56 replies to this topic

[CravenMadness]

Honestly, if you think six x lrm fives is the best way to play an A1 ... You need to get out of catapults. The six x lrm five is a troll build that is more for annoyance than anything. The number of 'kills' you get results in the fact that you're spraying machine-gun missiles on a target while it's fighting something else and your damage splat was what got the kill shot, not that you actually sat there and did 120 damage all by your lonesome in your three cycles of what equates to lrm 30.

What's being said about the ppcs and heat dissipation, is that in 'table top' it takes 'ten seconds' to cool down the heat generated from firing the weapon... In game it only takes four seconds for the weapon to reload to 'fire' status, if you wait the extra six seconds (to reach the ten second 'turn' of table top) I'd bet your heat would be gone again and you'd have had time to move around but then again your target will have moved away and the point of your high alpha build is lost.

[3rdworld]

IceSerpent, on 18 July 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

Not quite - in your example you are using (almost) instant heat generation with non-instant heat dissipation. The fact that PGI designed MWO this way doesn't mean that it should be done this way. There's absolutely nothing that pervents heat from being generated over a predetermined time interval a.k.a. "turn". You can simply scale TT rules from 10s turns to 0.1s turns and end up with real time simulation (100ms "turn" is comparable to average ping, so it would be "real time" from the player's perspective).

Actually if I were going to try to port a TT heat system to MWO, I would just use heat sinks as a resource to be "tapped".

Fire a ML, and 4 Heat sinks a Tapped for the CD duration. Firing a weapon with no available HS, causes the capacity to increase by x heat. Every 10 seconds a HS remains untapped reduces Capacity by 1 Heat.

But that would also require a vast overhall of the entire heat system and likely include heat balancing of most of the weapons. (which we can see with PPCs, PGI has become increasingly reluctant to do).

IT would have a bit of a logic issue as 1 heat != 1 heat in all scenerios, but it could be a decent trade off for using longer CD weapons.

Edited by 3rdworld, 18 July 2013 - 09:26 AM.

[3rdworld]

Unbound Inferno, on 18 July 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

Tight LRM5 spacing is borderline overpowered actually, bit different than good - but thanks for confirming which PPC side you'd rather stay on.

LRM 5s are OP everyone. You heard it here first.

Thank you Unbound for staying atop the current meta, and understanding the game from a non scrub perspective /sarcasm in case you didn't pick up on it.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Zyllos, on 18 July 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

I think you choose a bad example.

The reason why DoW was not like 40k TT is because GW would never let a company produce an electronic version of the TT, that followed the rules exactly. Why they won't let this happen is because then everyone would just jump into playing it over the actual TT version (not all, but many would) and it would eat into their profits.

That's where Games Workshop could have continued to profit though had they not sold the rights to the franchise to THQ and then got sold to SEGA after bankruptcy. Had they simply licensed the rights to let them translate the game from a TT one to electronic media they would still be in a profitable situation.

Oh, but I think it is… We had a deal with you, on the comics remember, for likeness rights, and as we’re not only the artistic basis, but also obviously the character basis, for your intellectual property, Bluntman and Chronic. When said property was optioned by Miramax Films, you were legally obliged to secure our permission to transfer the concept to another medium. As you failed to do that, Banky, you are in breach of the original contract, ergo you find yourself in a very actionable position. - Silent Bob (Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back)

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 18 July 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Dracol]

In MW:O, battletech values were the starting point and have been changed/modified to create a fun experience.

What works in BT may or may not work in MW:O.

It's like going to see a movie based off a book. Some people will love the movie, but hate the book. Some will love the book but blame the movie makers for butchering the movie.

And then some people will appreciate the book as well as the movie because they are able to enjoy them on their own merits instead of through the eyes of judgement.

[IceSerpent]

3rdworld, on 18 July 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Actually if I were going to try to port a TT heat system to MWO, I would just use heat sinks as a resource to be "tapped".

Fire a ML, and 4 Heat sinks a Tapped for the CD duration. Firing a weapon with no available HS, causes the capacity to increase by x heat. Every 10 seconds a HS remains untapped reduces Capacity by 1 Heat.

But that would also require a vast overhall of the entire heat system and likely include heat balancing of most of the weapons. (which we can see with PPCs, PGI has become increasingly reluctant to do).

IT would have a bit of a logic issue as 1 heat != 1 heat in all scenerios, but it could be a decent trade off for using longer CD weapons.

That's one way to do it. My point is basically that TT turn is just a time interval between value updates, so switch to real time is very straightforward (provided that it's not PGI that is implementing the switch, as they tend to come up with totally weird design decisions). The shorter you make that time interval, the more "real time" it gets, while the balance remains the same.

Edit:

Thontor, on 18 July 2013 - 09:30 AM, said:

in Battletech you only fire once every 10 seconds.

No, you aim once per 10s. How many times the weapon fires is not specified (i.e. flamer probably fires coninuously).

Quote

If you want to replicate Battletech in MWO, go ahead and do that, the heat results will be the same.

Not with the current heat scale implementation. It won't even be close.

Edited by IceSerpent, 18 July 2013 - 09:41 AM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

Battle tech on TT was about combat as well as creative heat management to remain effective. Since it's more difficult to do that on our side because people customize mechs far more than was done in TT. This requires PGI to manage the heat based on the level of customization we are creating..

[Corvus Antaka]

thats a 2 LRM 15 mech withi nothing else. your capped by ammo & LRMS vs PPC gaurenteed dmg. no surprises here. no problems either.

[3rdworld]

IceSerpent, on 18 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

That's one way to do it. My point is basically that TT turn is just a time interval between value updates, so switch to real time is very straightforward (provided that it's not PGI that is implementing the switch, as they tend to come up with totally weird design decisions). The shorter you make that time interval, the more "real time" it gets, while the balance remains the same.

It is completely unintuitive for a PPC to generate its heat evenly over some time frame.

It also provides a slew of issues. Lets say you are at 99.9% heat, and you fire 3 erppcs. Now you are going to be overheated the entire duration of the heat generation + the time it takes for you to dissipate the heat.

Instant generation + time based dissipation makes the most sense for gameplay and logically. I am not saying they have the values correct.

[Unbound Inferno]

Dracol, on 18 July 2013 - 09:32 AM, said:

In MW:O, battletech values were the starting point and have been changed/modified to create a fun experience.

What works in BT may or may not work in MW:O.

It's like going to see a movie based off a book. Some people will love the movie, but hate the book. Some will love the book but blame the movie makers for butchering the movie.

And then some people will appreciate the book as well as the movie because they are able to enjoy them on their own merits instead of through the eyes of judgement.

Despite my wanting to rant about it I find someone with a good point.

[Milt]

I think the reason TT values are brought up so often is because what was fun in TT has not been translated properly to MWO. If MWO were fun and balanced no one would be mentioning TT values at all.

[IceSerpent]

3rdworld, on 18 July 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

It is completely unintuitive for a PPC to generate its heat evenly over some time frame.

It also provides a slew of issues. Lets say you are at 99.9% heat, and you fire 3 erppcs. Now you are going to be overheated the entire duration of the heat generation + the time it takes for you to dissipate the heat.

Instant generation + time based dissipation makes the most sense for gameplay and logically. I am not saying they have the values correct.

I kind of see what you are saying, but not sure that I agree - watching the speed of heat change insead of the current value (in other words, you'd be concerned about how fast it raises/drops more than about how high it is) shouldn't be all that unintuitive.

[Coolant]

2 ERPPC = 22 heat...that's the same as 5 1/2 medium lasers...you are in a 65 ton mech, tonnage and slots at a premium...you need more heatsinks but no tonnage or slots. Pretty simple to me, u'll overheat

[Unbound Inferno]

Coolant, on 18 July 2013 - 12:00 PM, said:

2 ERPPC = 22 heat...that's the same as 5 1/2 medium lasers...you are in a 65 ton mech, tonnage and slots at a premium...you need more heatsinks but no tonnage or slots. Pretty simple to me, u'll overheat

But I shouldn't with 20 tons of Double Heat Sinks. That should counteract it more - if not at the level I want of indefinitely.

[Sturmforge]

Or we could have a system that is more based on TT values and discourages the current PPC Alpha game. No free 30 heat cap for all mechs, a heat cap that is based on the number of and what typer of heat sinks you have (10 singles =cap 10 heat, 10 doubles = cap 20 heat) Then since they increase rate of fire 2 to 3 times they need to do the same with heat dissapation. This also assumes that weapon heat is returned to TT values.

Now the below Stalker could Alpha all day long if it never moved while firing. The moment it moves and fires it shuts down. You could upgrade the engine to a 275 and move and shoot all day long except on hotter maps. Add even 1 ER PPC and you would shut down every Alpha.

Stalker
4 tons remaining depending on how much armor.
4 PPC = 40 heat
20 Double Heat Sinks (Max able to fit in chassis without a larger engine) = 40 heat cap and 40 heat dissapated in 3 to 5 seconds without moving.

Edited by Sturmforge, 18 July 2013 - 03:16 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

hammerreborn, on 18 July 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

Because TT sucks in a real time game?

So did the previous Versions of MechWarrior Suck too?

[hammerreborn]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

So did the previous Versions of MechWarrior Suck too?

I'm not aware of every other mechwarrior using TT values for everything, firing every 10s, and hitting random locations.

[3rdworld]

Joseph Mallan, on 18 July 2013 - 03:17 PM, said:

So did the previous Versions of MechWarrior Suck too?

they had fun gameplay, but you can't really convince me they were any more balanced than what we have here.

[Joseph Mallan]

3rdworld, on 18 July 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

they had fun gameplay, but you can't really convince me they were any more balanced than what we have here.

At least you are honest sir. It was a very close recreation of BattleTech in video game form.

[Unbound Inferno]

Sturmforge, on 18 July 2013 - 03:14 PM, said:

Or we could have a system that is more based on TT values and discourages the current PPC Alpha game. No free 30 heat cap for all mechs, a heat cap that is based on the number of and what typer of heat sinks you have (10 singles =cap 10 heat, 10 doubles = cap 20 heat) Then since they increase rate of fire 2 to 3 times they need to do the same with heat dissapation. This also assumes that weapon heat is returned to TT values.

Now the below Stalker could Alpha all day long if it never moved while firing. The moment it moves and fires it shuts down. You could upgrade the engine to a 275 and move and shoot all day long except on hotter maps. Add even 1 ER PPC and you would shut down every Alpha.

Stalker
4 tons remaining depending on how much armor.
4 PPC = 40 heat
20 Double Heat Sinks (Max able to fit in chassis without a larger engine) = 40 heat cap and 40 heat dissapated in 3 to 5 seconds without moving.

That is what I am talking about.

I laid out a grand revamp here; http://mwomercs.com/...-balanced-feel/ - no way I think they'd really actually try it, but its there. I can dream, and you never really know...

Reworking the heat specifically to what you say (or a version akin to it as I laid out) the heat dissipates at about the same recharge time the weapon was balanced around.

In game I'd be firing my 2x ERPPC and it should cause my mech to stutter for a moment. The throttle's sluggish as I try to crawl out of the open into cover under the high heat, my targeting crosshairs are shaking as the computer is overheating - but it calms down after a few seconds. Not long after my mech's back to being as cool as ever and I can fire my ERPPC again once I let it get low enough as the weapon's recharge cools off.

That is what I'd love to have happen. Is my build picture perfect even like that? No. But the heat system can handle it for as long as I want, but I know its a bad idea to rush another shot.

As it is now, I don't dissipate nearly half the heat the ERPPC generate before my next shot could be up and it builds up. In a tough firefight between teams I am running really slow on the shots comparatively speaking because of that - needing too much time to cool off when I shouldn't need to do that that extra wait time.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 18 July 2013 - 03:25 PM.