10 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

It occurred to me how the mechanic of Ghost Heat could have/be done far better than what we have now.

Basically, remove the heat increases and focus entirely on reload times, with a similar mechanic.

Basically consider that each weapon type has a "pool" that recharges. So if you have a medlas that 1 second to recharge when fired on it's own, having two medlas would reduce that recharge to 2. Firing three to 3 seconds, and so forth.

Obviously you could do multiples. Say, an AC/20 fired takes 6 seconds to reload, but if you fire two AC/20s you now have to wait 12 seconds to fire both again.

It's a logical system with some reasoning behind it; you could argue the ammo feeders take twice as long to service two guns, and so forth. I'd buy it as fluff, and mechanic wise, it'd be infinitely better than "Sudden and severe punishment for crossing an invisible line that is nowhere referenced in the game."

A simple, consistent "Firing multiples of the same weapon means they all draw from the same recharge pool." You could even further this concept by adding slight penalties; i.e. instead of each subsequent weapon being on a flat rate, it could go up the larger number you have.

It doesn't destroy boating, but opens up new design options, too.

Anyway, I just figured I'd bring it up since I've never seen this pitched in all the alpha solution threads for the last year, and thought it was a different take on it. I don't think the current implementation of Ghost Heat is going anywhere, but I do think the basic goal actually could have been accomplished with a different approach like this.

[mike29tw]

Victor Morson, on 24 October 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

It occurred to me how the mechanic of Ghost Heat could have/be done far better than what we have now.

Basically, remove the heat increases and focus entirely on reload times, with a similar mechanic.

Basically consider that each weapon type has a "pool" that recharges. So if you have a medlas that 1 second to recharge when fired on it's own, having two medlas would reduce that recharge to 2. Firing three to 3 seconds, and so forth.

Obviously you could do multiples. Say, an AC/20 fired takes 6 seconds to reload, but if you fire two AC/20s you now have to wait 12 seconds to fire both again.

It's a logical system with some reasoning behind it; you could argue the ammo feeders take twice as long to service two guns, and so forth. I'd buy it as fluff, and mechanic wise, it'd be infinitely better than "Sudden and severe punishment for crossing an invisible line that is nowhere referenced in the game."

A simple, consistent "Firing multiples of the same weapon means they all draw from the same recharge pool." You could even further this concept by adding slight penalties; i.e. instead of each subsequent weapon being on a flat rate, it could go up the larger number you have.

It doesn't destroy boating, but opens up new design options, too.

Anyway, I just figured I'd bring it up since I've never seen this pitched in all the alpha solution threads for the last year, and thought it was a different take on it. I don't think the current implementation of Ghost Heat is going anywhere, but I do think the basic goal actually could have been accomplished with a different approach like this.

Ghost reload is here, and I approve.

However, in PGI's infinite wisdom, I should point out that I prefer to have it AFTER Ghost Heat is removed.

It reminds me a bit of how weapons work in Nexus - The Jupiter Incident.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Its a much simpler and more intuitive mechanic than ghost heat. More to the point it can be easily applied to ballistics.
To be honest the only beam weapon at present that it could be applied to is the LL and then only for more than 4.
I just hope that they avoid applying it too onerously to missiles at present, especially SRMs which have enough problems as it is.

[Blacksoul1987]

with some tweaking this could make a good system, better than ghost heat. I just want something that nerfs stacking without nerfing the individual weapons. Stacking is too easy for the results that you get.

[bobthebomb]

good idea !

[CyclonerM]

I wonder why this is similar to Homeless' Bill targeting computer mechanics..


Maybe because they are both good ideas?

[EvilCow]

The proposed solution is conceptually interesting but would not address the real problem, pinpoint damage. It is not like ghost heat addresses it anyway...

I would suggest a weapons (moderate) spread proportional to the concurrent damage output, for EXAMPLE:
0-20pts: no spread
20-25pts: 2 degrees spread
25-30pts: 5 degrees spread
...and so on, a proportional cockpit shake would make the effect more understandable for new players.

Rationale for the spread, recoil for ballistics, energy drain for lasers and Gauss affecting myomers stability

Edited by EvilCow, 24 October 2013 - 05:54 AM.

[Fut]

Victor Morson, on 24 October 2013 - 01:26 AM, said:

It occurred to me how the mechanic of Ghost Heat could have/be done far better than what we have now.

Basically, remove the heat increases and focus entirely on reload times, with a similar mechanic.

Absolutely love that your "fix" for Ghost Heat involves completely removing Ghost Heat.
It's subtle genius like this that should be working for PGI.

If I had to choose between Ghost Heat or Ghost Reload, I'd pick GR every time.
I'm sure many people would say the opposite (12 seconds waiting for your AC20s to reload would feel like an eternity!), but it's a decent idea.

If I could "fix" Ghost Heat, I'd also remove it completely, and add a modified form of the Classic Heat Scale.
(Yes, I'm going to bring up the Heat Scale Table as often as possible)

[Death Mallet]

Ghost reload does nothing to fix the alpha-then-hide problem we had before.

Bad idea.

[Victor Morson]

Death Mallet, on 24 October 2013 - 06:05 AM, said:

Ghost reload does nothing to fix the alpha-then-hide problem we had before.

Bad idea.

The thing is this shifts the balance decidedly to varied load outs and infighting, really.

A guy with several big guns of the same type would have a massive problem dealing with a mixed loadout in a brawl because the mixed loadout would have an outright higher DPS (without sacrificing the accuracy). Obviously you could go too far with a build in either direction (too mixed or too grouped and slow firing), but finding that balance would add something - rather than take away something - from mech design IMO.

You'd also see a lot more backup guns. If my 2 Medlas technically have the same DPS as 4 Medlas (without the alpha punch, of course) they're extremely justifiable as a serious threat. Right now people often throw on Medlas backups and it just hinders their mech.

Obviously there's a lot of math to toy with to find the perfect refire rates per weapon, but it'd give a lot of control to buff/nerf guns without just always resorting to heat/damage changes.

Edited by Victor Morson, 24 October 2013 - 09:51 AM.

[mike29tw]

EvilCow, on 24 October 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

The proposed solution is conceptually interesting but would not address the real problem, pinpoint damage. It is not like ghost heat addresses it anyway...

I would suggest a weapons (moderate) spread proportional to the concurrent damage output, for EXAMPLE:
0-20pts: no spread
20-25pts: 2 degrees spread
25-30pts: 5 degrees spread
...and so on, a proportional cockpit shake would make the effect more understandable for new players.

Rationale for the spread, recoil for ballistics, energy drain for lasers and Gauss affecting myomers stability

I'd prefer weapons damage to be spread through time, ie like laser, rather than through cones of randomness.

Spreading damage with cones mean that you have minimal control over where you want to hit, and the RNG god dictates whether you hit the spot you're aiming. Spreading damage through time means player control is still relevant to focus fire on the same component, while giving the target a chance to torso twist, introducing an engaging mechanic between two players.

Please give us burst fire AC.