57 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Generally, when I think of a multiplier, I'm thinking of a number that would be, you know, multiplied with something.

Is this to suggest that the multiplier column in the heat scale table is a value by which the normal heat is multiplied by?

The values listed would suggest not... I mean, obviously an AC20's heat doesn't get multipled by 24 for the second one fired... and since some of the values are one, it would suggest that this is actually just a penalty amount of heat that is applied.

Assuming that is the case, and the column is just poorly named, then the second question becomes what weapon is the heat penalty added to? Is it added to ALL of the weapons fired in that window? Or is it only added to the last one, or what?

For instance, if I fire one AC20, and then fire another AC20 after 0.25 seconds, I'm guessing that the second shot will generate an additional 24 heat, but the first ac20's heat will remain unchanged. Is this correct?

It didn't seem like the patch notes really explained this new system in detail. Any clarification, or directions to an explanation, would be appreciated.

[TostitoBandito]

Agreed, this is ridiculous. If you are going to provide numbers, you have to provide context and tell us what they actually mean.

[NinetyProof]

TostitoBandito, on 16 July 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Agreed, this is ridiculous. If you are going to provide numbers, you have to provide context and tell us what they actually mean.

Or .. you could just not "boat" those weapons? Or maybe you go test them for yourself and see? Some games absolutely will not tell you their numbers at all so people can't *really* game the system.

Get in the game and test it ... it's really not that hard. Seriously ...

[Gierling]

Roland, on 16 July 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

For instance, if I fire one AC20, and then fire another AC20 after 0.25 seconds, I'm guessing that the second shot will generate an additional 24 heat, but the first ac20's heat will remain unchanged. Is this correct?

Correct, however if you group fire t hem then BOTH weapons generate an additional 24 heat as 2 have been fired in the window but neither has fired "Before" the other.

[Goose]

It's a badly labled chart: The second number seems to be the extra heat, applied to each gun over the listed OPCount.

The third PPC almost heats like two PPCs (8 plus 7), as does the fourth …

[TostitoBandito]

NinetyProof, on 16 July 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:

Or .. you could just not "boat" those weapons? Or maybe you go test them for yourself and see? Some games absolutely will not tell you their numbers at all so people can't *really* game the system.

Get in the game and test it ... it's really not that hard. Seriously ...

No. They are marketing this as a competitive game. Players need to know how game systems function so they can optimize their play.

Edited by TostitoBandito, 16 July 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[scJazz]

Roland, on 16 July 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

It didn't seem like the patch notes really explained this new system in detail. Any clarification, or directions to an explanation, would be appreciated.

This is just plain absurd. By the time the Head Designer in Charge finally gets around to giving us an answer we will have figured it out on our own.

[Mechteric]

I think the heat scale mutliplier gets tacked on for subsequent shots only (after all you can't retroactively add heat, that'd involve time travel).

So in your example, lets say you somehow had a 3 AC20 mech:

Fire 1st AC20 + 6 heat

Waits 0.1 seconds

Fire 2nd AC20 + 6 heat + 24 bonus heat

Waits 0.1 seconds

Fire 3rd AC20 + 6 heat + 24 bonus heat


As long as that X seconds wait is zero (group fire) up to 0.5 seconds then that bonus would apply on the shots following the number that are allowed, which is 1 for AC20.

So if you group fired 3 AC20 all at once you'd get the same total

6 + (6 + 24) + (6 + 24)

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 16 July 2013 - 11:23 AM.

[TostitoBandito]

Yes Capper, I assume that is indeed how it probably works, but that is definitely not a multiplier or a scale. PGI needs to clarify what their numbers mean.

[xRatas]

I bet new players really love this magic extra heat when no-one explains it to them.

"Hmm. Double ac20 sounds really cool, lets try it. No heatsinks needed, as the produce only little heat, right.
...
Boom! Heat critical! Shutdown! WTF? Why I'm dead now?"

Well, many of them know the TT rules, so they can easily guess how this works, right?

This has to be the stupidest balance idea ever to see light of the day.

Edited by xRatas, 16 July 2013 - 11:41 AM.

[Kaldor]

xRatas, on 16 July 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I bet new players really love this magic extra heat when no-one explains it to them.

"Hmm. Double ac20 sounds really cool, lets try it. No heatsinks needed, as the produce only little heat, right.
...
Boom! Heat critical! Shutdown! WTF? Why I'm dead now?"

Well, many of them know the TT rules, so they can easily guess how this works, right?

This has to be the stupidest balance idea ever to see light of the day.

How many people do you think that actually play this game that are under the age of 25 actually know canon Battletech rules? Hell, Im 38, and Ive played all the Mechwarrior games, and I have 0 clue on some of them. I have to go check Sarna or something.

[zhajin]

technically it is a multiplier, the equation likely works as:

nh + (n-p)m = heat

n = number of weapon fired
h = heat of weapon
p = number allowed before heat penalty
m = penalty multiplier (thus it is a multiplier)

xRatas, on 16 July 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I bet new players really love this magic extra heat when no-one explains it to them.

"Hmm. Double ac20 sounds really cool, lets try it. No heatsinks needed, as the produce only little heat, right.
...
Boom! Heat critical! Shutdown! WTF? Why I'm dead now?"

Well, many of them know the TT rules, so they can easily guess how this works, right?

This has to be the stupidest balance idea ever to see light of the day.

this is just a drop in the bucket of how PGI has made things overly complex. try explaining ecm to a new player, or any player for that matter....

[Devari]

I'm sorry, but the more that this game gets away from the tabletop rules for "balance" tells me they aren't really balancing the game properly in the first place. The original tabletop rules were actually very balanced, at least in a mathematical sense, and only need slight adjustments to work in a PC game. I think MW1 through MW4 shows this very well. If boating PPCs, or AC20s, or any other weapon is too good, the answer is to FIX these weapons, not to artificially and arbitrarily discourage certain builds. I bought a K2 cat just to try fitting two AC20's. I don't use it much, but now that they've radically changed the way heat works for two AC20s it becomes a useless build. So what happens if the existing clan ML or LL boats, or a mech like the Hunchback IIC, ever make it into the game? It's suddenly an instant alpha strike meltdown, just because PGI decides they don't like boating weapons? Sorry, but this is a terrible solution to something that shouldn't be a problem in the first place.

[warner2]

It's very odd. 24 is a large amount of heat for firing a second AC20 considering one only generates 6. Is that just an arbitrary punishment to persuade you not to use 2 AC20s on a Jager? What about the Huncback IIC?

No penalty for LRM20 when there is for LRM15?

A penalty for SRM2 but not for SL? Why, does either of those need a nerf whereas the other doesn't?

Worst piece of game design I've ever witnessed.

I would shut up and go and play it but the patcher has broken my installation, again

[tigerija]

I also dont get it...

[NinetyProof]

TostitoBandito, on 16 July 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

No. They are marketing this as a competitive game. Players need to know how game systems function so they can optimize their play.

Again, a ton of "competitive" systems don't reveal their actually numbers. MWO is heads and heels over them. Still, if your too rock dumb to figure out this change, then you are probably too dumb to play at a competitive level.

The point is that it's a pretty simple system, we were given the numbers, and it should take like 5 mins in testing ground to figure it out. I know ... I know ... the whiners / qqers / entitlement crowd doesn't think it's good enough to "get the numbers" they want it spoon fed to them ... on a silver spoon non-the-less done by a professional butler in a stately mansion.

Get off your ***, get in the game, and test it ... especially if your a competitive player! Oh wait, if you were you would not be complaining right now.
[REDACTED]

Edited by Destined, 17 July 2013 - 12:17 PM.
insulting

[Devari]

NinetyProof, on 16 July 2013 - 12:02 PM, said:

Again, a ton of "competitive" systems don't reveal their actually numbers. MWO is heads and heels over them. Still, if your too rock dumb to figure out this change, then you are probably too dumb to play at a competitive level.

The point is that it's a pretty simple system, we were given the numbers, and it should take like 5 mins in testing ground to figure it out. I know ... I know ... the whiners / qqers / entitlement crowd doesn't think it's good enough to "get the numbers" they want it spoon fed to them ... on a silver spoon non-the-less done by a professional butler in a stately mansion.

Get off your ***, get in the game, and test it ... especially if your a competitive player! Oh wait, if you were you would not be complaining right now.

[REDACTED]

You obviously don't work in a technical field if you think that asking for more details when we're being given incomplete and unexplained information makes someone "rock dumb". If I tried giving someone the type of information we received about "heat scaling" they'd automatically ask me a lot of questions about how it works because it simply hasn't been explained adequately. It doesn't make any intuitive sense when a "scaling factor" ranges from 1.0 to 24 without any explanation, particularly since we could list every single weapon and include a "scaling factor" of 1.0. What this tells me is the "scaling system" probably isn't well thought out and has no particular logic or pattern to it, and they may have actually been completely misusing the term "scaling factor" when they named their system. If you're happy with arbitrary, random changes to a game that already has a precise, well-balanced weapon design system in place, and has remained essentially unchanged in both tabletop and video game forms for over 20 years, then you simply don't understand the discussion we're having here.

Edited by Destined, 17 July 2013 - 12:17 PM.
Quote Clean Up

[Squarefox]

Yes, the patch notes are nearly useless... Some numbers, no explanations. And many weapons missing: what about LRM5, LRM10, LRM20, small laser, pulse laser, mgs, flamers?

[Bilbo]

Squarefox, on 16 July 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

Yes, the patch notes are nearly useless... Some numbers, no explanations. And many weapons missing: what about LRM5, LRM10, LRM20, small laser, pulse laser, mgs, flamers?

What do you want to know, other than there are no max alphas for these weapons?

[Squarefox]

Bilbo, on 16 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

What do you want to know, other than there are no max alphas for these weapons?

Alpha restriction for LRM15, but not for LRM10 and LRM20? Makes no sense to me...