68 replies to this topic

[no one]

Thread Update:

Based on feedback I've gotten in this thread and a few others, I've updated the spreadsheet. Thank you, everyone who commented or asked questions. For the sake of neatness I'm wrapping the original post in spoilers. The adjusted spreadsheet can be found here:

https://docs.google....Z0E&usp=sharing

Major changes to the system include -

1 - Breaking heat into a 'buffer' and 'overheat' levels.

• Buffer: This represents how much heat your 'Mech can deal with at once before it begins to suffer from overheating. You suffer no penalties and dissipate heat normally below this threshold.

• Overheat: Heat added above and beyond a 'Mech's normal capacity to handle heat. The higher the overheat, the less efficient your heat-sinks become, and the longer it takes to cool off. A 'Mech with more than 4 overheat begins to suffer from reduced speed, agility, a higher chance of shutdowns or pilot blackouts, and potential ammo explosions an pilot injury.

2 - The 'buffer' changes capacity with respect to the number of heat sinks you have. It is based around a four second 'turn', since that is the normal cycle rate of weapons in MWO. Your total heat capacity is the sum of the heat buffer and the 30 points of overheat. Since the overheat never changes, the programing overhead and complexity compared to my previous system is reduced.





3 - Mechs no longer take structural damage from overheat, but pilots do.

• This makes overheat equal between lighter and heavier 'Mechs, as you pilot has a defined health.

• An XP penalty for cooking off your pilot discourages people from abusing massed-energy alpha strikes.

4 - Suggested values for dissipation penalty increased to .5% per percentage over-heat, normal dissipation rated increased by 50%. Heat capacity multiplier for single heat sinks suggested value is {1.3}. This gives massed single heat sinks (more than 24) a buffer that can exceed double heat sinks, while retaining the poorer cooling per ton.







I've changed the poll to remove the noise questions, as it was admittedly a bit bad. If anyone wants something changed on, or added to the poll please let me know.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

For quick reference, here are images of the tables.





How time to dissipate scales with increased heat load.



Original Post:

Spoiler

I have been thinking for a while about a simpler, more intuitive replacement system for the current ghost heat 'Mechanic. I think whatever your feelings on the utility of ghost heat are, most people agree that there's room for improvement.

A little while back while working out the idea I wrote a post on the subject which, for those of you with text-wall aversion, I have in spoilers here:

Spoiler

no one, on 08 March 2014 - 10:20 PM, said:

Weapons have two types of heat generation; instant and sustained heat.

Instant heat is generated by ballistic weapons, PPCs, and missile weapons.
Sustained heat is is delivered by lasers and flamers.

For our example, let's take a DHS 'Mech with the base 10 engine heat sinks installed, so our effective heat sinking capacity is .20 h/s * 10 or 2 heat per second dissipation.

A medium laser generates 4 heat, sustained over 1 second of fire, or 4h/s.
By the time one medium laser has finished firing, the heat system has removed half (2hu) of the total heat generated by firing one medium laser. The heat system takes 2 seconds to completely remove the heat generated from firing one medium laser. A medium laser has a re-fire cycle of four seconds.

This means that, in the current heat system, two medium lasers is the maximum number you can fire before your heat generated exceeds your heat dissipation. Firing two medium lasers at once will 'spike' your heat up to four, while chain firing them every two seconds only raises your heat level to two twice. ( Which might mean something if my heat capacity was two, and not fifty. )

At three medium lasers, you will start to overwhelm your heat dissipation at a rate of 1 heat per second. Alpha strike or chain firing, it's the same. You will generate 12 heat, of which you will dissipate two in the first second of fire, and 6 over the course of the three following seconds, leaving you with 4 heat. With a heat capacity of fifty, you would have to be at 40 heat (80% overheat) before an alpha strike carries the risk of shutdown.

So at present the amount of carry over heat and heat spike for adding additional medium lasers goes like this.

ML# - - - residual heat(hu) - - spike(hu) - - - - time to dissipate(s)

1 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 2.0 - - - - - - - 2
2 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 6.0 - - - - - - - 4
3 - - - - - 4.0 - - - - - - - 10 - - - - - - - 6
4 - - - - - 8.0 - - - - - - - 14 - - - - - - - 8
5 - - - - - 12 - - - - - - - 18 - - - - - - - 10
6 - - - - - 16 - - - - - - - 22 - - - - - - - 12
7 - - - - 20 [23.2] - - - - 26 [29.2] - - - - - 14 [15.6]
8 - - - - 24 [31.6] - - - - 30 [37.6] - - - - - 16 [19.8]
9 - - - - 28 [41.6] - - - - 34 [47.6] - - - - - 18 [24.8]

See those numbers in the bracket? That's what ghost heat does to medium lasers. See how awkward and forced that is? If I had twelve medium lasers I could fire six, wait half a second and fire the other six to generate less heat than firing 9 medium lasers. If I fired 12 medium lasers at once, I'd generate 101.6 heat, or the equivalent of 25.4 medium lasers.

Now let's try -
a - Getting rid of ghost heat.
b - Doubling dissipation rates. (May be overkill, but it makes my maths cleaner.)
c - Reducing the heat capacity to 40.
d - Applying a dissipation reduction of 1% per 2.5% overheat.
e - Applying movement heat penalties at 25+ overheat.

Now let's look at how this works out with Alpha Strikes.

ML# - - ~residual heat(hu) - - spike(hu) - - ~ time to dissipate(s) - - peak penalty

1 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 1.02 - - - - - - - (-0%)h/s
2 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 4.0 - - - - - - - 2.04 - - - - - - (-4%)h/s
3 - - - - - 0.0 - - - - - - - 8.0 - - - - - - - 3.13 - - - - - - - (-8%)h/s
4 - - - - - 1 - - - - - - - 12 - - - - - - - 4.28 - - - - - - - (-12%)h/s
5 - - - - - 4.5 - - - - - - - 16 - - - - - - - 5.47 - - - - - - - (-16%)h/s
6 - - - - - 10 - - - - - - - 20 - - - - - - - 6.72 - - - - - - - (-20%)h/s
7 - - - - - 15 - - - - - - - 24 - - - - - - - 8.04 - - - - - - - (-24%)h/s
8 - - - - - 19.5 - - - - - - - 28 - - - - - - - 9.43 - - - - - - - (-28%)h/s (Overheat, -15 kph)
9 - - - - - 24 - - - - - - - 32 - - - - - - - 10.901 - - - - - - - (-32%)h/s (Overheat, -30 kph)


See? Much smoother transition as you increase your heat, and residual heat becomes rapidly more significant to your refire as you spike your heat. Firing when you already have heat becomes much more of a trade-off because it means you have to wait even longer to cool off, and the heat ceiling is much closer. Chain fire actually becomes a valid tactic and weapons like lasers that do gradual heat have a slight edge over weapons that apply instant heat. You can fire 3 PPCs at once every 8.97 seconds, or chain fire them every 2.65 seconds for a 13% increase in your dps.

The abbreviation of that post, is that I want to see ghost heat replaced with a system that gradually decreases your effective heat dissipation the hotter your 'Mech gets.

In order to make the math a little more accessible, I've uploaded a spreadsheet showing how the numbers are worked out.

https://docs.google....TGc&usp=sharing

Directly modifiable values are in red.
Values that require referencing other cells are in yellow.

The table is using current dissipation rates with a lowered heat capacity. I like how the numbers work out better when I increase the dissipation significantly, but I encourage you all to try changing around values and seeing what looks good to you.

Implementation :

Q: That's a lot of math in that spreadsheet! Wont the game choke on this system?
A: No. Most of the math in that spreadsheet is for the benefit of us what depend on inefficient and clumsy grey matter. The computer shouldn't need to do much more than keep track of time. Here's how it works -
Disclaimer: I realize I'm arm-chair programming heavily here. Badly.
If I'm utterly off base or there is a better way to do this, please tell me.

First, work out values you like in the spreadsheet. Next make a hash table for each potential number of effective heat sinks. Assign 'heat values' from 0 to N as keys for the 'time to dissipate one point of heat' values found earlier.
I'm using integer value here for the sake of simplicity, but you could use half-heat values or less if you wanted a more granulated heat scaling at the cost of more overhead.

When you move, stand in lava, fire a weapon. . . your heat rises. The game then looks at your heat value key (for this example say your heat is 15), pulls the corresponding 'time to dissipate' out of the table, and starts counting.

One milliMississippi. . .
Two milliMississippi. . .
Three milliMississippi. . .

All the way up to 0.4357 seconds.

Once it's counted out that time, the server reduces your heat variable by one, and looks at the next key (14). Then it starts counting again. . .

One milliMississippi. . .
Two milliMississippi. . .
*YOU FIRE A PPC*
Three milliMississippi. . .

All the way up to 0.4307 seconds.

Now the program reduces your heat variable by one again, but also increments it back up ten for the PPC shot you just fired, so the next key it needs is (23).

So it begins counting again

One milliMississippi. . .
Two milliMississippi. . .
*Yay! I'm a computer*
Three milliMississippi. . .

All the way up to 0.481 seconds.

So the hash table tells the counter counts, and heat is applied in the interim. I suppose you could also have the game take the fraction of time left on the counter when it's interrupted and multiply that by the hash table value of the resultant heat. I should have thought of that before I typed all this. Oh well.

Note:
Before you tldr my opening post, and respond based on the below post, please note that the system has been modified since that post was made. Based on such feedback, the system has been adjusted so that high heat alpha strikes are reasonably restricted.

Edited by no one, 18 March 2014 - 03:38 PM.

[Davers]

Ghost heat was designed to cut down on large alpha strikes. But they are now again possible with your system.

There have been many 'lower the cap/raise the dissipation' ideas.

You said you doubled the rates, does that mean that it is based on DHS reducing heat by 4 per 10 seconds?

[Quick n Fast]

make AC burst fire n PPCs splash damage and it could very well work..

[Fut]

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

Ghost heat was designed to cut down on large alpha strikes. But they are now again possible with your system.

The quickest way to cut down on large alpha strikes, would be to introduce a Heat System that actually applied negative effects to a Mech the hotter it is (ie. Slower running speed, slower turning speed, choppy hud..etc). This way, there isn't some arbitrary rule to limit anything, people would be able to run and fire whatever combinations of weapons they wanted to - but if they Alpha-Alpha-Alpha and their Mech gets too hot, they'll run into trouble.

It's surprising to me that more people don't agree with this.

[Spleenslitta]

I looked at the numbers for a little while and ended up with absolutly nothing. My brain just ain't made for mathematics.
But i'll give you a like for one heck of an effort.

When you start talking about altering heatsinks i got a halfway decent idea for single heatsinks.
From here on i will refer to Single HeatSinks as SHS and doubles as DHS to ease reading this textwall.

How about external SHS gaining the ability to be linked to weapons? How would this work and what would the effect be?
Here is an example- A Jenner is equipped with 2 x ML's and 1 ER PPC.

The Jenner has 2 external SHS linked to it's ER PPC. These two linked SHS have no effect on the heat generated by the ML's.
The Internal SHS cannot under any circumstances be linked to a weapon.
But the linked SHS are attached directly to the hottest part of the ER PPC and thus provide superior cooling to that weapon only in comparison to 2 DHS.
Of course the internal SHS in the engine will help deal with the heat generated by both the ER PPC and the ML's.
They provide general cooling.

The general idea is that DHS will be better for a mech with many hot weapons.
But mechs with only 1-2 hot weapons will most likely gain more from having SHS with a few external SHS linked to these hot weapons.

Some further limitations to the link ability of the single heatsinks-

- You can only mount 1-3 SHS to a weapon and never more of them than the amount of critical spaces a weapon occupies.
Or maybe you could never mount more than 1 SHS to a weapon. That is something for somebody with a good head for mathematics to concider.

-You can only link a certain amount of SHS on mech. Maybe it would be connected to the weightclass of the mech.
For example. Lights can link 1 or maybe 2 SHS. Mediums - 3 or 4 , Heavies - 5-6 , Assaults - 7-8.
Or maybe much fewer SHS can be linked.....it depends on the cooling abilities a SHS gains when linked to a weapon.
Or it could be part of quirks for the different mechs and/or their variants. It could even be a part of the skill tree.

-If your engine has less than 10 internal heatsinks should those externaly mounted SHS you put into your mech to get 10 have the ability to be linked?
I don't know.

How can we explain that the DHS don't have this ability? They are too clunky and so they can't be mounted directly to the hottest part of the weapons.


How much more effective should a linked SHS than an ordinary DHS? I don't know. This is for wiser heads to figure out.
I'm proud of my brains capability to be creative but it has the processor power of a hamsters brain to be honest.
Both longterm and shortterm memory is like a goldfish too.....

Edited by Spleenslitta, 13 March 2014 - 10:45 AM.

[Davers]

Fut, on 13 March 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

The quickest way to cut down on large alpha strikes, would be to introduce a Heat System that actually applied negative effects to a Mech the hotter it is (ie. Slower running speed, slower turning speed, choppy hud..etc). This way, there isn't some arbitrary rule to limit anything, people would be able to run and fire whatever combinations of weapons they wanted to - but if they Alpha-Alpha-Alpha and their Mech gets too hot, they'll run into trouble.

It's surprising to me that more people don't agree with this.

We have a system where overheating and being helpless while taking internal damage didn't prevent boating. Why do people think losing 10kph for a few seconds is the key?

[Lukoi Banacek]

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 10:50 AM, said:

We have a system where overheating and being helpless while taking internal damage didn't prevent boating. Why do people think losing 10kph for a few seconds is the key?

It doesn't have to be key. The approach he's speaking of is an aggregate of negative consequences...slowed movement, slowed torso twist, slowed convergence, sluggish Mech response. desynced/inop JJ's etc. Combined with being completely helpless/shutdown and potentially taking internal damage it would be very significant and akin to the descriptions in the lore to boot.

Not advocating for that approach btw, just clarifying.

[Spleenslitta]

Lukoi, on 13 March 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

It doesn't have to be key. The approach he's speaking of is an aggregate of negative consequences...slowed movement, slowed torso twist, slowed convergence, sluggish Mech response. desynced/inop JJ's etc. Combined with being completely helpless/shutdown and potentially taking internal damage it would be very significant and akin to the descriptions in the lore to boot.

Not advocating for that approach btw, just clarifying.

You explained it perfectly.

I remember reading something like it in the Battletech novel Illusions of Victory.
It's on page 248-250. it has been in several other novels as well but i can't remember any as severe as this one.

An already hot Banshee shooting dual PPC's in quick succession to the point that the targeting system became inaccurate and the general movement of the mech became sluggish.
It even came to the point that the mech could only stand there while the pilot kept slamming the override button.
In the end the ammunition from his AC blew up from the heat.

[no one]

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 07:08 AM, said:

Ghost heat was designed to cut down on large alpha strikes.
You said you doubled the rates, does that mean that it is based on DHS reducing heat by 4 per 10 seconds?

In my original post and example, yes. In the spreadsheet I linked It's using the normal values with a lowered heat cap. The spreadsheet is there so people can play around with the values on their own, and decide what dissipation penalty, heat-cap and so on look good to them. Hence the poll. If you want to select a values that I do not have in the poll, please post them along with an explanation. Ghost heat does an abysmally lopsided and clunky job of cutting down on large alpha strikes. This system has the added benefit of not having to keep track of the rate at which you fire your weapons, and applying to all weapons equally.

Spleenslitta, on 13 March 2014 - 10:42 AM, said:

Sounds like something between a 'Mech quirk system (Improved Cooling Jacket) and laser heat sinks. It could be interesting, but not as a global heat system or replacement for ghost heat. I'll try and give it a bit more consideration when I'm not so burned out.

Lukoi, on 13 March 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

The approach he's speaking of is an aggregate of negative consequences...

Yes, absolutely. I would love to see all of these things happen and they are a significant part of the overall balance. My original intention was to let people play around with a scaled heat penalty system for replacing ghost heat and get feedback on how people would change the numbers on it, but no balance should happen in a vacuum. Just lowering the heat cap to hard-cap energy alpha would be a ham-handed approach. There needs to be some build up of consequences for overheating, and a dissipation penalty is just one aspect.

Edited by no one, 13 March 2014 - 11:40 AM.

[_____]

Ghost heat is supposed to counter alpha strikes as others have already mentioned. What's promoting alpha strikes is map designs that provide tons of cover. ALL maps on MWO right now provide cover everywhere. Indestructible buildings, random rocks and environmental objects that are bigger than mechs. Real battlefields don't look like this all the time. The map design also screws up how LRMs are used in MWO vs in the BT universe. In BT, LRMs are supposed to be long range weapons. In practice, MWO LRMs are medium range weapons with a 300m-400m effective range.

You don't need a fix to ghost heat, you need fixes to the maps. Imagine you have a Arena style map with minimal cover and also imagine there's no ghost heat. Who would really want to bring a quad PPC Stalker to that battle?

Edited by BlackhawkSC, 13 March 2014 - 11:47 AM.

[Spleenslitta]

BlackhawkSC, on 13 March 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

Ghost heat is supposed to counter alpha strikes as others have already mentioned. What's promoting alpha strikes is map designs that provide tons of cover. ALL maps on MWO right now provide cover everywhere. Indestructible buildings, random rocks and environmental objects that are bigger than mechs. Real battlefields don't look like this all the time. The map design also screws up how LRMs are used in MWO vs in the BT universe. In BT, LRMs are supposed to be long range weapons. In practice, MWO LRMs are medium range weapons with a 300m-400m effective range.

You don't need a fix to ghost heat, you need fixes to the maps. Imagine you have a Arena style map with minimal cover and also imagine there's no ghost heat. Who would really want to bring a quad PPC Stalker to that battle?

I kinda agree with the LRM's having a 300-400 meter effective range. But that only applies when the target mech is maneuverable/fast enough to get back in cover before the missiles arrive.

As for maps with minimal cover. Then scouts wouldn't have much of a role anymore since you can see most of the battlefield anyways.
Lights would never be able to survive in such an enviroment. I don't think such maps are a good idea.

[Davers]

Lukoi, on 13 March 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

It doesn't have to be key. The approach he's speaking of is an aggregate of negative consequences...slowed movement, slowed torso twist, slowed convergence, sluggish Mech response. desynced/inop JJ's etc. Combined with being completely helpless/shutdown and potentially taking internal damage it would be very significant and akin to the descriptions in the lore to boot.

Not advocating for that approach btw, just clarifying.

Let's talk about some mechs that are gone, because of GH. 6PPC Stalkers (and their much more heat manageable 4 PPC cousins). Doesn't care about slowed movement. Doesn't care about sluggish torso twisting. Not really bothered by the additional effects.

Jump snipers. Once more, not worried about movement or torso twisting. If JJs were effected they MIGHT care, but since they will be cooling off anyway, probably not.

We have to decide if it is ok that there will be 4-6 PPC Stalkers, Battlemasters, Banshees, etc.

If GH was eliminated there will be a lot less diverse builds, since it would be better to have the same weapons with the same firing qualities. Time to Kill will decrease as well as there will be more 4-6 LL builds, more 4+ SRM builds (when they are fixed anyway), more boating of every kind.

Is this something we want?

Not saying GH is the best idea, but it IS doing what it was supposed to do.

And those AC/40 Jagers and other non sniping builds that will be effected by other heat factors will find it easier to hit everyone else who is suffering as well.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Let's talk about some mechs that are gone, because of GH. 6PPC Stalkers (and their much more heat manageable 4 PPC cousins). Doesn't care about slowed movement. Doesn't care about sluggish torso twisting. Not really bothered by the additional effects.

All inaccurately dismissing the point being made about aggregate heat cost.

If you were much earlier in the heat scale, affected by all of these myriad effects in line with the descriptions in canon, you would undoubtedly be much more concerned with heat management than we are now. Right now, we don't worry about heat until we're over 100%. We don't sweat it at all until we're about to crest. In canon, negative effects would occur much sooner.

Saying slow assaults don't mind being MORE sluggish is your opinion but I doubt it's one most people share. Get slower, get left behind, get isolated, get dead. When I'm playing an already slow Mech, I don't want to fall behind, struggle to torso twist, see my convergence disrupted or have my vision blurred by heat issues. So yea, minding your heat earlier in the scale (maybe 70%, who knows) would encourage less alpha's and be much easier/accessibleunderstandable for new players.

Ghost heat is unintuitive, poorly explained in-game (where it matters, not the forums) and only stops "the last alpha." Comparatively, a system that impacts you significantly, much earlier in the scale would actually promote less alpha's much earlier in the playstyles of most and encourage the use of weapons in smaller groupings.

GH only stopped the most ridiculous of builds. It hasn't reduced alpha-striking outside of that. It's merely changed the nature of what gets grouped together to accomplish it.

[no one]

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Jump snipers. Once more, not worried about movement or torso twisting. If JJs were effected they MIGHT care, but since they will be cooling off anyway, probably not.

Keep in mind that the heat added by jump jets in this system adds to your global heat, and is therefor also contributing to your efficiency loss. It's not much, but it's there.

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

We have to decide if it is ok that there will be 4-6 PPC Stalkers, Battlemasters, Banshees, etc.

There won't be. Or, at least there will be considerably fewer than we have now. Part of my proposed system is to lower the amount of heat capacity you get from heat sinks to something sane, as well as reduce your dissipation the closer to that heat cap you get. Right now you're easily able to push 70+ heat of weapons fire in one shot.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...6957f8e280dce95

Now, using that 'Mech as an example, if we lowered the heat cap on that 'Mech from 70 something (after skills) to 40, then an alpha strike already overheats you, without benefit of ghost heat.

3LL + 3PPC + Ghost Heat = 67.13 heat (91.4% heat)
3LL + 3PPC - Ghost Heat = 54 heat (135% heat)

Now, before you argue: "But then I can fire four PPCs and just barely shut down!"

4PPC + Ghost Heat = 73.6 (100% heat)
4PPC - Ghost Heat = 40 (100% heat)

Now, let's look at how long that takes to dissipate in the current system.

4PPC + Ghost Heat = 73.6 (100% heat), 100% efficiency
(heat/sec) = (.2*10+.14*8) = 3.12 h/s
Cool down = 23.59 s (skills not applied)

4PPC - Ghost Heat = 40 (100% heat)
Cool down = 12.8 s (skills not applied)

Wow that's a lot less time! (because it's a lot less heat) So let's add in some efficiency loss.

For the sake of the example let's cludge it and say we have a .75% (.0075) efficiency loss on your heat sinks per % overheat. That gives us a similar 24.18 s total cool down time. Is that equivalent? Nope! Because you spend much longer at higher levels of overheat. Why is that important? Well let's say you want to fire one more PPC after your 'Mech reboots. How long do you have to wait?

Ghost Heat
10/3.12 = 3.21 seconds, for each 10 points, all the way down.

So how long does it take to go from 40 to 30 heat at .75% efficiency loss?
9.85 seconds.
6.21 seconds to go from 30 to 20,
4.54 seconds to go from 20 to 10,
3.59 seconds to go from 10 to 0.

So realistically, you can fire an alpha with ghost heat, and it won't effect your maximum dps at all. You can't alpha again immediately, but you can keep fighting. With an efficiency reduction that steep? You'd be hung until you cooled down.

I'm not saying those are good numbers to use mind you (they're not) but it helps illustrate my point.

Edited by no one, 13 March 2014 - 11:39 PM.

[Lyoto Machida]

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

Let's talk about some mechs that are gone, because of GH. 6PPC Stalkers (and their much more heat manageable 4 PPC cousins). Doesn't care about slowed movement. Doesn't care about sluggish torso twisting. Not really bothered by the additional effects.

Jump snipers. Once more, not worried about movement or torso twisting. If JJs were effected they MIGHT care, but since they will be cooling off anyway, probably not.

We have to decide if it is ok that there will be 4-6 PPC Stalkers, Battlemasters, Banshees, etc.

If GH was eliminated there will be a lot less diverse builds, since it would be better to have the same weapons with the same firing qualities. Time to Kill will decrease as well as there will be more 4-6 LL builds, more 4+ SRM builds (when they are fixed anyway), more boating of every kind.

Is this something we want?

Not saying GH is the best idea, but it IS doing what it was supposed to do.

And those AC/40 Jagers and other non sniping builds that will be effected by other heat factors will find it easier to hit everyone else who is suffering as well.

Wrong...raising PPC heat up to where it currently is instead of...oh...waiting 9 months to do anthing about it would have taken out 4 and 6 PPC Stalkers on their own. Ghost heat was unnecessary. It's not like you don't see AC40s anymore...

No idea why the devs couldn't do that for almost a year...I'm guessing incompetence.

I'm sure 6 PPC Stalkers would love an Ember right up on them.

I wish there were Splatcats, Streakcats or Swaybacks around...there's actually less variety nowadays.

Also, 6 PPC Stalkers would have to deal with arty and air strikes nowadays.

[Corvus Antaka]

I'll give you even simpler.

ANY shot over 20 damage applies a heat penalty equal to / multiplied by whatever works in equivalent heat to damage, ie dual ac/20 takes a heat penalty like it does now, firing 30 dmg takes a 10 over heat penalty, etc etc.

boom. everything fixed. any shot over 20 damage takes a heat penalty, thus alpha striking lik ein btech is penalized, and everyone can understand the system in about the time it takes to read this.

That would have been the smart and simple solution.

and what happened with PGI's solution?

PPC/dual ac/5 ac/20 - any build that circumnavigates ghost heat and does the same thing builds like dual ac/20 are penalized for doing.

We saw this coming a long time ago.

[Sandpit]

I agree with Davers with one exception

If they added in TT heat scale ALL of it, it would have a bigger affect

Slow down the convergence and targeting reticle and include a blurred vision that affects targeting and being able to continue shooting as well as movement modifiers. That would replicate the to-hit modifiers that are incurred when a mech heats up in TT. I don't have ANY problem with ghost heat. I run 4 and 5LL boats a LOT and do very well in them so any arguments against ghost heat that include "they prevent boating" is simply false.

As Davers said, they prevent alpha strikes, not boating

[Rebas Kradd]

As meritorious as this idea is, it won't be implemented. It's too many sweeping changes and programming demands.

[Fut]

Lukoi, on 13 March 2014 - 08:09 PM, said:

All inaccurately dismissing the point being made about aggregate heat cost.

If you were much earlier in the heat scale, affected by all of these myriad effects in line with the descriptions in canon, you would undoubtedly be much more concerned with heat management than we are now. Right now, we don't worry about heat until we're over 100%. We don't sweat it at all until we're about to crest. In canon, negative effects would occur much sooner.

Exactly.
A quick look at the old Battletech Heat Table helps to clear things up further.


You start to feel the effects of heat rising as low as 5pts of heat, it begins to become more difficult to hit your target at 8pts of heat, and the first ShutDown occurs at 14pts of heat.

With numbers similar to this chart, people wouldn't be riding along, un-hindered, at 75% heat still looking for their next target to Alpha-Alpha-Alpha. It would slow the pace of combat, and greatly increase the time to kill - which, from my understanding, most people want.

Davers, on 13 March 2014 - 07:33 PM, said:

If GH was eliminated there will be a lot less diverse builds, since it would be better to have the same weapons with the same firing qualities. Time to Kill will decrease as well as there will be more 4-6 LL builds, more 4+ SRM builds (when they are fixed anyway), more boating of every kind.

Is this something we want?

I don't think that people would actually run 6LL builds, as one alpha from that would produce 42 heat, which would put them quite a bit higher than the max heat on the scale. Just look at the effects they'd have to go through for that one Alpha.
6LL builds would have to fire in smaller groups (3 groups of 2, 2 groups of 3, Chainfire all 6).
OR
They'd have to carry enough heat sinks to counter 42 heat - and I doubt they'd be able to cram all of that in and still have space/weight for the 6 LLs.

EDIT:

Was able to cram 15 DHS into a 6LL Stalker on Smirfy, that would eliminate 30 heat. So after 1 Alpha from this thing, you'd be at 12heat+whatever heat from your current speed/map you're on. You'd already be suffering movement and aiming penalties.
Which means that you could:
1) Alpha again, seeing how that's how people seem to play this game - this would result in a shutdown chance as well as other penalties.
2) Begin to chainfire/fire smaller groups, increasing your heat only slightly compared to the Alphas.
3) Delay your firing until you're back down at base heat and can Alpha once again.

Really though, all options result in longer engagements.

Edited by Fut, 14 March 2014 - 09:44 AM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Rebas Kradd, on 14 March 2014 - 09:26 AM, said:

As meritorious as this idea is, it won't be implemented. It's too many sweeping changes and programming demands.

This is probably true