18 replies to this topic

[Tiamat of the Sea]

So, I think I've pinned down what the real issue with single and double heat sinks is, now that I have a better understanding of how the heat system works, and I think I've got some kind of an understanding of why it's been changed the way it has.

This also means that I think I have a few ideas on something that could be changed to improve the overall state of the game. Do I think I have the only 'solution' to the issue? No. Do I think I have a good idea? Yeah.

I'm hoping I can prompt some kind of developer response out of this thread, but even if all it gets is some thoughtful discussion about heat sinks and the MWO and TT heat systems, I'm okay with that- I like discussing the ideas and numbers behind games and tweaking them in my head even if I don't get to adjust the game itself. Game design has always been -really- interesting to me, and the systems of numbers within a game are a large part of that.

Curiously, I find that the current state of heat (and the issues with it) contribute to a few other points of some degree of contention within the game's current meta, which is another part of why I'm creating this thread.

Introduction out of the way, let's establish what we're looking at here.

In the original incarnation of the game, the tabletop Battletech game, there are four points I want to make note of.

1. Every 'mech has a heat capacity of 30. When it surpasses its capacity, assuming it hasn't detonated its own ammo or melted the pilot or what have you by then, it -absolutely must- shut down until its heat has dissipated to below that capacity. This is not a hard cap, you -do- track heat that exceeds it. This means that regardless of what the tonnage of your 'mech is, you cannot effectively use weapons that generate considerably more heat than your heat sinks will dissipate; doing so leads to losing 'turns' or time in action, which is the drawback you're accepting if you try to do so. This is also part (a large part) of why alpha-striking is so rare in the tabletop game.

2. Increasing your number of heat sinks in the tabletop only increases your maximum dissipation rate. It does not increase the maximum heat capacity of your 'mech. The tonnage and critical hit slot occupation of heat sinks, as well as the limit on how many you can mount in your engine, is specifically balanced against heat sinks as heat dissipation, not heat capacity. This is why a larger engine is at most a small concern regarding your heat sink placement; while having more heat sinks internal to the engine is useful, it's only useful as a measure for saving space in your 'mech's critical hit slots.

3. The vast majority of 'mechs in the tabletop game are designed with weapons that function at differing ranges from one another. There are relatively few 'mechs (the majority of them light or of the lighter medium tonnages) whose weapons are all close, and most of the 'mechs with all or nearly all long-range weapons are missile boats that are intended to have support around them. Because of this, heat-neutral 'mechs (something that PGI is extremely wary of) are very rare- if one assumes a 'mech is firing all of its weapons during every round.

Most 'mechs, though, are really expecting to fire at most half of their weaponry at any given range, because the other half is either unlikely to hit or literally cannot hit. This is why the Quickdraw has an LRM-10, why the Warhammer with its 2 PPCs and two Medium Lasers and SRM 6 doesn't mount thirty heat sinks, and why the Shadow Hawk has such an incredible hodgepodge of weaponry. The original Shadow Hawk is often percieved as a terrible, terrible 'mech, because it can't seem to decide what it's role is- but the truth is it's actually pretty good because it can deal, to some degree, with anything that its enemy can do. But it, like so many other 'mechs, should not be firing its entire weapons load at once.

4. Heat sinks in the tabletop are already balanced. In fact, they are balanced fairly well against the other type of heat sinks. I know this doesn't seem intuitive, but it's actually true- to a point. Yes, double heat sinks are usually superior, but not always. In fact, if you're really interested in building a heat-neutral 'mech in tabletop, particularly if you rely on non-energy weapons, single heat sinks tend to be -better-. Why? Because constructing a heat-neutral 'mech means mounting a lot of heat sinks, and you have limited space inside a 'mech. Heavier autocannon and larger missile racks take up a fair number of critical hit slots- even more by proportion than energy weapons- and so you have little space compared to tonnage to spend on adding enough heat sinks to make up for your weaponry.

As an example, the Marauder II mounts 29 heat sinks because of this- if those were double heat sinks, it wouldn't have nearly as many (in fact, it would max out at 16- giving it only 3 more heat dissipation per turn and leaving it with thirteen more tons to fill with equipment or other changes) With its right torso full of autocannon, only five critical hit slots open in either arm, and another six open in the left torso, the use of double heat sinks also prohibits slotting any into the head, legs, or center torso and leaves its critical slots overoccupied. Yes, the freed-up tons could be used for more weaponry, but then it would need even more heat dissipation to make up for that, and wouldn't be able to mount the heat sinks anywhere.

Given these things, I will now look at four relevant (lucky that, that there are four of each) points concerning Mechwarrior Online. I will keep referring to the tabletop rules for Battletech, but there are very good reasons for that.

First off, this game started with the tabletop game values and everything in it is derived, to some degree, from the tabletop. Whether or not you want this game to be more like the tabletop you simply can't ignore that that's where MWO comes from to begin with.

The other reason is that PGI has been visibly trying to cleave as closely to the tabletop numbers and rules as they reasonably can while taking into account the fact that MWO is a completely different kind of game and the increased rate of 'mech activity. Not only in tonnages and critical hit slots, but also in ranges, engine rating comparisons, equipment placement, the way NARC functions, damage per shot, et cetera. Sometimes they haven't stayed as close as some would like (ECM, LRMS, Streak missiles), but when they haven't they've had reasons, even if we don't always know them.

So, one major point and three resulting points about Mechwarrior Online.

1. Heat sinks in Mechwarrior Online increase the maximum heat capacity of the 'mech they are mounted on. If I'm going to be perfectly honest, I don't really understand this choice. Had PGI doubled the maximum heat capacity (in addition to armor values) in order to compensate for the increased firing rate they needed to make sure players are constantly doing stuff rather than constantly waiting, that would have made a lot of sense. (Especially if they then tweaked that maximum over time if the amount felt wrong.) Instead they did this, and while I do not understand/know the reasoning that led to this design decision, I do know and understand what it did to the game.

Thanks to this particular change, heat sinks now do more (thus becoming more important) than they do in the tabletop game. 'Mechs with better or more heat sinks not only can fire more weapons without an overall increase in their current heat, they also can do it more often before overheating and shutting down becomes an issue.

2. 'Mechs in MWO alpha strike more often and with less difficulty. With heat capacities often exceeding the sixty mark and sometimes going near to a full hundred, generating four or five more heat than you can safely sink is doable three or four times as frequently as it was in the tabletop. This is much more frequently than alpha striking is safe in the tabletop game, and generally seems to run counter to PGI's stated intention that alpha striking not be done regularly.

It is because of this that Ghost Heat was introduced, as well as the slightly sneakier 'weapon cap', which increases the heat you generate when you fire more than a certain number of weapons simultaneously regardless of whether or not they're the same kind of weapon. Pretty much everyone agrees that ghost heat is clumsy and non-intuitive (particuarly given that nothing in the UI indicates its existence), but ghost heat is not really what I'm on about here. It's related, and hopefully something that can be removed once a better solution is found, tested, and made ready to implement, but it's not really what I want to talk about.

Regardless, 'mechs are more capable of alpha striking in MWO than they are in tabletop, and with less punishment- and that's bad. If anything, 'mechs should be less capable of alpha striking in MWO, because not only does weapon convergence make alpha strikes kind of ridiculous, but the fact that you're firing mid-movement rather than at the start or end of a turn further increases the value of being able to do so.

3. Most pilots in MWO redesign their 'mechs so that all of their weapons fire effectively at the same range. There are virtually no 'generalist' 'mechs out there in MWO. The vast majority of things you see are either fire-support, brawlers, poptarts/snipers, and LRM boats. These 'mech roles are very strict, and simply not representative of how things are supposed to be in the Battletech universe. They also don't fit well in the tabletop- if you're playing the tabletop game and one of your 'mechs doesn't function until it gets into close range, your opponent is going to see that and they're going to do one of two things: ignore it until it's relevant, focus-firing and obliterating the brawler's support so they have no distractions from it when it gets close, or focus-fire it and cut it down before it becomes a threat so the ranged support has no defense when they close.

While this does work currently (to a point) in-game, I can see it becoming a serious issue over time, as these single-purpose 'mechs are actually at some degree of disadvantage. It doesn't seem like it, but please bear with me.

In an environment like Community Warfare, where it is clearly planned that sequences of drops (akin to campaigns in the tabletop) will occur, there are likely to be situations where 'mechs that focus exclusively on a single range profile are wasted or untenable, thanks to factors like terrain, supply, and availability. We already see this in some situations: Missile boats have to have well over a thousand LRMs of ammo (preferably around or even over two thousand) in order to be relevant for an entire match, poptart teams can't handle enemies that are willing to outwait them, brawlers are ruined by open fields between themselves and enemies, Autocannon-2/5/Ultra5 reliant builds have to have similarly exorbitant amounts of ammo to LRM boats if they haven't got energy weapons of a similar range profile to lean on, the tunnel in Crimson Straits absolutely prevents the use of LRMs in it, and so on.

Defenders may be able to tailor their 'mechs to the terrain, but attackers will need to have 'mechs that can function in -any- situation, and will need to be ready to use that versatility to their advantage.

4. With the way in-engine heat sinks affect maximum heat capacity, a lower engine rating is a huge liability. 'Mechs like the Blackjack that have lower top speeds and a low weight, or worse, light 'mechs like the Commando and Spider, will often have less than ten heat sinks in their engine. These unfortunates are reduced to a heat cap of less than 30- less than 20 if using single heat sinks- and that size of cap has been firmly established as far too low for almost anything.

This is part of why the Commando is looked down on among light 'mechs- with a maximum engine rating of 210, it's never even going to have that 20-point heat cap without being Elited or having double heat sinks, and 30 absolutely requires both of these things. This makes its role as 'That Light Mech With All The Weapons' unavailable to it, as it simply can't handle the heat from the things it's intended to use in combat. Even with it's increased speed cap, the Locust is going to be facing a similar, if not worse, problem itself.

Other classic light 'mechs like the Panther (35 tons, normal top speed 64 KPH and thus an inherent engine rating of 210 but mounting a PPC and SRM-4) quickly become ludicrous to think of ever using because of this.

This means that energy weapons, which are ordinarily ideal to mount on lighter 'mechs who don't have spare tonnage for ammunition a lot of the time, are no longer as good a match for the smaller machines and thus lose some of their important utility for which they were balanced in the first place.


So, with all those things noted, I'd like to make my own suggestion as to what to change about the current heat system to improve the state of the game. Not because I think the game is bad as it is- I enjoy the game, I'm glad PGI have been working on it, and I'm going to continue playing and enjoying the game. But because I like the game and want it to be better so that more people will enjoy it and people who enjoy it already will enjoy it more. Also, then PGI will have more reason to keep the game running for longer.

I would suggest setting a hard heat capacity and leaving it at that, but PGI has already declared they're not going to do that. So I won't argue for that.

I'd like to suggest altering the proportion of the base heat capacity and the heat capacity increases.

First off, I want to request that the base heat capacity not counting heat sinks (currently ten) be adjusted. I'd like to see it adjusted to something in the vicinity of 20-30, as that seems an appropriate number to have as a minimum heat capacity, given the heat generation of weapons currently.

Secondly, I'd like to recommend that heat sinks that are both internal and integral to the engine either all increase heat capacity by 1 each, or not increase heat capacity at all. Regardless of how effective they are at dissipating the heat, there's no 'where' to store the heat that isn't there already in the engine anyway. This would then remove the issue currently plaguing lighter and slower 'mechs where they can't afford to have decent weapons. without devoting huge amounts of space and tonnage to additional heat sinks- but then reduces the advantage granted over them to 'mechs that inherently use larger engine sizes.

Finally, in tandem with these two other changes, I would like to recommend that standard heat sinks mounted outside the engine or in an engine heat sink slot (the one given to engines of 275 rating or higher) increase heat capacity by 1, and double heat sinks mounted in similar locations increase heat capacity by 1.6- a mirror of their increase to heat dissipation. This cuts the advantage of double heat sinks over heat sinks in a way that I am hoping is not too drastic, while still leaving them a completely tangible upgrade and fairly well-balanced.

Overall, this would match up well with a lot of things (with, naturally, adjustment after testing). It would not be a hard, level heat capacity for all 'mechs, allowing PGI to not go back on their word. It would reduce the issues lighter and slower 'mechs have with lacking heat sinking capability compared to their heavier counterparts without enabling them to become ridiculous. It would reduce the exaggerated heat capacities found on some 'mechs, thus reducing the frequency of alpha striking. It's a relatively simple change, requiring only changes to existing mechanics. Finally, it would mean that single-heat-sink 'mechs, while still -often- at a penalty compared to double-heat-sink users, would not be so disadvantaged as to be basically nonviable anymore.

If you are coming to this topic to post a TL;DR response or tell me that this is a wall of text, please don't bother posting. You're wasting everyone's time, including your own. The same for if you're going to post to say that it's stupid to say things and the developers will never, ever listen to anything. I am not at all afraid of flagging useless posts to be reviewed by moderators, and it's been demonstrated that the developers -do- read the forums, even if they don't always post replies.

That said, I welcome actual discussion of points made or the solution proposed in this post.

Thanks.

-QKD-CRO
a.k.a. Elli Gujar

Edited by Elli Gujar, 04 October 2013 - 03:20 PM.

[mirrimon]

I honestly think heat cap should just be a flat amount, 30 or more until it feels right. Then remove ghost heat and weapon cap heat. Doubles then get to be true doubles. Then if needed singles can be looked at.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

As I said in the body of my post, Mirri, the developers have already declared they aren't going to have a flat heat capacity.

[Xanquil]

Your second point is wrong, heat cap is in TT and is the same as it is in MW:O.
All the heat cap is, is how much heat you can generate before you ever hit the 0-30 heat scale. That cap is 1 for every SHS and 2 for every DHS. In TT you dissipate heat before you check the chart for status effect. Because MWO is real time they just run it all at the same time.
Firing 6 PPCs at once with 20 DHS would only bring you to 20 heat, you would be bad off and may shutdown but you could do it. If you were standing still you would be able to fire 4 PPCs all day and never even hit the 0-30 heat scale.
On the TT 0-30 scale the status effects start at 5 heat and the first shutdown effect is at 14 (where it should be in MW:O)

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

Your second point is wrong, heat cap is in TT and is the same as it is in MW:O.

All the heat cap is, is how much heat you can generate before you ever hit the 0-30 heat scale. That cap is 1 for every SHS and 2 for every DHS.

You have just defined 'heat cap' differently than I defined it in point two. This makes the rest of your argument not necessarily invalid, but very strange to try and read.

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

In TT you dissipate heat before you check the chart for status effect. Because MWO is real time they just run it all at the same time.
Firing 6 PPCs at once with 20 DHS would only bring you to 20 heat, you would be bad off and may shutdown but you could do it. If you were standing still you would be able to fire 4 PPCs all day and never even hit the 0-30 heat scale.

Exactly. You dissipate the heat before you check the chart. You're still generating that heat, regardless of whether or not you dissipate it before checking the capacity chart, though. I don't know how you do it when you're playing tabletop, but I personally always marked the amount of heat next to the scale as I went through my turn, then subtracted the dissipation. What you are describing basically means 'I didn't write it down until the end of the turn after removing some of it, so it wasn't there to begin with'. Unless I'm misunderstanding you, in which case, please clarify.

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

On the TT 0-30 scale the status effects start at 5 heat and the first shutdown effect is at 14 (where it should be in MW:O)

This is related to what I'm talking about here, but is not the subject at hand. What you are talking about here is 'why isn't there a scale of heat-related status effects instead of a forced shut down/override at the capacity', and what I'm talking about is 'where should the point be at which you are forced to shut down or override'.

[Xanquil]

What I was trying to say is the PGI did indeed get the heat scale right, but left out all of the side effects for the top 30 heat.(big mistake IMHO)
I think they should have stopped at the first shutdown(14) and not the one at 30.
I have a pegboard with the 0-60 heat scale, an active HS line and a heat generated line.( a bit hardcore I know)
I don't think that MW:Os heat scale is bad, it needs work though.
The biggest issue with heat is the fact that SHS (and DHS) just don't reduce heat fast enough for the rate of fire increase that we have. If heat sinks reduced heat every 5 seconds instead of every 10, it would be a lot closer to TT, and I would be more likely to use SHS on some of my mechs. The heat scale in and of it's self is not the problem.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

What I was trying to say is the PGI did indeed get the heat scale right, but left out all of the side effects for the top 30 heat.(big mistake IMHO)

I guess I can kind of see what you're saying, and I do agree with it to a point- but you have to keep in mind that it's not a unified heat scale across all 'mechs. The heat scale PGI is using, by your estimation of a heat scale, doesn't have a 'top 30 heat', it has a 'top 10 plus 10 plus 1 per additional heat sink beyond the tenth, plus 10% if Heat Containment or 20% if Elites are complete ' for normal heat sinks, and 'top 10 plus 20 plus 2 per additional heat sink beyond the tenth in the engine, plus 1 per additional heat sink not in the engine, plus 10% if Heat Containment or 20% if Elites are complete' for double heat sinks.

This is neverminding that the bottom portion of the heat scale, using your rules for the heat scale, is 'Number of heat sinks divided by ten, per second, plus 7.5% if Coolrun or 15% if Elites are complete' for normal heat sinks and 'One fifth the number of heat sinks in the engine plus seven tenths the number of heat sinks not in the engine, per second, plus 7.5% if Coolrun or 15% if Elites are complete' for double heat sinks. This is very complicated and non-intuitive for one, and for two, it means that 'mechs with larger engines have much larger 'top' heat capacities than 'mechs with smaller engines, to a disproportionate degree.

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

I think they should have stopped at the first shutdown(14) and not the one at 30.

Since they're not using a 'top 30', I'm not sure how this could be applied.

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

I have a pegboard with the 0-60 heat scale, an active HS line and a heat generated line.( a bit hardcore I know)

I have never heard of a 0-60 heat scale appearing anywhere in this or any other game, excepting possibly MW3 or MW4 (although, IIRC, MW4 had a 0-80 heat scale?). Please explain?

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

I don't think that MW:Os heat scale is bad, it needs work though.
The biggest issue with heat is the fact that SHS (and DHS) just don't reduce heat fast enough for the rate of fire increase that we have. If heat sinks reduced heat every 5 seconds instead of every 10, it would be a lot closer to TT, and I would be more likely to use SHS on some of my mechs. The heat scale in and of it's self is not the problem.

This is not what I'm trying to address here, though it is related. I also don't think it's unusable, I just think it could be better. Specifically, I think it could be a lot more consistent and comprehensible. The way that engine rating affects heat capacity via engine-mounted heat sinks is kind of ridiculous and does a lot of harm to smaller 'mechs and those with lower top speeds (who ought to be carrying around more weapons and can't practically do so). The varying heat capacities also make any attempt to figure out how your choice of weapons affects your ability to function over an extended time in combat abnormally difficult and brings all kinds of extra mathematical gymnastics into it where they don't need to be, particularly with how wide the variance winds up being.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 04 October 2013 - 05:54 PM.

[Xanquil]

I may have been confused but I could have sworn that MW:O uses 30+heatsink total(1per SHS, 2per DHS) for it's heat cap. That base 30 is what I have been referring as the top 30. I think that 30 needs to be reduced to 14

The 0-50(sorry typeo) scale is an advanced gameplay rule for TT. It has all of the standard side effects that the 0-30 scale + some even worse ones for going past that point.

Now the different heat dissipation values for in engine DHS(2) vs out of engine DHS(1.4) is an issue that needs to change. It needs to be the same either 1.4 each or 2 each.

As for zero space heatsinks based on engine rating(1HS for every full 25 rating), that is something that isn't going to change. It falls into the same category as all gear, crit slots and tonnage can't be changed do to the fact that doing so makes stock mechs un-buildable.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

I may have been confused but I could have sworn that MW:O uses 30+heatsink total(1per SHS, 2per DHS) for it's heat cap. That base 30 is what I have been referring as the top 30. I think that 30 needs to be reduced to 14

If you're right, then I would move that instead the heatsink total added should be cut in half. The problem as I'm perceiving it is a matter of having a highly variable heat scale size (which goes up too high at its highest), not of having a consistently much too large heatscale. Cutting the variable part in half would result in more consistency across 'mechs and at the same time reduce the maximum size of the heat capacity, without punishing the lightest and slowest 'mechs (who aren't in need of any reduction and honestly could use a mild increase). Keep in mind that this is preparatory to the Clan 'mechs, in addition to an adjustment to what's happening now, as Clan 'mechs pretty much universally mount oodles of weapons and run super-hot, on top of having smaller and thus more stackable double heat sinks.

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

The 0-50(sorry typeo) scale is an advanced gameplay rule for TT. It has all of the standard side effects that the 0-30 scale + some even worse ones for going past that point.

Ah. I've seen a number of 'advanced' rules, but this wasn't one of them. What book was it introduced in?

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Now the different heat dissipation values for in engine DHS(2) vs out of engine DHS(1.4) is an issue that needs to change. It needs to be the same either 1.4 each or 2 each.

Generally, I agree with you on this, though I'm not sure going completely one way or completely the other is best. I'd say start with something more moderate, like changing all of them to 1.6 or something. But that's just me.

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

As for zero space heatsinks based on engine rating(1HS for every full 25 rating), that is something that isn't going to change. It falls into the same category as all gear, crit slots and tonnage can't be changed do to the fact that doing so makes stock mechs un-buildable.

I have no idea what I've said for you to bring this up, but I am aware of it and agree that it should remain this way.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 04 October 2013 - 07:02 PM.

[Xanquil]

Elli Gujar, on 04 October 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

If you're right, then I would move that instead the heatsink total added should be cut in half. The problem as I'm perceiving it is a matter of having a highly variable heat scale size (which goes up too high at its highest), not of having a consistently much too large heatscale. Cutting the variable part in half would result in more consistency across 'mechs and at the same time reduce the maximum size of the heat capacity, without punishing the lightest and slowest 'mechs (who aren't in need of any reduction and honestly could use a mild increase). Keep in mind that this is preparatory to the Clan 'mechs, in addition to an adjustment to what's happening now, as Clan 'mechs pretty much universally mount oodles of weapons and run super-hot, on top of having smaller and thus more stackable double heat sinks

. A highly variable heat cap isn't much of an issue, even having a high amount of heat cap isn't an issue. It is one of the things that PGI got right. Clan DHS will make it even more so and that is ok.

If it is large amounts of weapons that has you worried that is more of a pinpoint accuracy issue than a heat cap one.

Elli Gujar, on 04 October 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Ah. I've seen a number of 'advanced' rules, but this wasn't one of them. What book was it introduced in?

Originally Maximum tech, not sure if it has been reprinted.

Elli Gujar, on 04 October 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Generally, I agree with you on this, though I'm not sure going completely one way or completely the other is best. I'd say start with something more moderate, like changing all of them to 1.6 or something. But that's just me.

I'm wouldn't mind trying that, but I think it is to low.

Elli Gujar, on 04 October 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

I have no idea what I've said for you to bring this up, but I am aware of it and agree that it should remain this way.

I blame lack of sleep on my behalf. Sorry.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Xanquil, on 04 October 2013 - 07:48 PM, said:

. A highly variable heat cap isn't much of an issue, even having a high amount of heat cap isn't an issue. It is one of the things that PGI got right. Clan DHS will make it even more so and that is ok.

If it is large amounts of weapons that has you worried that is more of a pinpoint accuracy issue than a heat cap one.

I'm actually looking at this in the other direction: Clan light 'mechs tend to have oodles of weapons too and the heat sinks to -fire a lot of them reliably-. As things are right now, they won't be able to do that, and bringing the variable range on heat capacity closer together, particularly while raising the bottom, will address both that issue and, to some degree, PGI's stated concern that alpha strikes should not be a consistently viable tactic.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 04 October 2013 - 07:59 PM.

[Tincan Nightmare]

Had to like both of your guys posts just for seeing two people actually debate on this forum versus trading insults and attacks. Props to both of you for carrying on intelligently and behaving like mannered and civilized individuals.

[General Taskeen]

To the person saying that TT and MWO heatsinks are the same... that doesn't make sense at all. MW3 was actually the closest, not MWO. All previous Mech games used a "fixed" value for the threshold, where all Mechs had the same exact heat capacity.

[Noth]

General Taskeen, on 04 October 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

To the person saying that TT and MWO heatsinks are the same... that doesn't make sense at all. MW3 was actually the closest, not MWO. All previous Mech games used a "fixed" value for the threshold, where all Mechs had the same exact heat capacity.

You didn't quite get what he was saying. If you have 10 heatsinks you could build 10 heat without suffering any consequences, same with if you had 15 DHS you could buil 30 heat without consequences. The reason for this is that the heat is dipsersed before you check for heat penalties. You would only start even looking at the heat penalties if you built up more heat than what your heatsink could handle in the turn. Each turn is ten seconds so each heatsink technically removes .1 heat per second, which is like what MWO has. The only difference is that MWO has to do it real time where in TT you disperse heat before you make you heat checks.

If the heat capacity was only 30, you'd start having to check for heat penalties before the heat was dissipated.

Edited by Noth, 04 October 2013 - 10:01 PM.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

This topic was moved- I'm surprised. Heat and heat sinks have been a game balance topic for some time, and repeatedly at that. Since I'm not discussing actually adding anything to the game, rather changing an existing core mechanic, I also don't understand how this is a 'feature suggestion'. Could whoever moved the topic please explain?

Also, it would be really cool if notification could be given when a topic is moved, I received no notice of this and was briefly dismayed when it looked like the discussion was deleted.

[Xanquil]

Tincan Nightmare, on 04 October 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Had to like both of your guys posts just for seeing two people actually debate on this forum versus trading insults and attacks. Props to both of you for carrying on intelligently and behaving like mannered and civilized individuals.

Thanks, I try vary hard to be civil. I do so enjoy a good discussion, they are so hard to find on any forums.

Noth, on 04 October 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

You didn't quite get what he was saying. If you have 10 heatsinks you could build 10 heat without suffering any consequences, same with if you had 15 DHS you could buil 30 heat without consequences. The reason for this is that the heat is dipsersed before you check for heat penalties. You would only start even looking at the heat penalties if you built up more heat than what your heatsink could handle in the turn. Each turn is ten seconds so each heatsink technically removes .1 heat per second, which is like what MWO has. The only difference is that MWO has to do it real time where in TT you disperse heat before you make you heat checks.

If the heat capacity was only 30, you'd start having to check for heat penalties before the heat was dissipated.

Thanks, glad to see more people that understand this.

[Xanquil]

Elli Gujar, on 04 October 2013 - 07:58 PM, said:

I'm actually looking at this in the other direction: Clan light 'mechs tend to have oodles of weapons too and the heat sinks to -fire a lot of them reliably-. As things are right now, they won't be able to do that, and bringing the variable range on heat capacity closer together, particularly while raising the bottom, will address both that issue and, to some degree, PGI's stated concern that alpha strikes should not be a consistently viable tactic.

I can see that.

One of my favorite examples is in TT I could have a mech with 12 SHS and a PPC, running at full speed, and never overheat.(assuming heat neutral environment) To even come close to that you need 12 DHS.

If they lowered the amount of heat cap to .5 per SHS, and 1 per DHS, and doubled the current dissipation that may get that TT feel back. It would also reduce the variable size a bit.

Example:
10 SHS+15 base would give you a 20 heat cap with a 2 heat dissipation a second would give you the ability to fire a PPC every 5 seconds and only produce a little extra heat, Moving or firing at full ROF would make it even hotter.
10 DHS(all engine)+15 base would give you a 25 heat cap with a 4 heat dissipation a second allowing for two PPCs to fire every 5 seconds without overheating, but not 3 even without ghost heat.
At the extreme with 30 DHS ( 16 in engine) +15 base would give you 45 heat cap and a 5.16 heat dissipation a second would allow 4 PPC to barely be able to fire at once without ghost heat, and wouldn't be that viable under the current ghost heat system.
Of course this all would need to be tested.
On paper math sometimes sound to me though.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Noth, on 04 October 2013 - 09:59 PM, said:

You didn't quite get what he was saying. If you have 10 heatsinks you could build 10 heat without suffering any consequences, same with if you had 15 DHS you could buil 30 heat without consequences. The reason for this is that the heat is dipsersed before you check for heat penalties. You would only start even looking at the heat penalties if you built up more heat than what your heatsink could handle in the turn. Each turn is ten seconds so each heatsink technically removes .1 heat per second, which is like what MWO has. The only difference is that MWO has to do it real time where in TT you disperse heat before you make you heat checks.

If the heat capacity was only 30, you'd start having to check for heat penalties before the heat was dissipated.

I'm... actually going to disagree with this.

Bear with me here, this has taken some time to puzzle out and I may not put it in the most elegant fashion possible, but I believe my perception here makes sense.

What I'm seeing is that the assumption heat capacity is higher than 30 is predicated on the idea that all weapons are fired simultaneously. Since turns in Tabletop go move-react-shoot-physical, you're tallying up all the heat generated from each type of action simultaneously and then 'storing' it to resolve at the end of the turn after physical attacks, along with piloting skill checks.

However, it's stated that the duration of a turn is ten seconds.

Now, it's an understandable perception- not only do we tally up virtually all the heat at the same time (weapons fire phase), but we also calculate difficulty hitting a target simultaneously, while aiming at the final location of the enemy 'mech or unit, rather than somewhere on the path it traversed during the turn. This is, of course, necessary for making things comprehensible in a turn-based tabletop strategy game.

But I'd like to posit that this perception is actually the source of the issue, and we're supposed to operate on the idea that the weapons are fired not necessarily at the same time, but at varying points during the turn. Otherwise, the ten-second turn makes basically no sense- speeds and firing rates become absolutely arbitrary and the tabletop rules become completely invalid for basing a realtime game like the Mechwarrior games off of.

That's not to say this couldn't be true- but the core essence of most Mechwarrior games is that they -are- based off of the turn-based rules, and therefore the ideas of the rules are meant to be preserved to some degree. Whether or not I think it should be the case is completely irrelevant, because it is the case to begin with anyways.

So, going off of that, I'm going to say that the heat capacity is likely something like forty or fifty and is also ironclad.

Why do I say this?

Well, the highest-heat weapon I'm aware of in the Battletech game (being accustomed to 3025-3065 Tech Level II rules) is the ERPPC, which generates a whole 15 heat. With heat penalties starting at 5 residual heat at the end of the turn, we have to have enough leeway that the sudden influx of 15 heat doesn't immediately cause the 'mech penalties that we would have to recalculate things for (in this case, movement speed).

However, we don't have to have enough leeway to fire all the weapons simultaneously, because we're using a 10-second window in which -everything- happens- weapons fire, movement, jump jets, charging, DFA, etc.

During that ten-second window, the 'mech also dissipates an amount of heat equal to its heat sinks (if single) or twice its heat sinks (if double), and at the end of that time period winds up with whatever heat is left over (heat generated minus heat sunk to a minimum of 0 heat). This does not mandate that the machine have enough heat capacity for all of the heat that the heat sinks dissipate -in addition- to the 30 (or 50) point heat scale. It only mandates that the machine have enough heat capacity before penalties for its highest-heat-generating weapon.

Therefore:

Having a heat capacity of over 50 (particularly one that is increased by your addition of heat sinks to your 'mech) is completely unnecessary and unwarranted when you have 'true' 1.0 heat heat sinks and 'true' 2.0 heat double heat sinks, unless you want to enable alpha strikes.

This seems, sensibly, to be doubly true in a system like the current MWO heat system, where having heat never causes a penalty for you until you exceed the heat capacity of your 'mech. The whole intent of the concept (which we probably should hold as even more sacred than whatever rules we're deriving from one interperetation to the next, no matter how 'canon' the interperetation is) is that we have giant stompy machines that constantly put damage downrange in smaller amounts and 'alpha striking' by simultaneously doing all the shoot is solely intended to be a desperation maneuver and is highly risky.

Importantly: Instituting a more stable maximum heat capacity, particularly one with a lower top quantity, would further the goals of reducing alpha striking and establishing an extended fire period (and longer battlefield life expectancy) as opposed to alpha-strikes followed by either long cooldowns or short shutdowns and long cooldowns.

Since these goals are among PGI's stated goals for the game, I feel that this change, which pursues said goals, would benefit the game overall, which is why I have made this proposal.

-QKD-CR0

[burning wisky]