55 replies to this topic

[Ancient Demise]

Author's note:

Spoiler

This is a LONG post. I realize that many of you may not wish to read it all.

Please refrain from voting "no" or "other" unless you post an intelligent counter argument. I spent a lot of time on this so the least you can do is make an informed decision and explain why you believe it to be the best option. I welcome any counter arguments as an intelligent discussion will help us (and PGI) improve the state of the game, something you obviously want if you are in this section of the forums.

"I don't like it" or "Its fine the way it is" are NOT counter arguments. They are opinions. It is my opinion that this is the best option for the game and so I have backed it with a detailed argument. It is your responsibility to back your claim with an argument as well.


If you do not read or understand everything and still vote no without a counter argument you are being useless. You have plenty of opportunities to be useless in life. Please give everyone the courtesy of not doing it here.

As I write this I realize that the weapon values are about to change and will change again in the future. I will not update the graphs as the point I am making is about the concept and model of exponential heat decay (real life physics/engineering) and how it will work in comparison to the current linear heat decay model in MWO. I can and may add more examples if you need me to.

With Honor,
Dem

----

HEAT BALANCE
I think we can all agree that the current model for heat balance in MWO leaves something to be desired. We have seen multiple balance changes and tweaks that deviate further and further from what we once considered to be 'canon'. 1.4 Double Heat Sinks, Ghost Heat, and all the extreme heat balance tweaks may have all been unnecessary and can even be eliminated.

This model improves heat dissipation at higher levels with the heat transfer rate slowing as the heat approaches thermal equilibrium. The maximum heat level is equivalent to the number of effective heat sinks, encouraging heat neutral builds and making stock canon builds more viable. At the same time, this reduces the gap between single and true double heat sinks by making each more effective with respect to the heat generated, not the arbitrary 10 second turn.

Heat management is still a very important factor to this system. Sure, most cases and under some conditions this will be different from MWO but the heat system is different and that is to be expected. This is not a magical "keep everything in game the same but still fix the heat system" fix. Those don't exist. It is a "make heat more realistic and closer to lore" solution. Builds designed for a different heat system will behave differently but hopefully not too much. At the very least this proposal should be considered and tested in the public test server.

Don't forget there actually is a calculator included in all this, so please try it out.

The simple version:

Spoiler

This proposal aims to balance gameplay, encourage more heat neutral builds, and simulate real physics better than the current heat system in MWO.

In real life physics a high heat source like a cutting torch will transfer heat across a solid object much quicker than a low heat source like a candle. At the same time a hotter object will cool faster than a warm object. In MWO a hotter object will cool at the same speed as a warm object.

In real life, to calculate how hot two heat sources will make an object you simply add their heat. In MWO, a third imaginary heat is applied to this calculation.

The heat you generate from firing your weapons will go away faster the hotter you are. As your heat level approaches zero, the mech cools slower and slower. This means that when you chain fire a lot of low heat weapons your heat will balance out at a certain temperature. It also means that if you alpha strike or are really hot your mech will cool down pretty quickly at first and then start to level out.

The max heat level should be equal to the number of heat sinks you have, each single heat sink counting as 1 and each double counting as 2. This will prevent anyone from firing too many weapons at the same time because you will overheat very quickly. However, because you also cool down quickly you can fire some more weapons without having to wait a long time.

Additionally, firing low heat weapons will make your heat rise to however hot those weapons are because of the math used to calculate your heat level. In MWO your heat will constantly decrease to zero at a certain rate, so if you fire something that gives you 1 heat it will never show up on your heat scale.

Spoiler

Ghost Heat - we all know what this does. It adds large heat penalties to some weapons of certain types fired within a half second. This is never the case in real life and the need of ghost heat has been the subject of many arguments since its inception.

Victor Morson said:

Before people jump in saying how it fixed 6 PPCs stalkers or more "LOL You just want 4 PPCs again LOL!" I would like to remind people of all the reasons Ghost Heat is the single worst game design element ever committed to a game:

• Absolutely no UI. No indicators as to Ghost Heat limitations, when it kicks in, how much it has kicked in, etc. are given to players outside of that small hardcore handful of us that read the forums and/or spend time in Smurfy's. This is while they try to appeal to a casual demographic, no less.
  
• Rewards Macros and External Programs. Due to reason #1, the half-second timer isn't even indicated to the player so they know when it is safe to fire again. Thus most good players running boated weapons turn to macros to time it for them, while more casual players lose damage by trying to count it in their head, risking firing too early and cooking themselves.
  
• Many weapons nerf'ed that weren't problems. 9 MedLas? Not a problem. 4 Large Lasers? Not a problem. 4 AC/2? Not worth noting. Yet, these were all implemented hard and fast and have not been tweaked once.
  
• Completely illogical linking. 1x LRM20 3x LRM10 = 4x LRM20 Ghost Heat for 50 missiles. 2x LRM20 2x LRM5 = 0 Ghost Heat for 50 missiles. The list continues. Should ER Large and Large Pulse really be linked together?
  
• It's massively overly complicated. I know where the limits start and learned all the bizarre linkage rules, like how LRM5s are exempt, Streaks don't count towards a limit, how LPL and ER Large share a pool, etc. But then we get to the actual heat calculation which.. God help you. All most of us deal with is "Over X = Bad." But there is no rhyme, reason, or clarity at any given time as to why some ghost heat is so much worse than others, without complicated charts from the developer (that made things even worse) and large tables of numbers that actually at least show us some results (3rd party fanbase).
  
• Most of all, it didn't really work. What ultimately killed the PPC boat was fixing the XML data file for the PPCs. 4 PPC Stalkers - which were far better than 6 - continued until the day that happened, as did the general PPC Meta. There was a sharp drop in boat builds after Ghost Heat arrived but almost all of them were by people who didn't understand the rules for it and overcompensated with horrible builds. Twin AC/20 builds remain popular and pinpoint damage wasn't impacted in the slightest, just different weapons were used for it.

I could go on and on with examples and problems but there have been probably 2,000 pages devoted to why Ghost Heat is seriously the worst thing ever. It should have been vetted by all the programmers along the way and it should have been shutdown at the meeting the idea was brought up. Ghost Heat is probably the reason so much hate got poured directly onto one person, because that person is either both blind to the reaction or too stubborn to listen.

LINEAR DECAY

Spoiler

The current MWO heat model is a linear equation based purely on the number of heat sinks with a multiplier for map heat level. The best example of how this works is here. As best as I can tell the function operates the same today. The equation is simply

Quote

y = - x * (Effective Heat Sinks / 10) + (Max Heat)

where

Quote

Max Heat = Effective Heat Sinks + 30

Effective Heat Sinks (EHS) is the total value of heat sinks, not necessarily the actual number of heat sinks. 20 Single Heat Sinks is 22 EHS. 20 Double Heat Sinks in the current game would be 20*1.4=28 EHS.
This means that heat will bleed at 0.1 Heat per Second, per Heat Sink.

Using this formula, there is a very large disconnect between the time to sink all heat with 10 heat sinks and 22 Double (1.4) heat sinks, let alone 22 true DHS (2.0). Using the above formula, 40 heat with 10 SHS will take 40 seconds to sink all heat. With 22 DHS (1.4) and at the max heat of 60.8, it will take about 24 seconds to drain the heat. If these were 22 DHS (2.0), the max heat would be 74 and it would take about 17 seconds to cool. If this were the case, one could fire 4 ERPPCs every 13 seconds and be heat neutral. Obviously this is too many PPCs at once way too often when a Mech with 10 single heat sinks can fire 2 ERPPCs every 30 seconds, so something had to be done. To this end, the implementation of 1.4 Heat Sinks and Ghost Heat was well intended and somewhat effective, though they missed the core issue.

EXPONENTIAL DECAY

Spoiler

Using the formula we can approximate real life heat dissipation. The constants in the formula would need to be tweaked to fit, of course, but this is a much better model to use for dissipating heat.

At higher heat levels the mech's temperature would drop quickly, allowing smaller and less heat intensive weapons to fire faster while still preventing high heat weapons from re-firing without risk of overheating. This is all the more prominent in single HS builds, as your heat would bleed much faster than it would using a linear equation. At moderate heat levels your weapon use would be about the same as it is now - fire any weapon but watch your heat and think before you alpha strike. At lower heat levels the temperature would drop much slower. This means that while you are relatively cool, you must be careful group firing a lot of weapons.

In order to examine this model , assume that the number of effective heat sinks is the maximum heat level for your mech. That means for 10 single heat sinks your max heat is 10. For 20 DHS your max heat is 40. The 30 base heat seen in MWO is not necessary here as heat levels will drop quickly and most builds will be unable to reach the higher heat thresholds with proper heat management. In addition, this forces pilots not to alpha with too many hot weapons.



To find the variables that work the best for Battletech weapons and heat sinks, I started with the thermal conductivity (K) value for steel, 50, set the diameter and surface area to 1 so that they would cancel out , and rewrote the equation to Q/t = k*A(Th-Tc)/d which equals Q/t = k*(Th-Tc).

From this I just multiply by the constant 0.000526565076466 to get from watt seconds to Celsius heat units (Note this is not the same as degrees Celsius). Whether this part is right or not does not matter, as the important aspect of this math is the heat transfer rate dH/dt and since the heat in battletech is some arbitrary unit, the conversion from Celsius heat units to Battletech Heat Units is just a constant multiplier.

To get the right heat transfer rate I created an approximation for the thermal conductivity based on the equation

kModified = (k + eHS * kC1 + kC2 / eHS) * HSmult * MassMult * globalCon
where
k = 50.2 (steel)
kC1 = 25 (best fit by trial and error)
kC2 = 1000 (best fit by trial and error)
eHS = effective heat sinks
and multipliers for number of heat sinks, mass of mech, and the global conductivity of the map.

I added the multipliers to limit the gap between high and low eHS builds and high and low mech tonnages. The body of a 100 ton mech will generally be thicker than the body of a 20 ton mech so the heat will transfer heat away at a lower rate. At the same time, heat sinks in a mech will operate less efficiently the more there are. Keep in mind that these two multipliers are approximations and have been tweaked to work best with the rest of the formula. It would be exceedingly difficult to calculate actual efficiency and heat dissipation for every single mech so I have approximated it here.
HSmult = f(eHS) with HSmult = 1 at 10 eHS and HSmult = 0.7 for 44 eHS
MassMult = f(mass) with MassMult = 1.2 at 20 tons and MassMult = 0.9 at 100 tons.

At this time, the global conductivity (also a gross approximation of thermal convection) which is dependent on numerous atmospheric conditions that would be difficult to simulate is set to 0.75 by default and in these examples.

CONDITIONS

For the most part, we know what firing certain weapons does to us and how hot we get with the linear model. What we do not know is how these weapons would behave under an exponential decay model. To better visualize this, I have written a VBA macro in excel to simulate heat under a number of conditions. Keep in mind that this tool is more accurate the smaller the time increments are set and that laser duration is only as accurate as the time increment.

Weapon Heat

Spoiler

Condition 1:
Locust 3M: 4x SLas (2 heat), 1x MLas (4 heat), 20 tons, 10 SHS
Initial heat = 0. Alpha strike at t=1.


Runs hot with an alpha strike but cools down to half capacity pretty quickly

Condition 2:
Locust 3M: 4x SLas (2 heat), 1x MLas (4 heat), 20 tons, 10 SHS
Initial heat = 10. 8 heat every 8 seconds (4 times)


Condition 3:
Locust 3M: 4x SLas (2 heat), 1x MLas (4 heat), 20 tons, 10 SHS
Initial heat = 0. 4 heat every 2 seconds (8 times)

This is where the differences between the two systems really stands out. Continual fire with the linear system will always overheat or stabilize by waiting for a full cooldown. Continual fire with the exponential system will reach a peak where the change in heat over time approaches zero.

Remember that the with the linear model the max heat is 30 plus the effective heat sinks. If this was the same for the exponential model the heat would dissipate too quickly at high levels to make a difference.

Yes this stock locust still runs hot but it will no longer melt with single heat sinks. It goes without saying that double heat sinks would be a huge improvement, but they are no longer a prerequisite for survival (though it is still a locust, so survival is probably not something that pilot is thinking of)


Condition 4:
Jenner F(C): 3x MLas (4 heat), 3x SLas (2 heat), 35 tons, 15 DHS
Initial heat = 0. Alpha strike at t=1.


That is plenty cool.

Condition 5:
Jenner F(C): 3x MLas (4 heat), 3x SLas (2 heat), 35 tons, 15 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 18 heat every 4 seconds (8 times)


You do not have to worry about very much with this mech. The effective HPS generated by the weapons is ~5, so the heat levels tend to max out just under 14 heat.
Okay, let's look at a really hot stock mech, the Nova Prime. With only 18 double heat sinks (36 eHS) this mech will obviously overheat with an alpha strike of 60 heat, so how about some link fire examples.

Condition 6:
Nova Prime: 12x cERMLas (5 heat), 50 tons, 18 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 30 heat every 4 seconds (5 times)

This is the equivalent of firing one arm of 6 cERML just about continually (slight pause there). The heat level maxes out at about 36, just under the max heat for the nova. This is redlining it but you will not suicide in a normal fight.

Condition 7:
Nova Prime: 12x cERMLas (5 heat), 50 tons, 18 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 15 heat every 2 seconds (8 times)

This is almost a constant rate of fire (3 lasers at a time) without overheating.
With this system the stock nova is a viable option of melting other's faces without melting your own into slag.

Now how about a relatively cool mech, the Centurion A(C)

Condition 8:
CN9-A(C): 2x MPL (4.6 heat), 3x SRM4 + Artemis (3 heat) 50 tons, 11 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 18.2 heat every 3.5 seconds (8 times)

This is an approximation of firing as quickly as possible. SRMs reload in 3 seconds and medium pulse lasers can only fire once every 3.6 seconds, but the point remains. This mech will still overheat if the pilot is not careful

Condition 9:
Hunchback 4P: 8x MLas (4 heat), 1x SLas 2 heat) 50 tons, 23 SHS
Initial heat = 0. 32 heat every 6 seconds (8 times)


Ow. Well that result is still the same, even with waiting an extra 2 second between salvos. What if we only fire the torso mounted lasers?

Condition 10:
Hunchback 4P: 8x MLas (4 heat), 1x SLas 2 heat) 50 tons, 23 SHS
Initial heat = 0. 24 heat every 6 seconds (8 times)

Better. We are still a little too hot (maxes out a little over 24 heat, 23 heat would be the max) so we would only be able to fire JUST the 6 side torso lasers every 7+ seconds.

What if we do the same tests using the Champion version of this mech which uses DHS?

Condition 11:
Hunchback 4P: 9x MLas (4 heat), 50 tons, 18 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 32 heat every 6 seconds (8 times) (NOTE we are only firing 8 lasers still, same as previous test.

Significantly less face-melty. Since the 18 DHS give us a max heat of 36 I bet we can fire all 9 every 6 seconds.

Condition 12:
Hunchback 4P: 9x MLas (4 heat), 50 tons, 18 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 36 heat every 6 seconds (8 times)

Okay, let's try some PPCs!

Condition 13:
Awesome 8Q: 3x PPC (10 heat), 1x SLas (2 heat), 80 tons, 28 SHS
Initial heat = 0. 30 heat every 4 seconds (8 times)


The pilot needs to exercise caution when firing. He will overheat at the second alpha strike. In other news the Awesome may be worth something again. What if those were ERPPCs and DHS?

Condition 14:
Awesome 8Q (modified): 3x ERPPC (15 heat), 1x SLas (2 heat), 80 tons, 19 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 45 heat every 4 seconds (8 times)

No need for ghost heat here!!

Remember the doom of the PPC Stalker?

Condition 15:
Stalker 3F (PPC): 4x PPC (10 heat), 85 tons, 20 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 40 heat every 4 seconds (8 times)


The mech WILL get a shutdown warning at the first alpha strike in hotter areas and will probably damage itself with the second alpha. Since this mech produces 40 heat per alpha and has 40 eHS, how long does the pilot have to wait to fire again?

Condition 16:
Stalker 3F (PPC): 4x PPC (10 heat), 85 tons, 20 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 40 heat every 8 seconds (8 times)

About 8 seconds. That is a long time in a battle. The pilot is much better off link firing 2 at a time.

How about a stock PPC monster like the Warhawk Prime? 60 heat from the 4 cERPPCs is way too much to even bother with, so let's try link firing in pairs.

Condition 17:
Warhawk Prime: 4x cERPPC (15 heat), 1x cLRM15 (4 heat) 85 tons, 20 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 30 heat every 2 seconds (8 times)

Still too much. Chain firing every other second?

Condition 18:
Warhawk Prime: 4x cERPPC (15 heat), 1x cLRM10 (4 heat) 85 tons, 20 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 15 heat every 2 seconds (8 times)


That is do-able. What if we replaced the targeting computer and lrm 10 with extra heat sinks?

Condition 19:
Warhawk Prime: 4x cERPPC (15 heat), 85 tons, 28 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 30 heat every 2 seconds (8 times)



That is barely keeping it cool. At 56 eHS I should point out that the HS efficiency is down to 0.59

Now before we look at the Dire Wolf, I should point out that for a number of weapons the heat is not scaled like the damage or damage per second. The TT value for cUAC/5's is 1 heat and it is the same in game, making it one of the coolest weapons in game for the DPS it does. cERLL are actually cooler than the TT value, making it also stand out when looking at TT heat sink numbers.

Condition 20:
Dire Wolf Prime: 4x cERLL (9 heat), 4x cMPL (5.5 heat), 2x cUAC/5 (1 heat), 1x cLRM 10 ( 4 heat) 100 tons, 22 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 36 heat every 5.5 seconds (8 times) (firing 4x large lasers)


44 eHS is adequate for this mech until you start firing other weapons.

Condition 21:
Dire Wolf Prime: 4x cERLL (9 heat), 4x cMPL (5.5 heat), 2x cUAC/5 (1 heat), 1x cLRM 10 ( 4 heat) 100 tons, 22 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 58 heat every 5.5 seconds (8 times) (firing ALL lasers)



This will burn you

Okay, last one. What if you put 4 cERLL on a Dire Wolf and maxed out the heat sinks with nothing else on the mech? This wastes a lot of space in both free tonnage and by having more heat sinks than you will ever use, but it demonstrates what happens to your heat levels if you have lots of heat sinks with only moderate heat generation.

Condition 22:
Dire Wolf: 4x cERLL (9 heat), 100 tons, 33 DHS (efficiency 0.51) (t interval = 0.25s)
Initial heat = 0. 18 heat every 2.25 seconds (8 times)


And if only 1 laser is fired every 5.5 seconds.....


Now THIS is where you really see a difference. PGI said that they were increasing the heat of the Clan ER Large Laser because on some high heat sink builds it barely registered. This is not a fault of the heat of the weapon, but a fault of the heat system itself - having heat dissipation independent of heat levels actually prevents heat buildup. With exponential decay you will generate heat no matter how many heat sinks you have.

Unfortunately due to the complexity of firing multiple different weapons as soon as they become available cannot be simulated by this calculator. That would require me putting significantly more time into this and frankly, I am not getting paid for my work. You should see by now the trend of what this system can do

Jump Jets

Spoiler

This is a heat-generating piece of equipment and will affect the mech as much as any small weapon. For MWO values this is very small and will hardly affect any mech unless firing puts the mech over the edge of overheating. Class V jump jets generate 0.1 heat per second per JJ. On a Spider 5V with 10 SHS this results in...


A zero heat buildup for the linear model and a little over 2 heat for 3 seconds of burn time. This is actually not too bad. TT values (iirc) say 2 heat per jump jet which is really hot for the little spider (below).

Flamers

Spoiler

This is a big one. I will not even attempt to bother with how MWO flamers currently work and reverse engineer them to work with this model. I assume they increase your ambient heat by a certain percentage and stacking a small damage modifier. Instead I started fresh. It took a lot of tweaking but I think I found something that works relatively well against all targets and then extremely well against targets with low eHS counts.

My version: Directly increase the ambient temperature by 1 per flamer, add 0.25 heat per second per flamer, does 0 actual damage. At the same time the flamer does 2 HPS to the person firing it, making prolonged salvos unwise. With the increased combat effectiveness of flamers I decided that this would be enough. For my examples I will use the Hunchback 4P(C) and Nova PRIME, both 50 ton mechs, with flamers replacing all medium lasers.

Condition 26:
Hunchback 4P(C): 9x Flamer (2 heat), 50 tons, 18 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 18 heat every 1 seconds (8 times)


With all 15 DHS our Hunchback will overheat after firing all for 3 seconds. Let's see what this did to a Locust 3M. Remember, a 20 ton mech with only 10 eHS will have the best heat sink efficiency.

Condition 27:
Locust 3M: 20 tons, 10 SHS (target)
Initial heat = 0. Ambient heat = 9. Heat damage = 2.25/s


This makes the bug all toasty but it will not overheat unless it is in an inherently hot environment or it decides to fire while this hot. Remember that the Locust is a fast mech and IF it can be hit with all 9 flamers for 3 seconds, the hunchback is heating itself up and is vulnerable to enemy fire. Most mechs (custom or other) have more than 10 SHS so let's try a different target.

Condition 28:
Jenner F(C): 35 tons, 15 DHS (target)
Initial heat = 0. Ambient heat = 9. Heat damage = 2.25/s


Again the Jenner does not overheat but it sure gives the pilot something to think about. What if the Jenner has already fired?

Condition 29:
Jenner F(C): 35 tons, 15 DHS (target)
Initial heat = 18. Ambient heat = 9. Heat damage = 2.25/s


Well that looks different. The flamers actually slow down heat dissipation because the initial heat is above the level of zero dH/dt. Time your shots right and a couple flamers could make all the difference.

Condition 30:
Nova: 12x Flamer (2 heat), 50 tons, 18 DHS
Initial heat = 0. 24 heat every 1 seconds (8 times)


The Nova will overheat after firing for about 2.5 seconds.

Condition 31:
Locust 3M: 20 tons, 10 SHS (target)
Initial heat = 0. Ambient heat = 12. Heat damage = 3/s


The Locust overheats just after 1 second and finally restarts after about 4.5 of being offline. That will leave a mark. Then again, so will 6-12 cERML.

Condition 32:
Jenner F(C): 35 tons, 15 DHS (target)
Initial heat = 0. Ambient heat = 12. Heat damage = 3/s


Hot, but not always deadly.

Condition 33:
Jenner F(C): 35 tons, 15 DHS (target)
Initial heat = 18. Ambient heat = 12. Heat damage = 3/s

Weapon values

Spoiler

In order to better facilitate this model and balance the game in general, a lot of the weapon values need to be modified. While this is largely a separate issue, the heat and HPS aspects are very relevant and in some cases necessary for any kind of heat balance.

In addition, I have added cone-of-fire values which would help with the PPFLD without making it impossible to hit a target. (I already had those written down so why not)

These tables are separated by IS and Clan, then further separated by TT values (modified for balance), MWO values as of 8/26/14 (not modified), and then modified MWO values for balance. Deviations from standard values are in red.

I don't think I missed anything here...
Inner Sphere

Spoiler

Clan

Spoiler

Other options

Spoiler

While I believe that this is the best model to use for heat balance, it may not be the best solution. There are other variables that can be changed or tested in conjunction with the exponential heat decay formula.

1. Flat heat level - Make the max heat for all mechs a constant value, say 30.

2. Flat heat modifier - Add a positive or negative value to modify the max heat level given by effective heat sinks.

3. Larger efficiency gap - increase the negative slope in the heat effeciency equation. The same can be done with the weight multiplier

4. Add a modifier for heat based on number of weapons fired simultaneously. Not a lot, but enough to push most heat neutral mechs over the edge if they alpha strike. This part is not based on physics but is a "ghost heat" that is consistent and at least makes sense.
New heat=Heat+(16*(weapons-1))/SQRT((weapons-1)^2+20)
This part is included in the calculator in cells A40:B42 but is not connected to anything else.

5. Increase heat efficiency for shut down mechs. I did not add it in here but it could easily be doubled for shut down mechs (exterior temperatures like flamers and lava would still affect the mech)

6. I am sure there are more I have not thought of but the core concept of exponential decay remains the same.

Q & A

Spoiler

Q: Didn't PGI say that their heat dissipation is based on a 10 second turn in table top?

A: Yes, but all weapons can currently fire at least twice per 10 second time, essentially invalidating the current formula.

Q: Aren't heat sinks in battletech actually heat pumps, so that they work the same in any environment?

A: Yes, you are absolutely right about mech heat sinks. However, I am considering the transfer of heat from the weapons to the heat pumps that run through the mech, which is still an issue of thermal conductivity. Assume that the heat sinks themselves are effectively thermal reservoirs at zero BT heat units. We are looking at how quickly the heat transfers to the heat pumps (quicker for more because more heat "sinks" means more volume can "hold" and dissipate heat) without having to deal with the coefficient of performance (exponentially less % the smaller the temperature difference) from the ideal Carnot cycle. We could add in the transfer of heat in such pumps but that is another level of complexity. It is simpler to look at the mech (minus the heat sinks) as a single control volume and approximate from there.

Yes I know I added a global and local conductivity factor - The global at 0.75 is to adjust the formula easily and 0.75 seemed to fit the best to me. The local at 1 does nothing but could improve heat performance in water where the conductivity is higher.


Q: The current heat system is fine. Don't change it

A: Okay not really a question but I will still answer it. In the current heat model there is a very large gap between low and high eHS builds. SHS are all but useless and on smaller chassis, non-existent. Yes I realize that there are some builds that do fine with single heat sinks but under most circumstances it is not even a question to spend the money to upgrade. This system allows for true double heat sinks, removes ghost heat, and paves the way for a more scaled weapon balance. In order to best use this model I suggest implementing some form of weapon inaccuracy (cone of fire) to alleviate all the PPFLD we see possible under this model, but this is not necessarily a prerequisite and PPFLD remains another problem even now.

Q: I like the concept but disagree on the values

A: That is fine. I invite you to play around with the calculator yourself or use the equations and concepts to build your own. The core point is that the current heat system can be improved with exponential heat decay, not that these inputs are set in stone.

Q: Won't this make hot builds more forgiving?

A: Yes, but it will also make cool builds LESS forgiving, as any amount of heat generated would spike your levels up significantly.

Q: Is this just a big post to complain about ghost heat?

A: No. While I dislike ghost heat for violating the First Law of Thermodynamics, this post presents an alternative to the core MWO heat system on which ghost heat was based.
Yes I know it is a game, but this is science fiction, not fantasy, and any in game mechanic should be an approximation of physics or at the very least have some sort of grounding in it. On top of that, ghost heat is extremely unbalanced with regards to all the different weapon types, makes no sense mathematically (linearly or exponentially), and is largely unnecessary. Oh and something about the Second Law too...

Q: The current MWO heat scale has a dissipation rating of BT Tabletop - 1 heat point per heat sink in 10seconds. And of course because of real time, it has the threshold value (that causes problems and is the reason for Ghost Heat) - wouldn't be the often suggested lower heat cap - higher dissipation + heat scale penalties have the same or better effect as an exponential decay?

A: In the higher register it would be very similar to exponential decay but it still differs on a couple key points.

1.) Double heat sinks are truly double (not 1.4) and the difference in effectiveness between 10 single heat sinks and 10 double heat sinks is much lower. Remember they said doubles would never be true doubles outside of the engine because that would make mechs cool down too fast.

2.) Firing low heat level weapons or firing a single high heat weapon with a lot of heat sinks barely makes a blip on MWO's heat scale simply because the linear equation is a function of heat sinks and time. The exponential equation also factors in current heat level making any heat generation weapon actually generate heat. Remember they made the CERLL hotter because it barely registered on most Dire Wolf builds with lot of heat sinks. (See also condition 23)

Additionally, Jump Jets would create heat instead of slowing the rate of decay, flamers could and would behave differently...

3.) Heat at low levels would take a fair (but reasonable) amount of time to dissipate. That means if you had an instant alpha strike heat value equal to your effective heat sinks, you would still not be able to fire safely until it dropped almost all the way down. With a higher linear sink rate you could fire a lot more often. (I say instant meaning PPC or AC20. Because lasers generate all their heat over the course of their exposure time the max alpha heat level would be a little less).



Q: Exponential means also it will hardly reach zero right?

A: It depends on the exponential function. In my model I rounded to zero once the heat level reached 0.49, which does not take quite as long as you might think - it is usually only a little longer than it would take to bleed the heat linearly. Therin lies the price of firing alphas that put you at 100% heat.

Excel macro and calculator

Spoiler

In case the download link gets remove (or does not work for you) you can set up your own version of this calculator in an *.xlsm file in Excel 2007+
Download Heat Calculator.xlsm

Instructions

Spoiler

This will walk you through the dialogue boxes in the calculator. The calculator also supports a conversion to SI units for reactor temp (add to whatever the actual reactor temp is) and cockpit temp (add to whatever the life support temp is). The option for SI units is not extensively tested or even used in my examples so I did not include it in the instructions. Simply click 'yes' and enter the BT heat to SI multipliers you want to use. The curves of the graphs will be the same no matter what.

Worksheet setup

Spoiler

If you do not download the workbook and instead wish to set up your own spreadsheet to use the macro, set up these two columns like this:

VBA code

Spoiler

Enter this into a module and link to a button.

Public Declare Sub Sleep Lib "kernel32" (ByVal dwmilliseconds As Long)
 
 
Sub heat()
Dim Q As Variant, time As Variant, seconds As Single, k As Variant, A As Variant, Th As Variant, Tc As Variant, d As Variant, _
kC1 As Variant, kC2 As Variant, kMod As Variant, HS As Variant, eHS As Variant, dhs_mult As Variant, Qmax As Single
Dim dHdTt As Variant, dT As Variant, dHdT As Variant, T As Variant, E As Variant, hsClass As Variant
Dim message As Variant, size As Variant, SI As Integer
Dim ambC As Variant, ambExt As Variant, ambInt As Variant, Hh_m As Variant, Hh_p As Variant
Dim basemax As Variant, maxH As Variant
Dim HSmult As Single, MassMult As Single, globalCon As Single, hsmUb As Variant, hsmLb As Variant, mmUb As Variant, mmLb As Variant
Dim threshold As Variant, series As Variant, index As Integer
Dim ws As Worksheet
Dim dh_shi As Single, t_shi As Single, d_shi As Single, h_shi As Single, rg_shi As Single, rt_shi As Single, hd_shi As Single
Dim x As Integer, y As Integer, last As Integer, i1 As Integer, i2 As Integer
Dim Tpgi As Variant, timepgi As Variant
Dim envMod As Single, envMult As Single, lCon As Single, inpt As Variant
 
Set ws = ActiveSheet
 
Q = ws.Range("B4")
tInterval = ws.Range("B5")
k = ws.Range("B6")
A = ws.Range("B7")
Th = ws.Range("B8")
Tc = ws.Range("B9")
d = ws.Range("B10")
kC1 = ws.Range("B11")
kC2 = ws.Range("B12")
kMod = ws.Range("B13")
HS = ws.Range("B14")
hsClass = ws.Range("B15")
dhs_mult = ws.Range("B16")
Hh_m = ws.Range("B17")
Hh_p = ws.Range("B18")
threshold = ws.Range("B19")
size = ws.Range("B20")
basemax = ws.Range("B21")
globalCon = ws.Range("B22")
hsmLb = ws.Range("B23")
hsmUb = ws.Range("B24")
mmLb = ws.Range("B25")
mmUb = ws.Range("B26")
 
 
t_shi = ws.Range("B29")
d_shi = ws.Range("B30")
h_shi = ws.Range("B31")
rg_shi = ws.Range("B32")
rt_shi = ws.Range("B33")
hd_shi = ws.Range("B34")
 
 
envMod = ws.Range("B36")
envMult = ws.Range("B37")
lCon = ws.Range("B38")
 
series = InputBox("Set dataset to modify by entering 1, 2, or 3", , "1")
If series <> 1 And series <> 2 And series <> 3 Then
	Exit Sub
End If
 
message = MsgBox("Use SI units (Yes) or BT units (No) for heat.", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then
	SI = 1
	Hh_m = InputBox("Input ratio of m heat to bt heat", , Hh_m)
	Hh_p = InputBox("Input ratio of p heat to m heat in the form _:1", , Hh_p) 'extra
End If
 
HS = InputBox("Set number of heat sinks", , HS)
If HS = 0 Or HS = "" Then
	Exit Sub
End If
 
message = MsgBox("Are these DHS?", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then '6 = yes, 7 = no
	hsClass = "double"
	dhs_mult = InputBox("Set DHS multiplier for SHS", , dhs_mult)
	message = MsgBox("Use true DHS for internal? (else use DHS multiplier you just input)", vbYesNo)
	If message = vbYes Then
		 eHS = (HS - 10) * dhs_mult + 20
	Else
		 eHS = dhs_mult * HS
	End If
	ws.Range("B15") = "double"
Else
	hsClass = "single"
	eHS = HS
	ws.Range("B15") = "single"
End If
 
maxH = basemax + eHS
message = MsgBox("Set initial heat? (no = use default)", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then
	maxH = InputBox("Enter initial heat (unitless)", , maxH)
End If
 
Th = maxH
HSmult = -0.0088 * eHS + 1.0882
MassMult = -0.00375 * size + 1.275
 
 
size = InputBox("Input mass in 5t interval from 20 to 100", , size)
size = Application.WorksheetFunction.Round(size / 5, 0) * 5
 
If size < 20 Or mass > 100 Then
	MsgBox "Wrong mass size", vbCritical
	Exit Sub
End If
 
 
message = MsgBox("Modify any other values?" & vbNewLine & "See left side of worksheet", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then
 
'Th = InputBox("Set initial heat level (unitless)", , Th)
 
Tc = InputBox("Set final heat level (unitless)", , Tc)
 
threshold = InputBox("Set proximity threshold to stop simulation." & vbNewLine & "Will stop when within X units of final level", , threshold)
 
 
message = MsgBox("Do you wish to modify formula variables?", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then
	'Q = InputBox("Set Q (heat transfer rate)", , Q)
	k = InputBox("Set k (material constant, steel ~~ 50)" & vbNewLine & "This affects the modified HS k", , k)
	A = InputBox("Set A (surface area m^2)", , A)
	tInterval = InputBox("Set time interval for plotting graph.", , tInterval)
	d = InputBox("Set standard material diameter (1m approximated)", , d)
End If
 
 
 
 
'HSmult = -0.0088 * eHS + 1.0882
'MassMult = -0.00375 * size + 1.275
 
globalCon = InputBox("Set global conductivity", , globalCon)
message = MsgBox("Change local conditions?", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then
	inpt = InputBox("Set local conductivity", , lCon)
	lCon = inpt
	inpt = InputBox("Set temperature offset (unitless)", , envMod)
	envMod = inpt
	inpt = InputBox("Set quirk modifier (decimal percent)", , envMult)
	envMult = inpt
End If
 
message = MsgBox("Change multipliers?", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then
	message = MsgBox("Use formula for HS inputs? (No = input value)", vbYesNo)
	If message = vbYes Then
		hsmLb = InputBox("Set value for max (44) eHS", , hsmLb)
		hsmUb = InputBox("Set value for min (10) eHS", , hsmUb)
	Else
		HSmult = InputBox("Set HS multiplier." & vbNewLine & "Default = " & hsmUb & _
			" for 10 eHS, " & hsmLb & " for 44 eHS", , HSmult)
	End If
	message = MsgBox("Use formula for mass inputs? (No = input value)", vbYesNo)
	If message = vbYes Then
		mmLb = InputBox("Set value for max t (100)t", , mmLb)
		mmUb = InputBox("Set value for min t (20)t", , mmUb)
	Else
		MassMult = InputBox("Set size multiplier." & vbNewLine & "Default = " & mmUb & " for 20t," _
			& mmLb & " for 100t", , MassMult)
	End If
End If
 
 
message = MsgBox("Add secondary heat increase (SHI)?", vbYesNo)
If message = vbYes Then
	t_shi = InputBox("Input time of SHI (in s)", , t_shi)
	d_shi = InputBox("Input duration of SHI (in s)", , d_shi)
	h_shi = InputBox("Input final size of SHI (in unitless form)", , h_shi)
	rt_shi = InputBox("Input number of times to repeat SHI", , rt_shi)
	rg_shi = InputBox("Input time gap between repeating SHI (in s)", , rg_shi)
	hd_shi = InputBox("Input adjusted cooling temperature (in unitless form)", , hd_shi)
	If d_shi > 0 Then
		dh_shi = h_shi / d_shi
		dh_shi = dh_shi / tInterval
	Else
		dh_shi = 0
	End If
Else
	t_shi = 0
	d_shi = 0
	h_shi = 0
	dh_shi = 0
End If
 
End If
 
 
If d_shi < tInterval Then
	d_shi = tInterval
End If
dh_shi = h_shi / d_shi
dh_shi = dh_shi * tInterval
 
HSmult = hsmLb - (hsmLb - hsmUb) / (44 - 10) * (eHS - 10) 'interpolate
MassMult = mmLb - (mmLb - mmUb) / (100 - 20) * (size - 20) 'interpolate
kMod = (k + eHS * kC1 + kC2 / eHS) * HSmult * MassMult * globalCon 'modified K value for HS
Tc = (Tc + envMod) * envMult * lCon
hd_shi = Tc + hd_shi
 
i1 = 0
i2 = 0
seconds = 0
index = 0
ReDim T(0 To index)
ReDim time(0 To index)
ReDim Tpgi(0 To index)
ReDim timepgi(0 To index)
T(0) = Th
time(0) = 0
Tpgi(0) = Th
 
While T(index) > threshold Or i2 <= rt_shi
 
	seconds = Application.WorksheetFunction.Round(seconds + tInterval, 2)
	index = index + 1
	ReDim Preserve T(0 To index)
	ReDim Preserve time(0 To index)
	ReDim Preserve Tpgi(0 To index)
	time(index) = seconds
  
	Q = (kMod * A * (T(index - 1) - Tc) / d) * (tInterval)
	If Qmax < Q Then
		Qmax = Q
	End If
  
  
	If seconds >= t_shi And seconds < t_shi + d_shi Then
  
		T(index) = T(index - 1) + dh_shi
		Tpgi(index) = Tpgi(index - 1) + dh_shi
		'dHdT = dHdT + dh_shi
		Q = (kMod * A * (T(index) - hd_shi) / d) * (tInterval)
		'Count = Count + 1
		T(index) = T(index) - (Q * 0.000526565076466)
		Tpgi(index) = Tpgi(index) - (eHS / 10) * tInterval
		i1 = i1 + 1
	Else
		T(index) = T(index - 1) - (Q * 0.000526565076466) 'coefficient for energy to temperature
		Tpgi(index) = Tpgi(index - 1) - (eHS / 10) * tInterval
	End If
  
	If T(index) < 0 Then
		T(index) = 0
	End If
	If Tpgi(index) < 0 Then
		Tpgi(index) = 0
	End If
  
  
	If i1 >= 1 And seconds >= t_shi + d_shi - tInterval And i2 < rt_shi Then 'trigger repeat
		t_shi = t_shi + rg_shi
		i1 = 1
		i2 = i2 + 1
	End If
  
	If i1 >= 1 And seconds >= t_shi + d_shi And i2 <= rt_shi Then 'trigger wend
		i2 = i2 + 1
	End If
  
	If seconds > 30 Then
		GoTo printSeries
	End If
  
	'Application.Wait (Now + timealue("00:00:01"))
Wend
 
 
printSeries:
 
 
If series = 3 Then
	x = 25
	y = 6
ElseIf series = 2 Then
	x = 15
	y = 6
Else
	x = 5
	y = 6
End If
ws.Cells(y - 2, x + 1) = HSmult
ws.Cells(y - 2, x + 2) = MassMult
ws.Cells(y - 2, x + 3) = globalCon
ws.Cells(y - 4, x + 1) = size
ws.Cells(y - 4, x + 2) = eHS
ws.Cells(y - 4, x + 3) = kMod
ws.Cells(y - 4, x + 4) = Qmax
 
last = ws.Cells(Rows.Count, x).End(xlUp).Row
 
ws.Range(Cells(y, x), Cells(last, x + 8)).ClearContents
 
For index = 0 To UBound(time)
 
	ws.Cells(y, x) = time(index)
	If SI = 1 Then
		ws.Cells(y, x + 1) = T(index) * Hh_p
	Else
		Hh_m = 1
	End If
	ws.Cells(y, x + 2) = T(index) * Hh_m
	On Error Resume Next
	ws.Cells(y, x + 3) = (T(index) * Hh_m - ws.Cells(y - 1, x + 2)) 'manually find dHdT to prevent subscript error
	ws.Cells(y, x + 4) = (T(index)) / (basemax + eHS) * 100 'percentage
  
	ws.Cells(y, x + 6) = Tpgi(index) * Hh_m
	ws.Cells(y, x + 7) = Tpgi(index) - ws.Cells(y - 1, x + 6) * Hh_m 'dH/dT
	ws.Cells(y, x + 8) = Tpgi(index) / (30 + eHS) * 100 'percentage
  
	y = y + 1
	'Sleep (tInterval * 800) 'milliseconds 'to simulate real time graphing - takes a long time for hot setups
 
Next
 
End Sub

==============
This looks like a lot but the actual heat calculation was really simple. The rest is just fluff so it works in excel. Yes I know the code can be improved in a lot of ways but it works for its purpose.

Heat Penalties

Spoiler

This section is peripheral to the main argument. Enough people have been talking about TT penalties that I thought I should add it in here.
Both the linear and exponential models would benefit from more advanced penalties for running hot, though they would have to be scaled very differently.

Based on the example given by Praetor Knight, I have come up with a heat penalty scale that I believe would integrate well with exponential heat decay.
Again, this is all speculation and none of it is necessary for the implementation of the exponential model. We would really need to try it out to see how it should be adjusted.




Since a mech in TT can gain and bleed heat equal to its effective heat sinks in a single turn without any penalties, I decided that a mech using this scale should be able to reach an arbitrary heat level (I picked 60%) before the penalties start. Really it is more like 65% but regardless it seemed like a good place to start. Critical penalties (damage, ammo explosion) would be rolled once every 0.75 seconds, allowing time for mechwarriors to manually shut down their mech, flush coolant, or let the mech cool naturally.
A shutdown timer would appear when your mech is in danger of damaging itself. If this is overridden, a second timer will appear at 100 percent in which case the mech would shut down before it can take damage over 100% heat.
Any mech being over 100% heat would have to take severe amounts of damage, maybe 5% of max health per second per component?

To allow mechs to cool and to prevent extreme flamer trolling and deaths, a shutdown mech could cool 1.5x or 2x as fast. [[Although if the heat sinks are heat exchangers, wouldn't they not be on anymore? Oh well. Balance is certainly more important here.]]

All of this can be adjusted and is open to speculation as it does not directly affect the exponential model (or need thereof). We would really have to test the model first hand to be able to say what is necessary.

I hope this is error-free. I will do my best to correct any mistakes I have made as soon as I can.
I am going away this weekend so I will answer any questions when I return.
Thank you for reading.

Edited by Ancient Demise, 14 October 2014 - 01:11 PM.

[Lucky Moniker]

I really do like the idea and the concept and feel like this would be a massive improvement, the only issue i see is that it looks a little too forgiving at times with the high heat situations, but it does trade that in for other situations.
Overall it makes more sense, it is easier to understand, and appears to be a lot more balanced.

[IceWeasel]

I'm sure there are some values to be tweaked or some misc values to add into the math for "quirks" for some mechs like the Nova/Awesome to better put it in it's stock role. maybe even a cooling bonus for moving at top speed, (air over the radiator) type thing. Meaning the penatly to shutting down is maybe you actually cool slower or take more damage if you foolishly shut down in lava. Maybe running quickens the back/low end of the heat curve only making it not something that affects the running at high heat alpha stike red line,

I sent you a private PM with some stuff that wasn't coherent enough for posting here and making an idiot of myself :-)

[Calamus]

Completely agree with this. I'm not the greatest at the math, but what I saw in the OP looks good, and looks MUCH more balanced than the current band-aid heat situation.

The current method is flawed, and because it's flawed it has been bandaided, and it regularly impedes enjoyment of the game, and requires several goofy fixes and ideas, like ghost heat.

I fully support this idea.

[Cimarb]

There are lots of issues with the current system, but one of the biggest ones is "complexity for no reason".

The ghost heat penalty for too many SRM2s is WAY different than the ghost heat penalty for too many AC20s, and some "similar" weapons are combined (lasers and pulse lasers, for instance), while others are not (ACs and UACs, for instance). There is virtually no way for a new player, or even a veteran that has not been regularly reading the forums, to know what firing "X" combination is going to do without actually doing it - which in the case of a brand new Nova pilot means a horrible first experience with it...

My main issue with the heat system, though, is not necessarily the linear/exponential one, but the penalty, or lack thereof, for "riding the line". The current "fire until you shutdown" system is horrible. A proper heat scale, with incremental penalties such as targeting quirks (I.e. visual steam/static to represent penalties to hit), movement penalties as joints get too hot, and ammo explosion chances, will make the whole heat scale matter, instead of just having an "all or shutdown" penalty like we currently have.

Here is a detailed listing, based off of the TT Heat Scale but modified in MWO terms...

Proposed Heat Scale

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• -10% acceleration, -10% top speed
  
• 
  
• 
  
• -10% torso yaw/pitch speed, -10% arm yaw/pitch speed
  
• 
  
• -20% acceleration, -20% top speed
  
• 
  
• 
  
• -20% torso yaw/pitch speed, -20% arm yaw/pitch speed
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove)
  
• -30% acceleration, -30% top speed
  
• 
  
• -30% torso yaw/pitch speed, -30% arm yaw/pitch speed, steam visible in cockpit
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove), slight internal damage
  
• 33% Ammo Explosion chance
  
• -40% acceleration, -40% top speed
  
• 
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove), moderate internal damage
  
• 50% Ammo Explosion chance
  
• -40% torso yaw/pitch speed, -40% arm yaw/pitch speed, steam and sparks visible in cockpit (obscures vision)
  
• -50% acceleration, -50% top speed
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove), heavy internal damage
  
• 
  
• 66% Ammo Explosion chance
  
• 
  
• HARD SHUTDOWN (override unavailable), heavy internal damage

Temporary penalties, such as movement and targeting ones, are removed as the heat moves back down the scale, but moving back down the scale does not continue giving chances for ammo explosion or shutdown. Alternatively, the ammo explosion chance could be for every second in that heat range, but be reduced in chance proportionally (so riding at the 19-23 range would be 10% chance per second, and 23-28 range would be 20% chance per second, etc.).

[CocoaJin]

Hold up, how many units of college credit do I get for reading this?

[IceWeasel]

Cimarb, on 05 September 2014 - 04:05 PM, said:

Here is a detailed listing, based off of the TT Heat Scale but modified in MWO terms...

Proposed Heat Scale

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• 
  
• -10% acceleration, -10% top speed
  
• 
  
• 
  
• -10% torso yaw/pitch speed, -10% arm yaw/pitch speed
  
• 
  
• -20% acceleration, -20% top speed
  
• 
  
• 
  
• -20% torso yaw/pitch speed, -20% arm yaw/pitch speed
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove)
  
• -30% acceleration, -30% top speed
  
• 
  
• -30% torso yaw/pitch speed, -30% arm yaw/pitch speed, steam visible in cockpit
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove), slight internal damage
  
• 33% Ammo Explosion chance
  
• -40% acceleration, -40% top speed
  
• 
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove), moderate internal damage
  
• 50% Ammo Explosion chance
  
• -40% torso yaw/pitch speed, -40% arm yaw/pitch speed, steam and sparks visible in cockpit (obscures vision)
  
• -50% acceleration, -50% top speed
  
• "soft" shutdown (press override button to remove), heavy internal damage
  
• 
  
• 66% Ammo Explosion chance
  
• 
  
• HARD SHUTDOWN (override unavailable), heavy internal damage

Temporary penalties, such as movement and targeting ones, are removed as the heat moves back down the scale, but moving back down the scale does not continue giving chances for ammo explosion or shutdown. Alternatively, the ammo explosion chance could be for every second in that heat range, but be reduced in chance proportionally (so riding at the 19-23 range would be 10% chance per second, and 23-28 range would be 20% chance per second, etc.).

I like these variations better then just a "shut down" "override" "tough we are shutting you down and you are going to melt"

BUT, i do think there is a little to much in there. I would opt for 3 levels "trouble" as you reach the point were you would need to overide, then 1 heat attribute after the overide, then the 5th or 6th level being un-overideable forced shut down untill well into "SAFE" heat levels. IE completely below any point where these penatlies would be attributed.

Level 1 Maxspeed reduced by 10%
level 2 Computer systems distruption (minor) flashing of HUD, lose target paper doll, and +50% time to require target information
Level 3 Shaky arm actuators (shake as if using jump jets (or some % of convergence penalty)
Level 4 Computer systems disruptions (major) AMS disabled to protect it self, ECM Disabled to Protect itself, Bap disabled to protect it self, Zero Target data available (Can still see even and friendly doritos as if being disrupted by enemy ECM
Level 5 first overide threshold, slight internal damage. some precentage of max 1/4 of avaiblibe ammo expol
Level 6 second overide, but still 66% Ammo Explosion chance
Level 7 HARD SHUTDOWN (override unavailable), heavy internal damage

I know these are not TT like what you posted but i think these make a little more sense interms of hte 1st person Sim that MWO is. This allows for the ability to still potentially "brawl blindly" and rely on pilot skill when the systems that don't require pilot "skill" shut down or are disrupted for long range attacks (targeting systems, etc) If you still remember where that enemy was damaged great, but your systems arn't going to help you know because you're abusing them :-). I feel like this mimic a level of real life where modern vehicals and computers will turn systems off, lessing Graphics power, run engines below max HP, etc when internal problems are detected, to protect themselves from permanent damage.

[The Massive]

Judging by you're graphs your system looks too forgiving. This strikes me as another 'I don't like ghost heat waaaaaaah!' post.

Heat needs to be a issue in this game. From a lore aspect, balance aspect and game play aspect it needs to be something the pilot learns how to manage.

Sorry. No from me.

[Fire and Salt]

Exponential decay rewards you for running hot. Most people think that there need to be more penalties or running hot, not less. (I think it is generally OK as-is)



Also, 'mech heat sinks are not passive finned coolers, despite the misleading name. They are actually heat pumps. They have more in common with an air-conditioners than they do with a passive finned cooler.

The formula you posted appears to be calculating delta by using the difference between the mechs temperature and the ambient temperature. This is correct for a passive finned cooler, but it is not correct for a heat pump system as in MWO.




Additionally, your post is self-righteous crap. You spend multiple paragraphs apologizing for how long your post is, and pre-emptively calling people useless.

Also, it is presumptuously titled, as not all of us would agree that there is a "Heat Problem" at all.

I could have said everything you said with half as much text. This is the internet, YOU have a responsibility to be concise, so as to not waste our time.


--


One thing I do agree with is the fact that a full penalty at .49s vs. no penalty at .51s rewards macros.

However, this could be resolved by using a system that fades the penalty out over 1 second, rather than making it disappear completely after .5 seconds.

Ex: Heat penalty set at 2, means that 2 weapons are GRADUALLY subtracted from the penalty total every 1s

Fire 2 PPCs - afterwards, you can fire:
1 more after .5 secs with no penalty
-OR-
2 more after a full second with no penalty
-OR-
1 more after .49 seconds with a penalty appropriate for firing 2.02 PPCs (barely a penalty since the penalty starts at 2)
-OR-
1 more after .25 seconds with a penalty appropriate for firing 2.5 PPCs (still not as bad as the current penalty you would face, which would be for 3 PPCs.)
-OR-
2 more after .5 seconds with a penalty appropriate for firing 3 PPCs (currently there would be no penalty for this)

As you can see in my examples, some cases offer higher penalties in the current system, and some offer higher penalties in my system. The overall effect is similar, but my system completely removes any huge jump that you experience for accidentally firing .01 seconds too soon.

The current system also encourages using multiples of the penalty number - ex: 2PPCs or 4PPCs. My system gives a little benefit to the unloved 3PPC 'mech by allowing said 'mech to fire his 3rd PPC without penalty after a shorter wait than a 4 PPC 'mech would need to wait to fire his 3rd and 4th together.

Tracking the penalty values as floating point numbers would be slower, unfortunately. As a programmer, I would suggest using integers as a fixed point representation. Basically, 10,000 = 1 or something similar. Unfortunately, you would still have to decrement the penalty count multiple times, as opposed to just once at .5 seconds.
Every .1 seconds might be the best trade-off between smoothness and calculation speed.

If you fired after .49 seconds, it would be just as bad as firing after .40 seconds.
Still, better the the current system, where .49 seconds is as bad as 0 seconds AKA firing at the exact same time.

Allow me to refine my PPC example for this contingency:

1 more after .40 - .49 seconds with a penalty appropriate for firing 2.2 PPCs (still, barely a penalty since the penalty starts at 2)

Edited by Fire and Salt, 06 September 2014 - 07:28 AM.

[Ancient Demise]

IceWeasel, on 05 September 2014 - 08:26 PM, said:

I like these variations better then just a "shut down" "override" "tough we are shutting you down and you are going to melt"

BUT, i do think there is a little to much in there. I would opt for 3 levels "trouble" as you reach the point were you would need to overide, then 1 heat attribute after the overide, then the 5th or 6th level being un-overideable forced shut down untill well into "SAFE" heat levels. IE completely below any point where these penatlies would be attributed.

Level 1 Maxspeed reduced by 10%
level 2 Computer systems distruption (minor) flashing of HUD, lose target paper doll, and +50% time to require target information
Level 3 Shaky arm actuators (shake as if using jump jets (or some % of convergence penalty)
Level 4 Computer systems disruptions (major) AMS disabled to protect it self, ECM Disabled to Protect itself, Bap disabled to protect it self, Zero Target data available (Can still see even and friendly doritos as if being disrupted by enemy ECM
Level 5 first overide threshold, slight internal damage. some precentage of max 1/4 of avaiblibe ammo expol
Level 6 second overide, but still 66% Ammo Explosion chance
Level 7 HARD SHUTDOWN (override unavailable), heavy internal damage

I know these are not TT like what you posted but i think these make a little more sense interms of hte 1st person Sim that MWO is. This allows for the ability to still potentially "brawl blindly" and rely on pilot skill when the systems that don't require pilot "skill" shut down or are disrupted for long range attacks (targeting systems, etc) If you still remember where that enemy was damaged great, but your systems arn't going to help you know because you're abusing them :-). I feel like this mimic a level of real life where modern vehicals and computers will turn systems off, lessing Graphics power, run engines below max HP, etc when internal problems are detected, to protect themselves from permanent damage.

I think this should start between 50 and 80%, leaving plenty of room to fire weapons periodically and prevent these problems.
Maybe make the penalties increase exponentially as well, further penalizing mechs that run too close to the max heat level.

Maccasimus, on 05 September 2014 - 11:09 PM, said:

Judging by you're graphs your system looks too forgiving. This strikes me as another 'I don't like ghost heat waaaaaaah!' post.

Heat needs to be a issue in this game. From a lore aspect, balance aspect and game play aspect it needs to be something the pilot learns how to manage.

Sorry. No from me.

Heat can still be an issue in this game. You build mechs to be efficient in both heat generation and firepower. An excessive amount of heat sinks will decrease the amount of pod space and tonnage for weapons. Too little heat sinks and too many weapons will make you prone to overheating all the same. This is a closer approximation to lore by allowing stock SHS builds to keep up with the weapons they fire and their DHS counterparts. (i.e. stock awesome 3Q and stock warhawk prime). The alternative would be to double weapon cycle times so that they are normalized to the "10 second turn" but I though improving the heat system would be a more likable solution.

Penalties such as those listed above can add penalties as well. I think they should make little sense to the physical world in a scifi game without the need to add imaginary heat sources.

Fire and Salt, on 06 September 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Exponential decay rewards you for running hot. Most people think that there need to be more penalties or running hot, not less. (I think it is generally OK as-is)



Also, 'mech heat sinks are not passive finned coolers, despite the misleading name. They are actually heat pumps. They have more in common with an air-conditioners than they do with a passive finned cooler.

The formula you posted appears to be calculating delta by using the difference between the mechs temperature and the ambient temperature. This is correct for a passive finned cooler, but it is not correct for a heat pump system as in MWO.

Yes, you are absolutely right about mech heat sinks. However, I am considering the transfer of heat from the weapons to the heat pumps that run through the mech, which is still an issue of thermal conductivity. Assume that the heat sinks themselves are effectively superconductors at zero BT heat units. We are looking at how quickly the heat transfers to the heat pumps (quicker for more because more heat "sinks" means more volume can "hold" and dissipate heat) without having to deal with the coefficient of performance (less % the smaller the temperature difference) from the ideal Carnot cycle. We could add in the transfer of heat in such pumps but that is another level of complexity. It is simpler to look at the mech (minus the heat sinks) as a single control volume.

Yes I know I added a global and local conductivity factor - The global at 0.75 is to adjust the formula easily and 0.75 seemed to fit the best to me. The local at 1 does nothing but could improve heat performance in water where the conductivity is higher.

Fire and Salt, on 06 September 2014 - 07:17 AM, said:

Additionally, your post is self-righteous crap. You spend multiple paragraphs apologizing for how long your post is, and pre-emptively calling people useless.

Also, it is presumptuously titled, as not all of us would agree that there is a "Heat Problem" at all.

I could have said everything you said with half as much text. This is the internet, YOU have a responsibility to be concise, so as to not waste our time.

I do seriously apologize if I come off self-righteous. The premise of the post and suggestion is that there IS indeed a problem with the current system. The fact that we see many quick fixes to weapon heat and the implementation of the ghost heat 'fix' itself implies that the system was inherently flawed, at least to some extent.

People should take this poll seriously as it is a suggestion instead of saying NOPE and never coming back, which happens all too often. To do so would generate no discussion, address no concern, and simply have no use to anyone aside from giving the poll a flawed result.

I gave a number of different examples to support my claim. I tried not to be redundant and do not think I was but I also only proofread it once. Just because you can understand everything in half the words does not mean I should skip the other half.

It is the internet and you can hate me for whatever reason you want. All I ask is you say why

Edited by Ancient Demise, 07 September 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[Darth Futuza]

I have a feeling that even if this were implemented it would realistically take at least 1-2 years to be implemented and get the bugs kinked out...so to me it isn't really worth it.

[Cimarb]

Ancient Demise, on 07 September 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

I think this should start between 50 and 80%, leaving plenty of room to fire weapons periodically and prevent these problems.
Maybe make the penalties increase exponentially as well, further penalizing mechs that run too close to the max heat level.

My scale was based off of the TT system, of course, which starts out at 1 OVER the heat threshold of 30, so it would start at 31 heat technically.

Where it starts, and how quickly it ramps up, are all negotiable, but the point is to have little/no penalties for low heat and increasing penalties as the heat rises. This will add an immense amount of skill to the game, but in a very simple, logical way. i.e. the whole "thinking man's shooter".

[Tarl Cabot]

2 credit units.

But as previously posted, regardless what formula is used for heat cap and heat dissipation, with more of the battletech foundation for dynamic changing heat values (engine crits or side Clan XL engine destroyed) and varying heat effects on how a mech performs as the value increases, any changes would be more cosmetic than anything else.

[Ancient Demise]

Remember that while this system makes hot builds (and coincidentally stock builds) more heat efficient, it also makes cool builds LESS forgiving as any amount of heat generated would spike your levels up significantly. All while limiting your frequency to alpha strike.

Cimarb, on 07 September 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

My scale was based off of the TT system, of course, which starts out at 1 OVER the heat threshold of 30, so it would start at 31 heat technically.

Where it starts, and how quickly it ramps up, are all negotiable, but the point is to have little/no penalties for low heat and increasing penalties as the heat rises. This will add an immense amount of skill to the game, but in a very simple, logical way. i.e. the whole "thinking man's shooter".

I agree that there should be more penalties to running hot other than random components exploding and low torso damage.
I do not think the 30 heat threshold has a place in this model, however. A max heat significantly above any alpha strike heat level would indeed make this too forgiving for hot mechs. Starting the penalties at 50-80% of max heat would make any pilot think twice about firing again while still having the limiting effect on alpha strikes. A small (flat) increase to the max heat level may be acceptable but it would have to be tested in game.


As for the feasibility of implementation, I honestly do not think it would be too bad. Unless the code for the heat system is scattered with each segment pretty isolated, you could simply change the core equation and add a few variables for tweaking.
The bugs that they would have to work out are the same bugs they have now - inconsistent HPS values and deciding what they want to do about whatever is meta. The formula itself can be tweaked slightly over the coming months but I do not believe it would require any major changes. At the very least they can implement and test it on the Public Test Server. For Science!

[Lefty Lucy]

Cimarb, on 07 September 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

My scale was based off of the TT system, of course, which starts out at 1 OVER the heat threshold of 30, so it would start at 31 heat technically.

Where it starts, and how quickly it ramps up, are all negotiable, but the point is to have little/no penalties for low heat and increasing penalties as the heat rises. This will add an immense amount of skill to the game, but in a very simple, logical way. i.e. the whole "thinking man's shooter".

You should not be quoting TT rules if you do not know them.

You only start moving up the scale if you spend more heat than your total heat sinks (or 2*total heat sinks if DHS are equipped).

So for a mech with 22 SHS you could fire 2 PPCs indefinitely without touching the scale, you'd need to fire 2 PPCs and a medium laser (or jump 3 hexes) to gain one point on the scale. For a mech with 22 DHS you can fire 4 PPCs and a medium laser without ever accruing any penalties at all (barring heat from movement or engine damage), giving an effective "heat threshold" of 44 heat per turn.

[Cimarb]

Lefty Lucy, on 09 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

You should not be quoting TT rules if you do not know them.

You only start moving up the scale if you spend more heat than your total heat sinks (or 2*total heat sinks if DHS are equipped).

So for a mech with 22 SHS you could fire 2 PPCs indefinitely without touching the scale, you'd need to fire 2 PPCs and a medium laser (or jump 3 hexes) to gain one point on the scale. For a mech with 22 DHS you can fire 4 PPCs and a medium laser without ever accruing any penalties at all (barring heat from movement or engine damage), giving an effective "heat threshold" of 44 heat per turn.

I stand corrected due to poor phrasing. The heat scale goes up to 30, and anything beyond your eHS is added to that scale, with anything beyond that 30 just adding to the time you are shutdown. I just gave a 30-point eHS.

Regardless, what I said is still valid. It has been 20+ years since I have played TT, so is there anything else that needs corrected, or can we go back to discussing ideas again?

[Ancient Demise]

Lefty Lucy, on 09 September 2014 - 09:51 AM, said:

You only start moving up the scale if you spend more heat than your total heat sinks (or 2*total heat sinks if DHS are equipped).

So for a mech with 22 SHS you could fire 2 PPCs indefinitely without touching the scale, you'd need to fire 2 PPCs and a medium laser (or jump 3 hexes) to gain one point on the scale. For a mech with 22 DHS you can fire 4 PPCs and a medium laser without ever accruing any penalties at all (barring heat from movement or engine damage), giving an effective "heat threshold" of 44 heat per turn.

This is exactly what I had in mind when I started this. The current heat model allows for stock builds without any of the heat benefits that stock builds have. In fact, in most cases stock TT builds are now penalized. Take the K2 for example. It should be able to fire those 2 ppcs without too much trouble, but instead overheats very quickly. Even with 20 DHS it is still very hot.
With a heat sink:generation ratio at 1:1 you should be able to run pretty warm (or even red-line it) without overheating critically, as that is how many builds worked in TT (or why even bother with 10 SHS TT builds in the game?). The exponential function assists with the small low-damage weapons allowing you to re-fire a couple without immediately overheating. (The alternative would be to make every weapon fire only once every 10 seconds )

Inefficiencies and environments would change this a little, as well as movement. I would be hesitant to add a heat penalty for walking, however, as that could encourage more hill sniping for maximum effect.

Because of the nature of the exponential function, having a max heat that includes the 30 extra in TT would allow nearly every mech to alpha strike indefinitely. If there is a system of heat penalties in this model it should be added at the higher levels of the proposed variable heat capacity, not above it.

[Loganauer]

This is much more complicated than it needs to be. A better solution would be for cone of fire spread, heat penalties, heat cap reduced to range between 30 and 50, drastically improved dissipation with dissipation slowing as you approach thermal equilibrium with heat sinks (encouraging heat neutrality)

That is a much simpler solution to ghost heat.

[Ancient Demise]

Loganauer, on 10 September 2014 - 02:13 PM, said:

This is much more complicated than it needs to be. A better solution would be for cone of fire spread, heat penalties, heat cap reduced to range between 30 and 50, drastically improved dissipation with dissipation slowing as you approach thermal equilibrium with heat sinks (encouraging heat neutrality)

That is a much simpler solution to ghost heat.

Unless I am completely misreading your post, this is exactly what this does (only difference is in heat cap). I just used physics to back my argument.

[Loganauer]

Ancient Demise, on 10 September 2014 - 06:04 PM, said:

Unless I am completely misreading your post, this is exactly what this does (only difference is in heat cap). I just used physics to back my argument.

Well, this is embarrassing. There isn't a summary, so I have to skip through a lot of math and charts and it looks like you're suggesting changes to the actual weapon systems which is entirely unnecessary (for this problem)