Jump to content

Alternative To Phantom Heat And Jamming


3 replies to this topic

#1 Toast001

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • 43 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:50 AM

Phantom heat is kinda cheap because there is no real technical terms why it happens. My suggestion is remove phantom heat and replace it with reloading speed and overtaxing energy generators.

warning these numbers are no exact so forgive me, but i hope you understand what i am saying.

For example, lets take a ultra ac 5 it can fire 2 rounds in 1 second and if you have 2 ultra ac 5s firing together thats 4 rounds. Now if you say the motors that control the reloading speed was never made to exceed 3 rounds a second and any more would include a 5% (per round a second) increase in jamming. This would work to with the ac 2s, instead of phantom heat add jamming. No single AC should have jamming ultra or normal, but when double or more are firing at one time you can add jamming because of the reason above.

Now PPC and lasers you can give the reasons like the mech generator can only produce X amount of energy per second, and any more then 2ppcs recharging at 1 time will recieve a 1 second per ppc firing delay. So lets say you have 2 ppc and the recharge time on those 2 ppcs is 4 seconds? (i forgot) If you have 3 ppcs it now becomes 5 seconds and if 4 ppcs its now 6 seconds between shots.

#2 Curccu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 4,617 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:55 AM

http://www.twitch.tv/ngngtv/c/3120421

force added CD would be so much shorter than actual time needed to cooldown for 2nd shot(without ghost heat).

#3 Toast001

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Overlord
  • 43 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:54 AM

can always adjust the numbers to something more suitable. but the idea is what i want to get out

#4 FinsT

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 241 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:14 AM

View PostToast001, on 24 October 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

...
For example, lets take a ultra ac 5 it can fire 2 rounds in 1 second and if you have 2 ultra ac 5s firing together thats 4 rounds. Now if you say the motors that control the reloading speed was never made to exceed 3 rounds a second and any more would include a 5% (per round a second) increase in jamming. This would work to with the ac 2s, instead of phantom heat add jamming. ...

Lasers too? I fail to see how that could be explained, at all.

How about LRMs? If a mech has say 4 visible missile packs, - are we to imagine that all 4 are supplied by a single reloading mechanism, which can only load not more than a certain amount of LRMs into missile packs per second? Strange to say the least.

What about AC/20s? Do you want to limit them in this way too? You'd need to, if you'd remove AC/20 ghost heat. Dual AC/20 jager fires a pair of AC/20 shots every 4 seconds. And how exactly you propose to limit that? 2 AC/20s being already loaded, they _will_ be able to fire both shells at once. Which is ghost heat is designed to prevent - at least to prevent frequent use of. And it does its job.

And AC/2s - these fire 2-3 shots per second _each_ (currently 2 because Fast Fire efficiency does not work, but if/when it would start to work, - then it'd be 3 with current base cooldown of AC/2). What you propose would ruin dakka-style DPS very much, by high jamming chances. No DPS and unreliable weapon, - is a recipe for nobody to use dakka-style builds anymore. End result? You just reduced possible ways to play MWO by 1. Ghost heat limits dakka to (more or less) reasonable proportions; your approach pretty much removes AC/2 dakka completely, making the game less diverse (which means, ultimately - more boring).

Ghost heat is not an amazingly intuitive nor most brilliant method to solve problems which had to be solved, - but what you propose would be even worse, i think.

Of course, it's all is personal opinion only; and i don't pretend i am absolutely right with it all the time. It's just what i think, for .2 cents it'd be. %)

Edited by FinsT, 24 October 2013 - 07:15 AM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users