak]

Come to think of it, this should also make Flamers much more useful. Nudging your enemy's heat a few points higher could put them in range of unavoidable shut down if they fire.

[Renthrak]

Diablobo, on 17 May 2013 - 04:40 PM, said:

Any comparison to TT values is pointless because MWO has tripled firing rates with only single rate dissipation. No matter how you tweak the weapon numbers, triple heat Battlech is going to suck.

That's why I'm not tweaking the weapon numbers, aside from moving PPCs a little closer to their original heat level.

Most of this is about adjusting the heat scale itself.

[trollocaustic]

• Quote

  • (Optional) External DHS cooling increased from 1.4 to 2.0
    
  • (Optional) All heat dissipation rates increased by 50% to better match weapon fire rate
    

YES YES

[Diablobo]

Renthrak, on 18 May 2013 - 07:35 PM, said:

That's why I'm not tweaking the weapon numbers, aside from moving PPCs a little closer to their original heat level.

Most of this is about adjusting the heat scale itself.

The TT numbers are still in your proposed heatscale, and especially in your good idea to raise double heat sink dissipation.

Either way, we still have a triple heat Battletech simulator in which all canon stock mechs are unplayable trash, and it is extremely difficult to design a heat neutral mech, which is the goal of every good Mechlab engineer.

[Renthrak]

Diablobo, on 19 May 2013 - 03:10 AM, said:

The TT numbers are still in your proposed heatscale, and especially in your good idea to raise double heat sink dissipation.

Either way, we still have a triple heat Battletech simulator in which all canon stock mechs are unplayable trash, and it is extremely difficult to design a heat neutral mech, which is the goal of every good Mechlab engineer.

For most stock 'Mechs, the numbers suggest that they would be more effective than they are now at least. They certainly won't become heat neutral, but I doubt PGI would want them to be.

It seems to me that PGI is using the heat system to prevent combat from turning into 'hold down the fire button until it dies'. If all 'Mechs were heat neutral, range and raw DPS would pretty much determine the winner before they even fight. If that's the case, then heat neutrality is the enemy for them.

What my changes are intended to do is to allow more reasonable builds to be effective while still relying on the skill of the pilot to prevent overheating. Pilots that constantly Alpha Strike will constantly overheat, but pilots who use weapon groups and/or chain fire carefully should be able to sustain higher damage output than the Alpha Strikers, using the same weapon setup. Essentially, reducing combat from slow exchanges of salvos to a constant barrage. One advantage of this is that your ability to handle your 'Mech from second to second will have a greater impact on your survival, rather than only having an effect at the moment your enemy fires his massive Alpha Strike. Likewise, being able to land consecutive hits on your target will become more important than being able to fire off one good shot every few seconds. Naturally, this should also spread damage across multiple armor sections, improving survivability without touching armor or weapon values.

All in all, I think it's worth a try.

Edited by Renthrak, 19 May 2013 - 06:04 PM.

[FrostCollar]

Alright, let me look at these things point by point.

• Regular PPCs should produce 9 heat - Truth be told, I'm somewhat leery of committing to hard numbers for these things before testing them. More heat for PPCs though? Yeah, but it doesn't get to the core of the problem.
  
• 'Mech heat sinks should take some level of damage while overheating, even while shut down - Yeah, this seems like an interesting idea that does help get at one of the issues with PPC boating, that shutdowns don't really harm you.
  
• Heat scale should be changed - This seems like a very sweeping change that would make all mechs run hotter. I'm not convinced that's needed just to target boating.
  
• At a certain point above 100% heat, pilot cannot override shut down. - Nope, bad idea. Damage them for overriding shutdown, but let them do it. If they want to burn out their reactors, let them.
  
• The increase to heat threshold per heat sink should be equal between SHS and DHS - Maybe, I'll consider this more later.
  
• (Optional) External DHS cooling increased from 1.4 to 2.0 - Nah.
  
• (Optional) All heat dissipation rates increased by 50% to better match weapon fire rate - I've read good arguments about decreasing the heat cap and increasing dissipation to help shift combat away from alpha builds and more to DPS builds. I'd have to try it to really approve it, but in general I actually would consider your heat scale changes if this were a part.
  
• (Optional) Speed/Torso twist/Arm movement speed penalties at higher heat - Maybe. Personally, I'd prefer if there were torso twist and arm movement penalties for mounting larger weapons like PPCs and Gauss Rifles in general to help make these long range weapons more unwieldly in close combat.
  
• (Optional) Jump Jets do not regenerate fuel while 'Mech is over 100% heat - Unnecessary. This just seems like an odd new rule that doesn't seem to change things much. JJs come back fast enough that Poptarters will still tart.

[nitra]

i really like the damage applied to heat sink idea . this should be seriously considered.

this idea alone could have far reaching consequences into all builds .

however to the uninitiated this may be a problem but i think that could be worked around with training.

[Renthrak]

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

Alright, let me look at these things point by point.

I appreciate it. This is precisely what I'm looking for.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• Regular PPCs should produce 9 heat - Truth be told, I'm somewhat leery of committing to hard numbers for these things before testing them. More heat for PPCs though? Yeah, but it doesn't get to the core of the problem.

There's no need to commit to a hard number. Nothing is set in stone. The reason I specified 9 heat is because PPCs were set at 10 heat earlier in Beta and saw very little use, but the current level of 8 heat seems too low. That also lowers the bar for changes to the heat scale, allowing smaller changes there to reduce the usefulness of 6xPPC Stalkers without harming other energy weapon builds as severely.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• 'Mech heat sinks should take some level of damage while overheating, even while shut down - Yeah, this seems like an interesting idea that does help get at one of the issues with PPC boating, that shutdowns don't really harm you.

The reasons that I targeted heat sinks specifically are fairly direct: It makes logical sense that exceeding the heat that HS are able to get rid of would damage them; The existing random internal damage mechanic can instantly kill an overheating 'Mech (head destroyed) or distribute the damage widely enough to continue operating for some time, so a more consistent result would be preferable; Heat sink damage allows overheating to be less traumatic for brief, accidental overheating, while being proportionally more dangerous to repeatedly exceed the limits.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• Heat scale should be changed - This seems like a very sweeping change that would make all mechs run hotter. I'm not convinced that's needed just to target boating.

Boating multiples of the same weapon is not the only issue with the current heat system. Loading numerous large weapons and firing all of them together in repeated Alpha Strikes would still be a problem even if boating is discouraged, so the actual flow of combat wouldn't change very much.

Right now, the flow of combat (non-boating) is something like:
Begin firing at the bottom of your heat scale.
Make a small number of high-damage strikes before maxing out near overheating.
Switch to firing smaller bursts of fire as quickly as your 'Mech can dissipate the heat they produce, continue until enemy is destroyed.

The modified heat scale I'm suggesting would have 'Mechs reaching the third stage much more quickly, but otherwise being able to operate the same way. It would become much more important to fire the right weapons at the right time, rather than just using all of them at once. More importantly, using chain/group fire rather than Alpha Strikes should be a competitive strategy instead of suicide.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• At a certain point above 100% heat, pilot cannot override shut down. - Nope, bad idea. Damage them for overriding shutdown, but let them do it. If they want to burn out their reactors, let them.

If damage is taken whether you override or not, then there really isn't much incentive not to override when you exceed 100%. Unavoidable shut down restores the immediate consequence of massive overheating: you will be helpless for a time if you Alpha Strike at near max heat. Without that, what reason is there to shut down at all instead of walking back into cover to wait?

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• The increase to heat threshold per heat sink should be equal between SHS and DHS - Maybe, I'll consider this more later.

Without this, DHS becomes a 'Get out of jail free' card for the limited heat scale. In that case, only DHS-equipped 'Mechs would ever be competitive. With this change, you can choose more SHS for a larger heat scale, or DHS for faster dissipation. You can't have both.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• (Optional) External DHS cooling increased from 1.4 to 2.0 - Nah.

I included this as an option because my math suggested that it wouldn't be as big of a balance problem when combined with the above threshold limit. Double cooling AND double heat threshold for external DHS has already been rejected by PGI.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• (Optional) All heat dissipation rates increased by 50% to better match weapon fire rate - I've read good arguments about decreasing the heat cap and increasing dissipation to help shift combat away from alpha builds and more to DPS builds. I'd have to try it to really approve it, but in general I actually would consider your heat scale changes if this were a part.

I put this one as 'optional' because the heat scale changes would nerf Alpha Strike builds anyway, which is a primary goal. Adding 50% to the cooling rate would then buff DPS builds, enhancing the effect of the heat scale change on balance. Doing both together is probably the better solution.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• (Optional) Speed/Torso twist/Arm movement speed penalties at higher heat - Maybe. Personally, I'd prefer if there were torso twist and arm movement penalties for mounting larger weapons like PPCs and Gauss Rifles in general to help make these long range weapons more unwieldly in close combat.

This is really to simulate the TT accuracy penalties at the higher end of the heat scale. It's a way of implementing heat penalties without having to code in an entirely new mechanic, by using something in MWO that already influences your ability to hit your target.

FrostCollar, on 19 May 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

• (Optional) Jump Jets do not regenerate fuel while 'Mech is over 100% heat - Unnecessary. This just seems like an odd new rule that doesn't seem to change things much. JJs come back fast enough that Poptarters will still tart.

This was really an afterthought. It won't prevent pop-tarting, but I'm not sure what could eliminate it entirely. The idea is to make it less of an overwhelming advantage, by slowing the rate of attacks and allowing victims a little more time to reach cover or position to return fire. This would be more useful when combined with my aiming/convergence adjustment suggestion, but that's a different issue.

Thanks again for your perspective.

[stjobe]

Renthrak, on 17 May 2013 - 02:46 PM, said:

• (Optional) All heat dissipation rates increased by 50% to better match weapon fire rate

Too little. The Rates of Fire were roughly tripled, therefore the heat dissipation needs to be tripled as well. And it's NOT optional, it's the entire key to a working heat system for MWO.


With a tripled heat dissipation in place, not only would stock 'mechs fare much, much better, but single heat sinks would be more useful, and most importantly (at least in the current meta) the heat cap could be lowered to an arbitrary point where people can alpha exactly as many high-heat energy weapons as the devs want, be that two, three, four, five, or six. It can also easily be adjusted if it's too high.

The only way to combat high-heat boating is by adjusting the heat cap, and the only way to do that is to make dissipation match the fire rates of the weapons. That's how they were balanced in the TT, and having heat generation on a tripled rate compared to heat dissipation makes for as much balance problems in MWO as it did in Solaris 7. That system needs to go.

Edited by stjobe, 20 May 2013 - 03:42 AM.

[Zyllos]

Returning DHS to their natural dissipation rate while pulling back the heat capacity is a good idea.

But, the issue with doing that and then adding heat penalties on top of it is that in CBT, heat from weapons are never added to the heat scale unless you fire weapons that add heat beyond the heatsink dissipation rate.

In MWO, heat is added during the firing of the weapon, thus your dissipation rate has no bearing on how heat is added. That means a PPC, adding 9 heat, produces 9 / 30 heat when fired, no matter how many SHS/DHS you have equipped.

But, if you introduce a system to act more like CBT, that the dissipation over 10.0s is added as a pool that gets drained/replenished as you use/don't use it, your promoting alpha strikes again. That would mean 10 DHS can negate 20 heat instantly if the pool is completely full. That is 2 PPC shots worth before the next shot will spill out onto the main heat bar.

Of course, if say that heat scale penalties will never be added, then the heat scale is basically only a matter of if you hit 100% or not, then having a static heat scale and just heatsinks that dissipate, there might not be an issue regarding penalties. But then there becomes a RoF issue.

Again, with the PPC, you can fire 3 of them and go to 27/30 and suffer no ill effects. It will take 21 DHS roughtly 6.4 seconds to cool them off to fire again, or 5.7 seconds before you can fire them again and not hit 100%. But after doing this, you wanted to continue firing the PPCs, 1 PPC will take 2.1 seconds to cooldown. Within the RoF of 1 PPC, you could fire the 2nd PPC 0.2s before the cooldown finishes on the first PPC and be close to heat netural. The third PPC, or more, would be completely worthless in that situation.

Now it's becoming a point that extra weapons are worthless because of the low heat cap keeps you from using a lot of a single weapon but better to equip only 2 or so of a weapon so that you can constantly hold down the button to fire

Using the heat system from CBT or MWO will never fix that problem because the system is built on the idea that you can front load weapons but have to wait to fire again (which in MWO is a good thing because all those weapons hit a single point, destroying mechs) or equip fewer weapons so you can constantly fire (which is bad in MWO because you have to aim each successive volley to strike a hit on a single point).

These above problems is why I think the heat scale is only a small part of the overall issues with the game. There needs to be a comprehensive change to the entire game to fix all the problems. This includes:

Pin point weapons
hardpoint restrictions
Heat scale/dissipation
Weapon RoF/Damage/Heat/Ammo
SHS/DHS imbalances (both SHS vs DHS and inside vs outside DHS)
tonnage restrictions

The order here matters to me in that I think the top subjects are the most game breaking issues but the lower subjects do effect the overall pace of the game.

[stjobe]

Question: What would be the effect on weapons fire with a tripled dissipation rate and a heat cap fixed at 30?

It turns out that if heat dissipation was tripled, the number of weapons one could safely alpha (that is, fire and cool down before the cooldown on the weapon is over) is:

• 10 SHS: 1 PPC, or 3 ML
  
• 15 SHS: 1 PPC, or 4 ML
  
• 20 SHS: 2 PPC, or 6 ML
  
• 30 SHS: 3 PPC, or 9 ML

Now if the heat cap was lowered to 30, as has been suggested by me and some other people (naturally in addition to tripling the heat dissipation as above), the number of weapons one could alpha without overheating would be:

• 3 PPCs (generates 24 heat)
  
• 7 MLs (generates 28 heat)

How long would it take to dissipate 30 heat?

• 10 SHS: 9 seconds
  
• 15 SHS: 6 seconds
  
• 20 SHS: 4.5 seconds
  
• 30 SHS: 3 seconds

As you can see, with 30 SHS (or 15 DHS), a 'mech can continuously alpha 3 PPCs without overheating, but if it tries to alpha 4 PPCs it will instantly shut down.

Seems to me this would be a *very* effective way to combat boating of high-heat energy weapons.

[Renthrak]

stjobe, on 20 May 2013 - 03:39 AM, said:

[/list]Too little. The Rates of Fire were roughly tripled, therefore the heat dissipation needs to be tripled as well. And it's NOT optional, it's the entire key to a working heat system for MWO.

By combining rate of fire with heat generated over 10 seconds in MWO, and comparing that to one TT turn, it becomes clear that there is an enormous degree of variation in the change from TT to MWO.

Weapon: Heat production:

AC/2 20x
AC/5 5.9x
UAC/5 4.55x
AC/10 4x
LB/10X 4x
AC/20 2.14x
Gauss 2.5x

SRM2 2.85x
SSRM2 2.85x
SRM4 2.66x
SRM6 2.5x
LRM5 3.1x
LRM10 2.675x
LRM15 2.36x
LRM20 2.1x

SLAS 6.7x
MLAS 3.33x
LLAS 2.06x
SPLAS 5.45x
MPLAS 3.325x
LPLAS 1.83x
ERLLAS 1.866x
PPC 2.67x (2x)*
ERPPC 2.446 (1.833x)*

* : With 4 second cooldown


Based on the rate of heat generation in MWO, the highest that it would be safe to boost cooling is 83% (1.83x). Beyond that, and you can throw out the last 8 months of weapon heat tweaking to balance the weapons against eachother.

A tripled cooling rate combined with a hard cap of 30 on the heat scale would still allow a 6xPPC Stalker to fire all six of its PPCs, in pairs, over 2.96 seconds, while remaining completely heat neutral(without heat-related 'Mech efficiencies). It only takes 1.48 seconds to get rid of the heat from 2 PPCs, which then becomes the effective fire rate. A 6xPPC Stalker could fire a pair of PPCs every 1.48 seconds, forever. That is with the upcoming 4 second PPC cooldown factored in. It would take 4.44 seconds from firing the first PPC pair to cycle back to it. Come to think of it, that would be a pretty simple macro. 'Alpha Strike of Death' would become 'Endless PPC Volley of Death'.

You can't base your heat balance on stock 'Mechs, or custom 'Mechs become ridiculously powerful. That gap is wide enough already.

Edited by Renthrak, 20 May 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[General Taskeen]

Renthrak, on 20 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

You can't base your heat balance on stock 'Mechs, or custom 'Mechs become ridiculously powerful. That gap is wide enough already.

They were put and allowed in the game. Ergo, heat balance DOES need to be based first from stock mechs, stock weapons, etc., then customization follows. stjobe is also providing an example. If heat were merely abstracted, it would be similar but not like the "30" heat cap. For instance, MW:LL has a heat cap (like other mech games) which is 999 Celcius. Each weapon was then converted to be a close match in regards to how much heat it produces.



A PPC produces 160.5 Heat. Firing 4 PPC's produces 642 Heat with critical "zone" of 750 Heat (keeping a mech in the 750-999 zone means your heatsinks and Mech become damaged). Its still fairly similar. The number of heat sinks on a Mech design in the game determines how fast the heat disappates rather than the amount of heat you can take.

Heatsinks really do need to be changed so they do not raise the threshold. The threshold needs to be fixed at some point, whatever that be. SHS are already terrible as is and need a revamp. The only time the threshold would then be raised is merely from the skill unlocks.

[Kaldor]

Bump for a great thread.

Ive always been an advocate for limiting Alpha builds via heat cap, and making people actually aim with DPS builds, which gives them the same damage but requires multiple shots.

Lower heat cap, increase dissipation. Same overall damage with less cheese. Ive been preaching it for a long time.

[stjobe]

Renthrak, on 20 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

A tripled cooling rate combined with a hard cap of 30 on the heat scale would still allow a 6xPPC Stalker to fire all six of its PPCs,

A fair point, and good reason to adjust the heat generation of the PPC back up to its TT value of 10 per shot. With a cooldown of 4.0 on the PPC, our Stalker then has three choices:
1. Mount 3 PPCs and triple-fire them every 4 seconds (30 alpha, 7.5 DPS).
2. Mount 4 PPCs and dual-fire them every 2 seconds (20 alpha, 10 DPS).
3. Mount 6 PPCs and triple-fire them every 3 seconds. (30 alpha, 10 DPS).

Whatever the choice, it's a better situation than the current.

Renthrak, on 20 May 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

You can't base your heat balance on stock 'Mechs, or custom 'Mechs become ridiculously powerful. That gap is wide enough already.

We *must* base the heat balance on stock 'mechs. The whole point of adjusting the heat system is to make the gap between stock 'mechs and custom 'mechs smaller, mainly by limiting the amount of high-heat energy boating a custom 'mech can do.

Both Ballistics and Missiles are currently limited in their boating potential by weight and ammo capacity, but energy weapons have no limit but heat - and as the current meta plainly shows, that limit is way too high.

The current heat system is at the heart of many of the troubles MWO has right now, from high-heat energy boating down to the uselessness of stock 'mechs; by implementing a much harsher heat system, we can alleviate both problems in one go. We also stand a *much* better chance of getting the weapon balance right, and - who knows? - we might even be able to get rid of doubled armour somewhere down the line.

Stock 'mechs will always be inferior to custom 'mechs, but they needn't be as ridiculously outclassed as they currently are, and with a changed heat system the gap will lessen, not widen.

Edited by stjobe, 20 May 2013 - 01:12 PM.

[Renthrak]

General Taskeen, on 20 May 2013 - 12:23 PM, said:

They were put and allowed in the game. Ergo, heat balance DOES need to be based first from stock mechs, stock weapons, etc., then customization follows.

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.

My intention is not to make stock 'Mechs that have no difficulty standing up to an equivalent custom build. That's unrealistic. What I hope to do is make stock builds 'good enough' that they aren't suicidal to use, with an eye towards preventing optimized configurations from becoming too much more powerful than stock.

For example, using my suggested heat system and 8 heat per PPC, a stock Awesome 8Q could fire its PPCs in a 3 then 2 then 3 then 2 pattern, inflicting approximately 150 damage before approaching heat shut down. After that, it could continuously fire 2 PPCs while cooling down.

With 9 heat per PPC, that changes to a 3 then 2 then 2 then 3 pattern, inflicting 120 damage before approaching heat shut down. That same Awesome could chain fire one PPC every 2.14 seconds while remaining heat neutral. Firing two PPCs continuously, it would take about 36 seconds to overheat, inflicting 180 damage in that time. All with SHS.

Being able to put out enough damage to kill an undamaged Atlas before overheating sounds 'good enough' to me. Of course, these numbers are assuming ideal conditions and ignoring 'Mech heat efficiencies, but it's adequate for comparison purposes.

Kaldor, on 20 May 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Ive always been an advocate for limiting Alpha builds via heat cap, and making people actually aim with DPS builds, which gives them the same damage but requires multiple shots.

That's the idea. Multiple shots means that a skilled pilot can maneuver and torso twist to distribute that damage to some degree, moving survivability closer to TT levels without having to add any random number generator crap for the attacking 'Mech. It maintains the importance of skill on both offense and defense, raising the effective skill cap on both.

stjobe, on 20 May 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

We *must* base the heat balance on stock 'mechs. The whole point of adjusting the heat system is to make the gap between stock 'mechs and custom 'mechs smaller, mainly by limiting the amount of high-heat energy boating a custom 'mech can do.

I think most of our disagreement comes from using different definitions of 'balanced for stock'. We seem to have parallel opinions on both the problem and the solution.