93 replies to this topic

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Training Instructor, on 07 November 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I've always found this strange...

You are not alone.

The simple fact of the matter is this: PGI made this game design decision.

Many people over time have complained about or argued against it. A good number of people have argued that it's better how it is.

It's actually a pretty bizarre game design decision, given that it encourages alpha-striking when PGI have publically stated that they wish to avert alpha-striking.

And in amongst all of this, I have found two very important facts.

Fact the first: Despite all the arguments against it, all the people pointing out that ghost heat would be unnecessary without it (not necessarily 100% true, but we definitely wouldn't need it as badly) and all of the hundreds of pages of threads on the topic, PGI has declared that they have no intent to and/or every intent not to: reduce heat capacity and increase heat dissipation (notably they haven't separated these out, so I don't know if they won't do either, or just won't do both of them).

Fact the second: PGI has never explained why they made the decision to do this. I do not know how much people have asked about the reasoning behind it, but I know that a number of those arguing against it have announced that they either have given up on or no longer care about getting the actual explanation for the decision to make things be that way.

I hope this information is helpful to some degree.

For myself, I -really- really really really want to know why they did this. Not necessarily so I can argue against their reasoning (though I might if I consider it flawed) but so that I understand what the heck is going on here. Because it seems like a design decision specifically counter to stated goals.

Edited by Elli Gujar, 07 November 2013 - 01:40 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

For myself, I -really- really really really want to know why they did this. Not necessarily so I can argue against their reasoning (though I might if I consider it flawed) but so that I understand what the heck is going on here. Because it seems like a design decision specifically counter to stated goals.

Yeah. I would like to know it, too.

[stjobe]

Since it seems my ASCII-art demonstration wasn't quite visceral enough to really get the message through that the TT and MWO total heat capacities are quite the same, here's a more graphical version:



It also nicely illustrates why the heat penalties are a very important missing part of the MWO heat system. If you've ever been past say 37.5% - 52% heat in a MWO match, you have been in heat penalty territory.

Edited by stjobe, 07 November 2013 - 02:01 PM.

[Shadey99]

topgun505, on 07 November 2013 - 01:21 PM, said:

Incorrect. Heat penalties started at just 5 on the heat scale in TT. That is a mere 16% on your heat scale in MWO.

Err... it would be hard to say what % it would be in MWO, however it is certainly higher than 16% in MWO. The exact level depends on number of heat sinks. Figuring 10 SHS (to make this easy)... It would be ~37.5% and that is the lowest it would be (since you cannot have less than 10 SHS).

Edit: And of course when I get to this page stjobe already did that math... oh well. However the chart does illustrate one big issue, which is that unless heat dissipation is raised considerably a heat penalty system would not work (a couple ML can spike heat past 37.5% and 4 ML will certainly spike past the 50% of DHS).

Edited by Shadey99, 07 November 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Tombstoner]

stjobe, on 07 November 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

The only problem with that explanation is that the heat system was created well over a year before the Cool Shot was even considered for inclusion in the game. Remember what used to be PGI's line? "We will never have a coolant flush, because it invalidates heat as a mechanic".

Valid point i remember that post now. still cool shots must have been on the table for them to come to that conclusion. I think it's still possible that it was part of the initial heat system and taken off for the stated reason and later reversed that position for making money as it was intended.

Edited by Tombstoner, 07 November 2013 - 02:39 PM.

[stjobe]

Shadey99, on 07 November 2013 - 02:23 PM, said:

However the chart does illustrate one big issue, which is that unless heat dissipation is raised considerably a heat penalty system would not work (a couple ML can spike heat past 37.5% and 4 ML will certainly spike past the 50% of DHS).

No...

A ML generates 4 heat; 4 of them generates 16 heat. 10 DHS = 20 SHSE, 20 SHSE + 30 = 50 total heat capacity. 16 is less than half of 50. In fact, it's only 30%, so bottom line here is that 4 ML will only take a 'mech with 10 DHS to 30% heat - 20% away from heat penalties in the proposed system. A "couple" of MLs (two) would take a 10 SHS 'mech to 20% heat

It's not as bad as you think; we've been spoiled rotten with MWO's extremely generous heat system - to the point where heat isn't an issue at all for most builds. It should be, for the vast majority of builds.

Also remember that heat penalties start out small; perhaps in MWO it would be a 5-10 kph decrease in top speed as the first penalty, perhaps a slight and intermittent reticule shake as the second, and so on.

But you're right that heat dissipation needs to be increased anyway. Not because of the heat penalties but because of heat balance between high-heat energy weapons and low-heat ballistics.

The rate of fire for most weapons was increased 2-3 times compared to their TT counterparts, so heat dissipation should be increased 2-3 times as well to get us back to the relative heat cost of TT.

Edit: The Heat Penalty Threshold is somewhere between
37.5% for 10 SHS, and
69.5% for 26 DHS.

For 10 DHS (a very common configuration), the cap is bang on 50%.

Although you could theoretically fit 60 SHS in an Atlas for a cap of 90 and a HPT of 72.2%, that would be the most over-cooled ML you'd ever seen.

Edited by stjobe, 07 November 2013 - 04:28 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

I for one think MWO would be a better game with proper heat penalties and faster dissipation.

I agree. We need proper heat penalties, faster dissipation, and slower firing weapons. The rate of heat generation and heat dissipation need to be more equalized. And riding out the heat curve needs to be appropriately penalized.

Quote

It's not as bad as you think; we've been spoiled rotten with MWO's extremely generous heat system - to the point where heat isn't an issue at all for most builds. It should be, for the vast majority of builds.

There is nothing generous about MWO's heat system. You cant even fire a single er large laser without overheating if you have SHS. Are you nuts? MWOs heat system is the most punitive heat system to date of ANY mechwarrior game. And its been done deliberately to artificially limit the damage increase caused by converging weapons.

What PGI needs to do is fix convergence properly. And then theres no need to screw up other facets of the game, like the heat system, in order to bandaid convergence.

Edited by Khobai, 07 November 2013 - 05:29 PM.

[Shadey99]

stjobe, on 07 November 2013 - 03:42 PM, said:

No...

A ML generates 4 heat; 4 of them generates 16 heat. 10 DHS = 20 SHSE, 20 SHSE + 30 = 50 total heat capacity. 16 is less than half of 50. In fact, it's only 30%, so bottom line here is that 4 ML will only take a 'mech with 10 DHS to 30% heat - 20% away from heat penalties in the proposed system. A "couple" of MLs (two) would take a 10 SHS 'mech to 20% heat

True only if not moving or on a hot map... 2 ML on Terra Therma can easily spike your heat to near 50% in a light mech (or a Shadowhawk). Heck I barely cool at all in my 5 ML Locust 3M on that map using only a single ML.

[Taemien]

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

What PGI needs to do is fix convergence properly. And then theres no need to screw up other facets of the game, like the heat system, in order to bandaid convergence.

They can't. I don't understand why you think they should do something that isn't possible. The hit detection is done SERVER SIDE. Which means where you are when you fire isn't where you actually are. Now when you add in different points of impact, how do you decide where each individual weapon, in every possible hardpoint, at any point of the map is actually hitting on server?

Its easy to do on client side. Very easy, your computer does most of the work and instantly. A server has yet another thing to track, and multiple points from infinite possibilities. What we have now is a single point of impact. And even THAT is sketchy, though improving with HSR. Redoing convergence means redoing HSR and then some due to multiple points of impact (and different for each mech and variant).

They've explained this many times, yet you still ask for something that is nearly impossible.

And you can't have client side hit detection because of the hacks would ruin the game.


So enough with the convergence desires. Its a dead issue, not happening. Ask the MW6 devs to do it before it goes into Alpha. As for MWO its set in stone. What we have is what we got. As I said before, I'll get a NES cartridge update of Super Mario Bros 2 with the fireflower added in from Nintendo before we get a convergence change in MWO.

[Nryrony]

I think the idea behind this is that, bigger mechs should be able to fire more weapons before they overheat. However, this problem only exists because the heatsinks are far from effective.

[Training Instructor]

If there were actual heat penalties, such as reduced movement, etc., a Jenner might have to fire those 4-6 medium lasers on chain fire, rather than dumping two full alphas into someone's back and then running away at 151kph.

I like the speed of mechs, and I like the maneuverability, but I don't like the fast kills that much.

[stjobe]

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Are you nuts?

Well, I do drive a Commando regularly and enjoy it, so it's a distinct possibility... But that's neither here nor there, now is it?

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

There is nothing generous about MWO's heat system.

The MWO heat system is generous in the sense that there's no other penalty but hitting 100% heat. Any heat below 100% is exactly identical to having 0% heat. In effect, as long as you stay under 100% heat, there is no heat mechanic.

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

You cant even fire a single er large laser without overheating if you have SHS.

A single ERLL generates 8.5 heat. A 'mech with 10 SHS has a heat capacity of 40, so firing a single ERLL takes you to 21.25% heat. During beam duration and cooldown (1.0 + 3.25 seconds), you cool down 4.25 heat, leaving you at 4.25 heat, or 10.6%, meaning you can fire it nine times without overheating, but will overheat on the tenth shot.

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

What PGI needs to do is fix convergence properly.

They need to do that too, but they also need to fix the heat system.

Edited by stjobe, 08 November 2013 - 02:01 AM.

[RedDragon]

Almond Brown, on 07 November 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

Surely you jest. So at 50% heat you move at -30% of max? LOL! Sounds great on paper, or the Kitchen Table but you may be surprised when your crossing open turf.

The point is this: Every player has the same disadvantages through this, so if you are slower and easier to hit, the enemy can't throw anything he has on you because then he'd get the same penalties. In the end you would have to calculate when (and what) to fire and when not to, maybe even using smaller weapons while you cool down for your big guns. That's what Battletech is about. Not the no-brainer "alpha, cool down, alpha, cool down" we have now.
When you need to sprint over that "open turf", just don't generate that much heat. Problem solved. As for your enemy: There's a mech coming towards you over open turf. Don't shoot everything you have at him because when he's reached you, you will have serious penalties while moving and aiming.

[Khobai]

dissipation would be increased too so to overheat youd have to deliberately fire more weapons than your mech can handle. unlike now where firing anything makes you overheat.

[General Taskeen]

Elli Gujar, on 07 November 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

For myself, I -really- really really really want to know why they did this. Not necessarily so I can argue against their reasoning (though I might if I consider it flawed) but so that I understand what the heck is going on here. Because it seems like a design decision specifically counter to stated goals.

My working theory, which is probably incorrect, is that it is done as a pay-wall. To purposely make people grind so that no Mechs have an equal heat threshold. Hence SHS will suck compared to say... MW3, because there was no grind factor there, just working heat sinks. This was clearly done to alienate people that like Stock Mechs ( again, i'm incorrect probably i'm just venting ). ECM also made some Stock Mechs unuseable.

Edited by General Taskeen, 08 November 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[aniviron]

Training Instructor, on 07 November 2013 - 06:24 AM, said:

I've always found this strange, but what's the logic in increasing a mech's heat capacity? Heat capacity is determined by the people who designed and engineered the components of the mech, cooling has no effect on the failure point of components. All heat dissipating devices, such as heat sinks, can do, is work hard to cool components fast enough to prevent them from reaching that failure point in the first place.

Example: The video cards in the computers of most gamers are fairly high end, heat generating monsters. You'll notice that on most of these cards there's a fan and metal fins attached, the metal fins of course are called heat sinks, indicating their prime purpose in the design. The harder load you put on your video card, the more heat it generates, and the more you hear the fan whirring. If the fan fails, or if the ambient operating temperature inside the computer case is too hot, because you're playing in Phoenix in July with no air-conditioning, your GPU will shut itself down once it reaches a heat threshold, at which point the failsafe kicks in and shuts down the card to prevent permanent damage.

If your GPU has a heat tolerance of say, 200 degrees Celsius before the failsafe kicks in to shut it down, adding four more fans and a liquid nitrogen cooling system is not going to do anything to prevent that shutdown if you take some action to send a heat spike to your card. Now, what all those extra fans and heatsinks will do is allow your GPU to cope with high heat over time by preventing it from ever getting near 200 degrees Celsius in the first place. This is dissipation rate, not heat capacity. These devices do not allow the card to operate at 201 degrees Celsius, they only help prevent it from ever reaching the temperature.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why I think heat sinks increasing the heat cap is a ridiculous idea.

p.s. Yes, I know giant stompy robots is also a ridiculous idea.

As your last sentence acknowledges, trying to explain any sort of BT/MW mechanic with real world physics is bonkers, so I'll spare you the lecture I would give to most people about why that's bad, and how we should only be balancing around what makes the game to play.

With that in mind, I'll answer the question in your thread title that you don't really elaborate on in the post beyond saying it makes no real world sense: why do heatsinks increase capacity? The answer is because of how heat works differently between MWO and BT. In the TT game, your heat dissipates in the same turn that you generate it; in an attempt to simulate heat working the same way, MWO gives additional capacity so that after one Battletech-turn of heat sinking is over, a mech will be at the same place, but during that 10-second window it suffers no deleterious effects for what should be a reasonable amount of heat generation.

Let's take the AWS-8Q as a case study. It mounts 3 PPCs and 28 single heatsinks (we'll ignore the small laser. I always do in mine, anyway). In Battletech, if a pilot were to fire all three PPCs, he would generate 3x10 = 30 heat, which puts him exactly at the top of the heat threshold. According to the game rules, he should immediately be shutting down and his mech should be exploding all over the place. But wait! Because of how the TT game works, the 28 sinks immediately remove 28 of the 30 heat, which bring the mech down to just 2 heat. Since TT is a turn-based game that doesn't have to make sense in the real world, the Awesome never reaches the max heat capacity, even though firing three PPCs seems to imply that it should do so immediately. As a result, the AWS-8Q is an excellent direct-fire support mech, and is able to alpha strike almost every turn with very few ill effects.

In contrast, an AWS-8Q in an exact copy of MWO but without heatsinks capacity increases fires three PPCs at once, exactly like in the tabletop game. In this MWO, the Awesome immediately shuts down and takes internal damage, because unlike in BT, heat is applied instantly. After ten seconds, the nominal cooling period in TT, the AWS would be booted up and back down to 2 heat just like in the tabletop game. As the volleys continue to fire, the TT AWS-8Q builds up 2-4-6-8 heat, then switches to firing just 2 for a round, goes back to 0 heat, and starts to hammer away with all three guns every round again. In contrast, the MWO AWS-8Q goes further and further into overheating and shutdown if it follows the same pattern, building up 32-34-36-38 heat for periods of time. After that point, the issue is moot because the MWO Awesome has died from internal damage.

In short: the reason MWO heatsinks increase capacity is so that mechs which rely heavily on energy weapons are not penalized for having their heatsinks work over time instead of instantly like in the tabletop game.

[Cimarb]

aniviron, on 08 November 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

As your last sentence acknowledges, trying to explain any sort of BT/MW mechanic with real world physics is bonkers, so I'll spare you the lecture I would give to most people about why that's bad, and how we should only be balancing around what makes the game to play.

With that in mind, I'll answer the question in your thread title that you don't really elaborate on in the post beyond saying it makes no real world sense: why do heatsinks increase capacity? The answer is because of how heat works differently between MWO and BT. In the TT game, your heat dissipates in the same turn that you generate it; in an attempt to simulate heat working the same way, MWO gives additional capacity so that after one Battletech-turn of heat sinking is over, a mech will be at the same place, but during that 10-second window it suffers no deleterious effects for what should be a reasonable amount of heat generation.

Let's take the AWS-8Q as a case study. It mounts 3 PPCs and 28 single heatsinks (we'll ignore the small laser. I always do in mine, anyway). In Battletech, if a pilot were to fire all three PPCs, he would generate 3x10 = 30 heat, which puts him exactly at the top of the heat threshold. According to the game rules, he should immediately be shutting down and his mech should be exploding all over the place. But wait! Because of how the TT game works, the 28 sinks immediately remove 28 of the 30 heat, which bring the mech down to just 2 heat. Since TT is a turn-based game that doesn't have to make sense in the real world, the Awesome never reaches the max heat capacity, even though firing three PPCs seems to imply that it should do so immediately. As a result, the AWS-8Q is an excellent direct-fire support mech, and is able to alpha strike almost every turn with very few ill effects.

In contrast, an AWS-8Q in an exact copy of MWO but without heatsinks capacity increases fires three PPCs at once, exactly like in the tabletop game. In this MWO, the Awesome immediately shuts down and takes internal damage, because unlike in BT, heat is applied instantly. After ten seconds, the nominal cooling period in TT, the AWS would be booted up and back down to 2 heat just like in the tabletop game. As the volleys continue to fire, the TT AWS-8Q builds up 2-4-6-8 heat, then switches to firing just 2 for a round, goes back to 0 heat, and starts to hammer away with all three guns every round again. In contrast, the MWO AWS-8Q goes further and further into overheating and shutdown if it follows the same pattern, building up 32-34-36-38 heat for periods of time. After that point, the issue is moot because the MWO Awesome has died from internal damage.

In short: the reason MWO heatsinks increase capacity is so that mechs which rely heavily on energy weapons are not penalized for having their heatsinks work over time instead of instantly like in the tabletop game.

No. This is not correct, as it doesn't take dissipation into account correctly, if at all. When the AWS fires those three PPCs, it has not exceeded the heat cap for that "time period" in either system. In TT, the heat sinks dissipate the heat in one cycle of the weapon. To work correctly, MWO should also dissipate that same amount of heat in one cycle of the weapon. Since lots of weapons have lots of different cycles in MWO, which is a divergence from TT in itself, the heat dissipation would have to be normalized to fit a generic "cycle" that averages out all of the weapons individual cycles. WoW and most other MMOs do this normalization with energy, rage, etc, so it is not a radical idea.

[aniviron]

Cimarb, on 08 November 2013 - 02:57 PM, said:

No. This is not correct, as it doesn't take dissipation into account correctly, if at all. When the AWS fires those three PPCs, it has not exceeded the heat cap for that "time period" in either system. In TT, the heat sinks dissipate the heat in one cycle of the weapon. To work correctly, MWO should also dissipate that same amount of heat in one cycle of the weapon. Since lots of weapons have lots of different cycles in MWO, which is a divergence from TT in itself, the heat dissipation would have to be normalized to fit a generic "cycle" that averages out all of the weapons individual cycles. WoW and most other MMOs do this normalization with energy, rage, etc, so it is not a radical idea.

The dissipation is fine (well, no, but that's another argument). The main point of my post is that firing one or twice shuts down most energy-heavy builds in MWO when it should not do that, according to BT rules. While I do think dissipation amounts need to be adjusted, the fact remains that if you were to remove the heatsink capacity facet of the game without changing anything else, you would never ever see energy builds in this game at all. You're doing a lot of talking about dissipation, which I mention is the same between BT and MWO, assuming that the MWO pilot practices excellent trigger discipline and only fires once every ten seconds. You ignore the fact that shooting once in many builds would shutdown any hot-running mech in MWO when it should not be doing that. The reason I put the entire exercise with the AWS-8Q in there is to point out that it's not a hot-running build (generates 2 heat/turn when alphaing constantly) and yet a build that is not supposed to be hot is in fact shutting down a mech every time it fires on most maps even when not moving; with movement and map heat taken into consideration, you're talking instant shutdown on fire for the JR7-F, HBK-4P, every quickdraw, all the awesomes and stalkers, and quite a few others.

I'm not actually opposed to a hard threshold of 30 heat, despite what these two posts sound like. I think it would encourage prolonged engagements instead of the current "hit hard and hide" ridgehumping and jumpsniping we have now- but only if every single weapon had its heat rebalanced, and dissipation rates were massively increased. If you did nothing but take out the heat cap and left everything else alone, you would never see a mech with more than one or two energy weapons, missiles would be fairly rare, and autocannons would dominate because they are not only heat efficient, but even the ones that are not like the AC2 still produce small, manageable amounts of heat instead of shutting you down in under 3 seconds.

[A Man In A Can]

stjobe, on 07 November 2013 - 02:01 PM, said:

Since it seems my ASCII-art demonstration wasn't quite visceral enough to really get the message through that the TT and MWO total heat capacities are quite the same, here's a more graphical version:



It also nicely illustrates why the heat penalties are a very important missing part of the MWO heat system. If you've ever been past say 37.5% - 52% heat in a MWO match, you have been in heat penalty territory.

Very informative graphic here stjobe.

If the heat penalty system was created for those instances where heat penalties should be applied (say to convergence at least so that weapons are just a smidge off from being pinpoint at range, maybe not so much for movement) and perhaps fiddle with the heatsinks themselves (double heatsinks = double dissipation single capacity inside or outside, single heatsinks = single dissipation ??? capacity) and keep the weapon properties the same, then the entire ghost heat system designed to boost alpha warrior tactics heat close or beyond the 100% capacity for the penalties could be scrapped for good.

I'd vouch for this compromise.

For ease of implementation, I'd say have penalties for all mechs start at 75-80% heat (whenever the heat percent turns red normally) to account for the faster fire rate of weapons using the above suggestions. 50% assumes double heatsinks are allowed to have double capacity engine heatsinks - which they don't really need as the double dissipation is already a huge boost over single heatsinks.

Edited by CYBRN4CR, 08 November 2013 - 06:12 PM.

[Fooooo]

I'd love a change to the heat system. Even if only just to test out different ideas on the PTR.



That said I'm not sure how well a faster dissipation + TT heat penaltys (same cap as TT) would work.

I mean, in TT once you trigger one of the penaltys it lasts for a turn or something doesnt it ?



In MWO, you would end up hitting say 60% heat and triggering a movement penalty or weapon heat penalty for what....1 second or so ? Basically rendering them useless penaltys in a way.


Or would these penaltys have timers once you suffer them ? IE the movement penalty lasts for a minimum of 5 seconds even if you go back UNDER the penaltys trigger point etc... ? (but also lasting longer than 5sec if your still above the trigger point etc ?)

I guess thats really the only problem I see. The penaltys not lasting long enough to even be really noticed that much. (bar ammo expl & shutdowns ofc etc)

Edited by Fooooo, 08 November 2013 - 10:28 PM.