65 replies to this topic

[skullman86]

I hate to hijack, but I really don't like how every weapon gets its own minimum for simultaneous firing and it's own heat penalty. Couldn't they just use a single formula to calculate extra heat at a flat rate across the board? That way they don't need to use a bunch of arbitrary numbers for each weapon type.

Multiplier (I think 0.5 might work) x Base weapon heat x Number of units fired = heat penalty

Have the penalty kick in whenever you fire more than one weapon of a type at a time (with a 1 second wait in between shots), so nobody gets to play favorites with the minimums based on stock loadouts or what have you.

Yes, lower heat weapons will still be penalized for being fired in groups (two or more), but being lower heat means the penalty still wont be as drastic as something hotter.

4 AC/2s (1 heat per gun): 0.5 x 1 heat x 4 guns = 2; base heat for four simultaneous AC/2s is going to be 4 with an additional 2 heat for the penalty (6 heat per group fire)

4 PPCs with the new heat (9 heat per gun): 0.5 x 9 x 4 = 18; base heat for four simultaneous PPCs is going to be 36 with an additional 18 heat for the penalty (54 heat per group fire)

8 Medium laser (4 heat per beam): 0.5 x 4 x 8 = 16; base heat for eight simultaneous medium lasers is going to be 32 with an additional 16 heat for the penalty (48 heat per group fire)

2 AC/20s (6 heat per shot): 0.5 x 6 x 2 = 6; base heat for two simultaneous shots is going to be 12 with an additional 6 heat penalty (18 heat per group fire)

Now, that is just a sample, and there are definitely some weapons that benefit from this system far more than others, like that AC/20 (gauss also still avoids any major penalty because ghost heat is a dumb idea, but w/e), but in those cases I would suggest changing base heat or cooldowns (could also affect round length). The reason I suggest changing weapon values is because I think data not readily available to players on the front end should be relatively uniform and easy to understand if looked up (see: engine sizing, speeds, and sinks). Equipment having different heat and cooldown values is fine because it's all on display, but ghost heat (if hidden) needs to follow a single formula IMO.

TL;DR: If ghost heat is going to stay, it should be a core part of the heat system, not applied to weapons on a case by case basis.

Edited by skullman86, 26 July 2013 - 01:32 PM.

[Homeless Bill]

Namais, on 26 July 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

Trouble is, it's worked before on a couple of topics. **** all else has. They're on an island, bud.

I'm not saying we should give up on that front, but I also think being realistic and trying to fix what we can about the current system would be wise.

Miken, on 25 July 2013 - 09:52 PM, said:

Something wrong. Gauss and machine guns have no serious heat at all. Don't break the lore.

IMHO: Current heat system already broken. For avoid addition unnecessary "heat penalty" just enough to limit heat treshold (amount of heatsinks = limit heat treshold) and accelerate heat dissipation

If it doesn't penalize Gauss in any way, it simply isn't effective as a penalty. As much as I think heat isn't the way to solve this, and it's incredibly intuitive to add heat to low heat weapons, this is the path they've chosen.

skullman86, on 26 July 2013 - 01:23 PM, said:

I hate to hijack, but I really don't like how every weapon gets its own minimum for simultaneous firing and it's own heat penalty. Couldn't they just use a single formula to calculate extra heat at a flat rate across the board? That way they don't need to use a bunch of arbitrary numbers for each weapon type.

Multiplier (I think 0.5 might work) x Base weapon heat x Number of units fired = heat penalty

Have the penalty kick in whenever you fire more than one weapon of a type at a time (with a 1 second wait in between shots), so nobody gets to play favorites with the minimums based on stock loadouts or what have you.

I think each weapon needs its own unique number because each has what I would consider a different "pinpoint alpha threshold." That threshold isn't as simple as picking a number like damage or base heat - it's a combination of damage and how the weapon system applies its damage, and I think going the super-simplistic route will create a lot of unnecessary imbalances.

Lasers, for instance, would be massively penalized under that formula (when they really don't need it), while the Gauss rifle wouldn't incur any sort of harmful penalty. Any good boating penalty needs a new set of numbers to account for the differences in damage application.

Again, I hate applying ghost heat to weapons that aren't hot, but if it's going to be effective, it's got to affect all weapons across the board.

[Homeless Bill]

Bump because I have a massively inflated sense of self-importance.

[Prezimonto]

Hey I necro my own threads now and then (check my sig). It's all good.

[Homeless Bill]

And now it's time for our favorite quiz show: What's That Heat Penalty!

Can anyone tell me what happens if you mount 3xSRM4 + 1xSRM6? How about 2x and 2x? Does anyone know how this **** is supposed to work?

Seriously, the way things are linked and calculated... the numbers are just ******* atrocious. I'm not saying my way of doing things is amazing, but it's sure a hell of a lot better than what's going on now.

PGI, please look at changing how you're doing things. It has to be apparent to someone over there how convoluted the current implementation is.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Sorry Bill, but I like my system better.

http://mwomercs.com/...-heat-solution/

[Homeless Bill]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 July 2013 - 04:34 PM, said:

Sorry Bill, but I like my system better.

http://mwomercs.com/...-heat-solution/

You're asking far too much. I like my solution better, as well. This isn't about more effective penalties; this is simply about a palatable implementation of what they want to do.

I'd rather they did just about anything besides these heat penalties, but I'd also rather the heat penalties not be done in a ridiculously stupid way. They aren't going to listen on anything else, but perhaps someone over there might realize how mind-blowingly confusing their current numbers are and re-work the math.

They won't, but it's my hope.

[James The Fox Dixon]

Homeless Bill, on 30 July 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

You're asking far too much. I like my solution better, as well. This isn't about more effective penalties; this is simply about a palatable implementation of what they want to do.

I'd rather they did just about anything besides these heat penalties, but I'd also rather the heat penalties not be done in a ridiculously stupid way. They aren't going to listen on anything else, but perhaps someone over there might realize how mind-blowingly confusing their current numbers are and re-work the math.

They won't, but it's my hope.

No, it's not too much for them to implement the proper penalties for running hot using the existing system. Your approach is too Care Bear when it should be harsh and pilots that fail to manage heat should die rapidly while causing their mech to destroy itself. That's lore and that's TT.

[Homeless Bill]

James The Fox Dixon, on 30 July 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

That's lore and that's TT.

After having read your suggestions, this is a primary reason I'm not a fan. Though I'd be okay with some penalties showing up around 80%, I think what you're proposing is ridiculously harsh. I care about lore and TT only in the very slightest sense; I think realtime balance is paramount, and all other considerations are secondary to that. I'll gladly take a Care Bear approach over an angry TT approach that will drive mainstream gamers away. I'd be all right with a hardcore sim, but I don't think it's the right direction for the game.

I really think core balance is close to where it needs to be. A massive re-working of the heat scale like what you're proposing would have a massive and unknowable effect on gameplay - one that really wouldn't even address a big part of the problem: low-heat, pinpoint weapons like the Gauss and AC/20 (not that theirs does, but yours has a far greater impact on gameplay than theirs does).

TL;DR: Philosophical difference.

[Gryphorim]

Bump,
Because convergence doesn't seem to be happening.
Current heat system too easy to abuse.
Current heat system opaque to new gamers.

[Trev Firestorm]

Bump, its important and we can't just let this get buried despite its exile.

[Pezzer]

This, this is good. Why PGI doesn't hire you as Gameplay Balance Coordinator is beyond me

Keep up the good work!

[Spirit of the Wolf]

It's getting to the point where I'd gladly hire Anonymous just to drill into PGI's servers, force a change to the game code, and then roll with it for 24 hours, just to see what happens.

(I exaggerate, of course, but I think this shows just how desperately FAIL their heat penalty system is.)

Also:
Guess what, PGI? Now instead of using 3 PPC and a gauss, people are using 2 ER PPC and a gauss! Hooray! You actually CHANGED something!

Oh, wait a minute...

[Homeless Bill]

Update: SRM4s minimum limit changed to 3. Why is it okay to fire 18 missiles (3xSRM6), but not okay to fire 16 missiles (4xSRM4)?

I'll tell you why: it's because they have no intelligent way to link weapons with different minimum weapon limits. Their own system doesn't meet the needs of their balancers, and so they have to arbitrarily nerf a weapon that doesn't need it.

Again, PGI, please consider re-working the math behind heat penalties. It would be far more effective both in solving the problem of alphas and allowing you flexibility.

Pezzer, on 03 August 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

This, this is good. Why PGI doesn't hire you as Gameplay Balance Coordinator is beyond me

I'm pretty sure that would be the most delicious job I could ever ask for. Becoming the object of the community's rage would be something I'd actually enjoy.

[Homeless Bill]

Rise. RISE FROM THE DEAD!

[efryt]

PGI please stop playing with alphas/heat..
you want make game more friendly and bring more players to play it, but using meta-magical formula to calculate heat isn't the way to go.
Do you think that getting hit by alphas turn some players away from this game - yes, that's probably truth, but IMHO it is not a reason to spoil the game by "removing concept of alpha strike from the game". Do other developers remove sniper rifles (that delivers one-shot one-kill ) from their games? I doubt it.

Simple mechanic in case of alphas is better. Every try to not allow players to use their beloved:D alphas will cause that they will find another way to use it ( as someone mentioned by mixing weapons to avoid penalty ). And development team is loosing its precious time that could be used to add some nice features.

I will repeat: please don't spoil the game for players that will play for week or month after playing Quake 14 and before playing Call of Duty 53. This is the game for Mechwarriors. not everyone can/want to be one;)

[efryt]

Pezzer, on 03 August 2013 - 04:16 AM, said:

This, this is good. Why PGI doesn't hire you as Gameplay Balance Coordinator is beyond me

Keep up the good work!

Homeless Bill, on 06 August 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure that would be the most delicious job I could ever ask for. Becoming the object of the community's rage would be something I'd actually enjoy.

I think it is beacuse they have someone to do it. but I'm affraid that person listen more to some managers that push more to broaden potential marketing target instead on focusing on create great product.
PGI - this game is fun, even without some magical formula to calculate heat. Please focus on other things that are just basically missing. It is online game and you will always have possibility to create some "heat management" patch in the future - it is just not essential.

Spirit of the Wolf, on 05 August 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

Guess what, PGI? Now instead of using 3 PPC and a gauss, people are using 2 ER PPC and a gauss! Hooray! You actually CHANGED something!

wrong!.. I also added ac/5 to my "2xerppc + gauss" group;)

Edited by efryt, 13 August 2013 - 09:38 AM.

[Homeless Bill]

Heat penalties are here to stay. Bumping this for visibility and great justice.

[sarkun]

I actually don't care how the ghost heat is calculated - OP's method or PGI's - what I'd like is that it be clearly shown to the user (right now, the best way is to look at the tables at smurfy... what a fail!) and CONSISTENT. The 4xSRM4 vs 3xSRM6 problem is a giant sign that the system is not designed well.

Alas, I do not think that PGI really knows what it wants to achieve with ghost heat. In the last ATD they said it's meant to curb high alphas... so why the hell is 4xAC2 penalised? 8dmg alpha is HIGH DAMAGE? AC2 has the worst damage per ton of all the weapons (ignoring mgs cause they're kinda special case).

The whole ghost heat system just doesn't feel like a... system. More so like an arbitrary web of let's nerf this! and that! and also this and that too! I'm afraid it's nigh impossible to make it sane.

[MrBlonde42]

Homeless Bill, I like this "they gave us lemons" approach.