8 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Let's say nothing changes fundamentally. The solution to boating, alpha strike + convergence will forever be that this would produce more heat than the mere sum of the individual weapon's heat:

What would be balanced values?

I mean, it can't be that any value will do?

1 extra heat on a Quad PPC Stalker would obviously not e enough. But 100 would seem bizarre, wouldn't it?

So, what is the right value? What will appropriately compensate the advantage of pinpoint precision gained from group-firing 4 PPCs compared to chain-firing 4 PPCs? What will appropriately compensate the torso-twist and cover-seeking advantage of needing to aim only once every 4 seconds vs. needing to aim four times, once every 0.5 seconds, in a 4 second duration?

How would you try to determine this value?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 August 2013 - 11:00 AM.

[Khobai]

balanced heat scale penalties = none at all, because theyre stupid.

heat is not the reason weapons are overpowered. look at battletech, the weapons generate significantly less heat than in MWO, yet are still relatively balanced.

PGI is trying to fix the problem by using heat as a bandaid, and all theyve done is make things worse because of it.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 05 August 2013 - 12:18 PM, said:

balanced heat scale penalties = none at all, because theyre stupid.

heat is not the reason weapons are overpowered. look at battletech, the weapons generate significantly less heat than in MWO, yet are still relatively balanced.

PGI is trying to fix the problem by using heat as a bandaid, and all theyve done is make things worse because of it.

I understand your feelings. But I felt l ike trying to be constructive, because I think being able to actually numerically describe the advantage "boating" grants would be useful, regardless of what system we use.

[Conraire]

Actually for the ppc and erppc heat is the reason why they're overpowered. They generate significantly more heat per shot there. Same with the LL.

The other issue is the borked up heat scale in game, allowing such things to be abused.

[NextGame]

Just remove the heat changes as they are complete and utter mince, and increase ppc heat. Hardly rocket science.

[Funkadelic Mayhem]

I want to see blood and guts fly in the air on fire when ppl over heat. I want my minions to have to wash it off my windows after a match.

[AnarchyBurger]

Personally think the best way to balance PPC isnt heat at all but to add a bit of a splash to its damage structure. So lets say it does 10dmg to a point currently (I dont remember exact value). Make it do 8 damage to a point with 2 damage randomly splashed to a nearby component. Its electricity ya dig. Heat is not a good balance method. Too much heat just makes the game dull. Because between high heat and stupid big maps you spend more time doing nothing, and thats a game balance nono.

[FatBabyThompkins]

As it stands, the PPCWarrior can take several rapid shots before having to slow down to a moderate pace. If they cool down for a period of time they can make more back to back shots again. It is a combination of high alpha (35 points for PPC/Gauss) with 3 to 4 volleys. That's, potentially, 140 points in 12 seconds (1st volley at 0 seconds, 4th volley at 12 seconds), which is also usually not enough time for a large mech to get back behind cover before it is too late (especially if he has someone behind him stopping his retreat). Hide, don't move and dissipate heat. Start back over on the next mech.

Raising heat (without changing anything else) can probably bring this down to 3 volleys. Bring it to 2 volleys will cause the largest outcry imaginable. You would need to double heat to achieve a 2 volley maximum, which, even I agree is not a subtle change. It also has the drawback of substantially slowing their rate of fire once at max heat. IMO, their rate of fire at max heat, 1 volley every 8 to 10 seconds, is acceptable (even if I still have issues with a 35 point alpha that can cripple or destroy a light mech). So, just raising the heat is not reasonable. It may relieve the rapid shot, heat bank game we have now, but after a few shots, they're effectively taken out of the game for a significant amount of time (my vengeance side says do it to punish the PPCWarrior, but practically it says that is just bad game play).

This is where the lower heat capacity with a quicker heat dissipation concept was born. Lower heat capacity would reduce the amount of back to back volleys while allowing the mech a better sustained rate of fire near max heat. A good balance could be made. But, this only looks at the PPC/Gauss meta. How would that affect all of the other weapons? We have no idea, frankly. We can try to extrapolate, but ultimately, it would be need a complete redesign of all weapons and their heat. Balance PPC/Gauss with a lower heat cap and higher heat efficiency, balance every other weapon against that. To me, that does not sound like a good idea. It's taking a problem that affects a small amount of the weapons (but a large part of the game, essentially the 80/20 rule), making a general fix against it and then hammering the rest of the weapons to fit that new model.

Also, any heat based penalty just doesn't make sense coming from the ballistics and missile side. The suspension of disbelief can only be pushed so far before people pull the 'wat' card. The AC/20 goes from 6 heat to 36 heat when fired in 0.5 of each other. 0.6 and it is only 12 heat. That doesn't make sense, it is not intuitive, and makes people question the legitimacy of the designers (seriously, I showed my friends that were just starting to play who thought the world of the game the math and they exclaimed how stupid that idea was and that how if those are the types of balancing mechanisms making their way into the game, they had doubts about the future of the game). Doubts of a future stop investors. Economic law (or as close to economic law as you can get).

No, heat is not the answer. It was an answer in TT where hit probabilities and randomized damage locations were also a balancing factor. Heat was a gamble that if you missed, could you make the next shot, hit, and then suffer some real penalties to future production (pilot and gunnery penalties, speed penalties, ammo explosions)? You were also almost guaranteed that no two weapons would damage the same location (9.1% for 2 of 3 weapons that hit to hit CT and 0.7% for 3 of 3 weapons that hit to hit CT). It was a balancing act of trying to kill the other mech through total damage and keeping your heat low. MWO experiences none of those (perfect hit probability with only skill of well trained twitch gamers over the years, perfect pinpoint damage, encouraged to run near max heat).

Heat cannot and will not balance this game alone. Trying to further balance the game on heat alone will only result in more unbalance or suspension of disbelief issues.

[MaddMaxx]

I am not really sure that less "alpha" versus more sustained fire would not simply be a Moot point in MWO.

(N.B. The numbers in use are subjective at best but required to explain likely predicted outcomes)

Given the choice of firing 3 quick bursts (delivered in 12 seconds) for total damage done, then requiring a Cool-Down period, (extended if need be), versus, firing off 1 (low cap) burst every 2 to 3 seconds (high dissipation), to maintain ones heat, for an actual burst rate of 6 (or 4) in that same 12 second time frame, it would appear, on paper at least, that the single burst mode of more often per the same 12 second period would be a better choice but not actually solve the real issue at hand. Total damage applied per clock cycle. (any cycle)

Sure, many would counter that hitting every time with more shots would change the ratio of damage per time cycle but that cannot be guaranteed. Given that we play in 15 (8 average) minute Matches, damage and death already happen at such a rate that many dislike it. Decreasing that time frame, or increasing allowed damage over the same time cycle, for even a small portion of the Community (those who can aim) would soon be seen as a bad thing and we would quickly be right back to the drawing board yet again.

I wholeheartedly disagree that Heat is not the way to go. Many beat us with the TT stick but in TT heat is the one factor that "every" pilot has to manage. It also favors the Lighter chassis as they can carry less over-all weapons versus the Assaults who get the guns but should be vary wary of the "trigger down" syndrome we see as so prevalent now.

The "shoot lots quick" then have to abstain/hide for a (seemingly) long time, OR, control your output, or face those long down times is far more fair for everyone, beginner and elite.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 06 August 2013 - 08:49 AM.