6 replies to this topic

[BlackCloudX]

Heat/sizing based solution:
Each hard point has an optimal mass capacity. If you mount something bigger than the optimal mass, you will take a heat penalty proportional to how far above the mass you go for that hard point.

For example: Mounting an AC/20 on a 6 ton ballistics slot would increase your weapon heat by a factor of (14/6) or 2.33. So you would be generating 13.38 heat on an AC/20 mounted in a AC/2 slot. Or 26.76 heat for dual AC/20's. You'd explode if you tried to fire 3 times in succession.

Note this is a similar limitation to how mounting a LRM20 on a 10 tube missile slot results in two salvos of 10 being fired instead of one salvo of 20.
The analogy of that is plugging a 16 Amp (2000 Watt) space heater into a 10 amp circuit. You might be able to run it VERY briefly before burning the circuit into cinders.

It also has the benefit of allowing PGI mech designers to give more reason for mech variants to exist. For example, the stock Awesome AWS-8Q is designed for 3PPCs, so it should not be penalized for carrying 3PPCs. But putting dual PPCs on a Cicada CDA-2A which has stock 2 medium lasers, should definitely carry a heat penalty because it's not designed to handle such big weapons.

Lastly, as a developer, I know this would be a relatively simple game mechanic to implement.
1) Add additional data field of optimal tonnage for each hard point in each mech variant, populated with stock load out tonnage.
2) Modfiy in game heat calculation equation.

So how would this stop the 2 dual Gauss builds since they make no heat? First of all you already have to make a ton of sacrifices to go dual Gauss. Secondly, the heat just isn't right on Gauss rifles. To accelerate a 200 pound slug using electromagnets takes a lot of energy and thus heat. It would create more heat than accelerating an AC/20 slugs with explosive powder due to the inefficiency of electromagnets (we're talking the theoretical limitations of physics and thermodynamics, not technology).

[Lyoto Machida]

Would be an interesting proposal...would help keep variants closer to their stock configs. May require more data in the mechlab...players would be pretty confused unless they used smurfy or some spreadsheet to keep track of heat.

[Homeless Bill]

Thunder Hawk loves your proposal.

And by that, I mean he doesn't. I like the way you calculate heat versus what we have now, but so many stock builds would be untouched. That, and I don't like increasing Gauss heat just because you have to in order for heat penalties to work.

I think it's a clever system, but ultimately, it leaves me with the ineffectiveness of hardpoint restrictions and all the things I hate about heat penalties.

Edited by Homeless Bill, 25 July 2013 - 12:10 PM.

[scJazz]

Homeless Bill, on 25 July 2013 - 12:06 PM, said:

Thunder Hawk loves your proposal.

and once again...

/thread

[Zyllos]

Wouldn't it not be more intutative to just implement more restrictive hardpoints instead of modifying heat for a weapon based around mass?

[3rdworld]

Zyllos, on 25 July 2013 - 12:09 PM, said:

Wouldn't it not be more intutative to just implement more restrictive hardpoints instead of modifying heat for a weapon based around mass?

It would have been more intuitive to balance PPCs, instead of an overly complicated heat system. That isn't conveyed anywhere in game and that new players are never going to be able to figure out.

I would have thought it pretty obvious by now that PIG is completely opposed to simple solutions.

[BlackCloudX]

The intuitiveness would have to be built into the mechlab interface. Similar to the way smurphys shows missile tube, there would be a number to indicate optimum tonnage for each hardpoint. Installing a weapon beyond the optimum would indicate to the user again what the optimum tonnage should be for the hardpoint and the heat penalty they would be taking. It would also be directly reflected in the cooling efficiency bar.

Even though tonnage caps for hard points would be more intuitive, but it could significantly limit customization, and result in most mechs being stock builds.

I went with mass, just because the data is already there, thus simplifying implementation. Mass to an extent also reflects size. And I say mass, well because weight is related to gravity (and thus different on different planets)--it's my engineering OCD. Also most people understand mounting things larger than they are designed for causes bad things to happen.

Alternatively, they could put optimum heat consumption for each hard point. Exceeding it, would scale proportionally in the same way as I specified with mass. So putting an AC/20 (heat 6) in an AC/2 (heat 1) spot would result in a 6x heat multiplication factor. So firing that AC/20 would cause 36 heat. lol. That's a bit extreme... It would definitely stop mechs from running around with dual AC/20's. But it would do screwy things to people mounting a AC/2 in a Machine Gun slot--divide by zero error??

So is this Thunderhawk guy a developer at PGI? Why should I care if he hates my idea?