50 replies to this topic

[stjobe]

BT heat capacity: # of SHSE* + 30
BT heat dissipation: # of SHSE/10s
BT rate of fire: 1/10s
BT heat penalties start: # of SHSE + 5

MWO heat capacity: (# of SHSE + 30) * pilot skills
MWO heat dissipation: (# of SHSE/10) * pilot skills
MWO rate of fire: 2-100/10s (about 3/10s for most weapons)
MWO heat penalties start: (# of SHSE + 30) * pilot skills

*SHSE = Single Heat Sink Equivalents; one Double Heat Sink is 1.4 or 2.0 SHSE.

There's three big issues with the MWO heat system that comes to light when you look at the numbers above, and sadly those three big issues take away a lot of the BattleTech Universe feeling from MWO, making it more of a Big Stompy Robots game than it really needs to be. Heat in the BattleTech Universe should be a constant worry for a MechWarrior, it should be something that constantly affects how you handle your 'mech, and it should be more than just fearing a shutdown, which is all it amounts to currently.

The first issue is the dissipation/rate of fire disparity. MWO, for good reasons probably, increased rate of fire by about a factor of three. However, it did not increase the heat dissipation at all, meaning 'mechs run three times hotter in MWO than they did in BT. This has lots of secondary effects, like the balance between energy and ballistic weapons going out the window, but that is for another thread.

The second issue is that the capacity is higher in MWO than in BT. It's not as big a difference as some people make it out to be, but it's still quite significant. The difference comes from the pilot skills, and they total 20% on fully elited 'mech. This means that a 'mech that in BT would have a capacity of 50 in MWO has a capacity of 60. A 'mech that would have a capacity of 60 in BT has a capacity of 72 in MWO.

The third, and perhaps biggest, issue is that MWO has zero heat penalties for being anywhere under 100% heat capacity, whereas BT has a slowly increasing scale of heat penalties that start much earlier: For a 'mech with 10 DHS and a capacity of 50 heat, the penalties started at 25 heat, or 50%; for a 'mech with 15 DHS and a capacity of 60, the penalties started at 35 heat, or 58.3%.

As far as I can see, there's nothing inherently difficult or problematic when it comes to implementing BT-style heat penalties in MWO; in fact, most of the mechanics are already in the game:

• Movement penalties: You've shown that you can dynamically restrict the top speed of a 'mech when it gets legged, a similar mechanic could be used to dynamically affect the speed of a 'mech due to heat.
  
• Attack penalties: You've shown that you can dynamically restrict aiming when using jump jets, a similar mechanic could be used to dynamically affect the aiming of a 'mech due to heat, as well as other HUD effects (flickering, static, etc).
  
• Shutdowns: Should also be easy enough to trigger with a "Shutdown imminent" warning and a 1-2 second grace period to enable manual override. Overriding a shutdown should risk ammo explosions (see below)
  
• Ammo explosions: Should be easy enough to trigger, but due to their destructive nature should perhaps only have a chance to be triggered if the pilot overrides shutdown. The chance of a shutdown should increase the higher the heat of the 'mech (starting with a 10% chance and ending with a 55% chance matches the BT heat scale rather nicely).

Now I know that the first two issues (and especially the first; I still hold out hope that pilot skills will be revamped some day with more of a role warfare slant) are unlikely to ever be addressed; they're just too deep in the system that it would require close to a complete rewrite to change them - but heat penalties could be tacked on to the current system without much issue.

I believe the game would be much better - more interesting, more dramatic, more fun - if we had BT-style heat penalties starting at about the same heat level as they did in BT.

What do you think?

[Wolfways]

I've always thought (and said) that the heat scale should be worked into MWO somehow but three things bother me.

1) With the current heat system, and ghost heat, energy-heavy mechs might suffer greatly while ballistic-heavy mechs won't suffer much. My K3 is a terrible mech now, and with penalties due to heat it might be worthless.

2) PGI. I hate to speak badly about people but honestly, given how they have handled other aspects of BT (ECM and LRM's for example) i only see PGI screwing this up too.

3) The biggest problem is that in TT all heat dissipated at the end of the turn so if you had 20 heat sinks you could fire 2xPPC's non-stop without ever gaining any heat. How do you get that to work in MWO?

[Jack Avery]

I like the concept of heat penalties, but they just can't be implemented until the current heat system does go through a complete overhaul. And that overhaul has been due from the very beginning. The current system is truly an unmitigated failure. I may not be overly critical of PGI, but this is one area I will flat out state they suck at.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Are capacities really that high in BT compared to MWO?

I remember reading a pdf that spoke about how an AWS-8Q would hit the scale at a number below the first shutdown role [incurred penalty, the first shutdown happens at 14] at 5 firing three PPCs for two turns then would need to drop to two PPCs with 28 SHS so 3-3-2 or close to that for most of the game.

The key is translating turns to realtime and we have a fast fire rate right now as you mention,maybe too fast.

I didn't play the TT game, and I'm gonna search for that pdf to link it.

Edit:
I found this pdf: http://www.students....ne83/cbtirb.pdf

One Section on page 50 (about Heat) and again 55 (AWS-8Q description) of the pdf mention how mechs could hit 4 on the scale on the second turn of firing three PPC (30 heat each turn) and have no penalty yet until the third turn.

So I think that our heat capacity could be reduced with possible adjustments to Heat dissipation.

IMHO, all Heat Sinks should only give a 1.0 capacity regardless of SHS or DHS, and the bonus 30 we get in MWO should be reduced to 15 to match the 0-14 of the original scale if we can't get penalties like in the original if we only see tweaks to what we have in MWO.

Edited by Praetor Shepard, 04 November 2013 - 05:53 PM.

[Warge]

Wolfways, on 04 November 2013 - 05:11 PM, said:

3) The biggest problem is that in TT all heat dissipated at the end of the turn so if you had 20 heat sinks you could fire 2xPPC's non-stop without ever gaining any heat. How do you get that to work in MWO?

Bigger "reload" time for PPCs, no?

[Umbra8]

A repost from a different forum, but belongs here as well:

The problem they're trying to address with ghost heat would have been better addressed by setting the heat ceiling at 30... and leaving it there. Don't allow heat sinks to raise your ceiling, just improve dissipation. The lower your ceiling is the more important sustained damage becomes over high alphas. A 4 PPC stalker becomes much more challenging if you have to worry about a shutdown the second time you pull the trigger on your paired weapons.

If a fixed ceiling is found to be too punishing you can allow heat sinks to modify it by a nominal amount, say 0.5 per sink with your base 10 sinks bringing you up to 30 and any extra's after pushing the ceiling by 0.5 each. It would also give single heat sinks an actual use as you can stack more of them for a higher ceiling but with a higher cost in tonnage to equal the same dissipation you'd get from doubles.

My $0.02

Edited by Umbra8, 04 November 2013 - 05:36 PM.

[Wolfways]

Warge, on 04 November 2013 - 05:25 PM, said:

Bigger "reload" time for PPCs, no?

I just used PPC's as an example.
The point is that in TT if you had enough heat sinks you effectively never gained even 1 point of heat.

[Eddrick]

The problem PGI said with adding more Heat Penalties, is syncing the Heat Level you have that moment with the Server. This would make Host State Rewind act worse then it already is. As it pots more strain on the Network. When the Networking issues are fixed. Then something like that will be possible. I'm in favor of adding more Heat Penalties besides Shutting Down. But, not is not the time for it.

[Warge]

Wolfways, on 04 November 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

The point is that in TT if you had enough heat sinks you effectively never gained even 1 point of heat.

PGI's "favorite" heat-neutral builds. And how to avoid that in MWO?

[Umbra8]

stjobe, on 04 November 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

BT heat capacity: # of SHSE* + 30
BT heat dissipation: # of SHSE/10s
BT rate of fire: 1/10s
BT heat penalties start: # of SHSE + 5

Am I misremembering Battletech pen and paper? I don't think the original game allowed your heat capacity to scale with heat sinks, I thought it was fixed at 30: http://d20battletech.wikidot.com/heat

Been a long time, could be wrong.

[Warge]

Wolfways, on 04 November 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

I just used PPC's as an example.

In case of every weapon - there are balancing solutions: reload time, projectile speed, more or less "burn"/firing time for lasers/ACs, bursts for ACs, ammo > or <, min and max firing range.

Edited by Warge, 04 November 2013 - 06:02 PM.

[Deathlike]

Just a thought... most of the older games didn't really do much for the penalty. MW4 did the most IIRC by slowing down top speed and MW2 had random ammo explosions (assuming, you had ammo on the mech).

I'm not saying this stuff shouldn't be implemented, but I'd rather have the heat scale system overhauled first and worry about the "immersion detail" of heat penalties dealt with later. I mean, we have movement penalties that can easily put you to a complete stop.

Small steps first...

[Hellcat420]

Praetor Shepard, on 04 November 2013 - 05:18 PM, said:

Are capacities really that high in BT compared to MWO?

I remember reading a pdf that spoke about how an AWS-8Q would hit the scale at a number below the first shutdown role [incurred penalty, the first shutdown happens at 14] at 5 firing three PPCs for two turns then would need to drop to two PPCs with 28 SHS so 3-3-2 or close to that for most of the game.

The key is translating turns to realtime and we have a fast fire rate right now as you mention,maybe too fast.

I didn't play the TT game, and I'm gonna search for that pdf to link it.

Edit:
I found this pdf: http://www.students....ne83/cbtirb.pdf

One Section on page 50 (about Heat) and again 55 (AWS-8Q description) of the pdf mention how mechs could hit 4 on the scale on the second turn of firing three PPC (30 heat each turn) and have no penalty yet until the third turn.

So I think that our heat capacity could be reduced with possible adjustments to Heat dissipation.

IMHO, all Heat Sinks should only give a 1.0 capacity regardless of SHS or DHS, and the bonus 30 we get in MWO should be reduced to 15 to match the 0-14 of the original scale if we can't get penalties like in the original if we only see tweaks to what we have in MWO.

heat capacity in bt is 30 irreguardless of how many heatsinks you have or what type you have. heatsinks do not increase heat capacity in battletech. they increase heat dissipation.

Edited by Hellcat420, 04 November 2013 - 06:18 PM.

[Davers]

I am not seeing what problem this is solving. Does it fix the huge imbalance of ballistic v energy weapons? No, in fact it makes lasers even worse. Does it solve poptarting/sniping? Nope. Huge alphas followed by periods of cool down is the norm for those builds. Does it effect Hunchbacks, Cicadas, Trebuchets, Quickdraws, and every brawler/flanker mech? Yes. Please tell me how these chassis are overpowered and need to be nerfed with movement penalties?

The desire for heat penalties comes from nostalgia, nothing more. They were put in BT to keep people from making builds with 30 medium lasers. They add nothing to MW:O except making energy builds even worse.

[Wolfways]

Warge, on 04 November 2013 - 05:48 PM, said:

PGI's "favorite" heat-neutral builds. And how to avoid that in MWO?

Easy. Do nothing.
Heat neutral builds are bad. You need to balance damage output with a heat buildup that you're comfortable with. Imo PGI's wanting to eliminate heat neutral builds was just a bs excuse for their OTT heat system.

[Wolfways]

Warge, on 04 November 2013 - 05:53 PM, said:

In case of every weapon - there are balancing solutions: reload time, projectile speed, more or less "burn"/firing time for lasers/ACs, bursts for ACs, ammo > or <, min and max firing range.

Ah right, yes. But the bit you quoted wasn't about balance. It was about how do you translate not generating any heat/turn into MWO? I suppose you could make mechs never generate heat until they break the heat sink dissipation limit...

[Wolfways]

Deathlike, on 04 November 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

Just a thought... most of the older games didn't really do much for the penalty. MW4 did the most IIRC by slowing down top speed and MW2 had random ammo explosions (assuming, you had ammo on the mech).

I'm not saying this stuff shouldn't be implemented, but I'd rather have the heat scale system overhauled first and worry about the "immersion detail" of heat penalties dealt with later. I mean, we have movement penalties that can easily put you to a complete stop.

Small steps first...

Isn't it better to do it altogether so balance and systems working with each other better is easier to work out? Not that i think there's a chance in hell of anything like this happening, but it's nice to discuss how MWO should have been made

[CrashieJ]

Wolfways, on 04 November 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

I just used PPC's as an example.
The point is that in TT if you had enough heat sinks you effectively never gained even 1 point of heat.

but how much tonnage and space and firepower did you just sacrifice for heat neutrality?

you took a risk, and that was your reward.

[Wolfways]

Davers, on 04 November 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

I am not seeing what problem this is solving. Does it fix the huge imbalance of ballistic v energy weapons? No, in fact it makes lasers even worse. Does it solve poptarting/sniping? Nope. Huge alphas followed by periods of cool down is the norm for those builds. Does it effect Hunchbacks, Cicadas, Trebuchets, Quickdraws, and every brawler/flanker mech? Yes. Please tell me how these chassis are overpowered and need to be nerfed with movement penalties?

Imo the only fix to many of these problems is to remove the mechlab which isn't going to happen.
Still want a stock-only queue PGI!

Quote

The desire for heat penalties comes from nostalgia, nothing more. They were put in BT to keep people from making builds with 30 medium lasers. They add nothing to MW:O except making energy builds even worse.

I think it adds an extra element of fun.

[Sybreed]

I don't think it would be so simple to implement BT's heat scale for several reasons:

- in BT Heat scale is calculated after every turn, which represents 10 seconds of fighting. It's calculated by substracting the heat produced from the heat you can cool.
- You will rarely reach the full heat penalties until several turns in BT. In MWO, a single dual ER PPC salvo will make you reach 30. By that alone, it doesn't make sense to use BT's heat scale in MWO
- You would need to divide the heat produced by your weapons in MWO by their increased ROF. I.E. PPCs fire 3 times as often as BT, you divide its heat by 3 per shot.
- To compensate for such low heat produced, you would have to also reduce the damage produced, which would result in much longer fights.

It could be done, but it would require an entire rework of how heat is produced and how it's managed by your heatsinks. A single ER PPC shouldn't produce 15 heat upfront, but a smaller number that takes into account your number of heatsinks.

Well, that's my take on this anyway.