65 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

While the heat capacity being limited to 30 would definitely be a much better solution to energy heavy alphas. I think increasing heat on ammo-based weapons may be required to bring in all other weapons to ensure the game doesn't just switch to boating Ballistics or Missiles. I would also stand to see ammo counts to increase to account for the increased amount of firing during a game. 3 tons of Gauss ammo was more than enough in a TT game, but here that gets you the bare minimum and don't even get me started on missile ammo.

Though, I do think heat dissipation could stand to be increased following this sort of change and maybe give SHS a higher heat capacity (140% or greater) to makeup for the poor dissipation).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 September 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

Ammo is also a leftover part from TT that didn't even work very well there because the ammo count very much depends on the length of the battle. Would have been nice if everything was simply based on heat.

Zyllos, on 09 September 2014 - 01:00 PM, said:

It seems some here do not see that ghost heat was an attempt to reduce the amount of damage at a single moment for most weapons (Gauss Rifle gets around this, thus for the reason why you can't charge more than 2 at a time).

But the overall problem is a mismatch between MWO using the TT's Armor System (sectional armor locations) and MWO allowing weapons to all hit a single point when firing them together.

There is no combination of heat, cooldowns, damage, ect that can fix this problem as the Armor System is expecting damage to be spread on a target when firing.

This problem has existed for MUCH longer than MWO has been around. MW3 and MW4 had the exact same problems and we are seeing the exact same issues in MWO.

The only fix for this problem is to introduce some weapon spreading mechanic that makes sense for all sides to alleviate this issue.

Any type of weapon spread can be adjusted to and would still not spread in any way the same as in TT. In counter strike some players hit just fine despite weapon spread.
The only way to get the same spread as TT is to roll dice and that would not be fun.

Gyrok, on 09 September 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

We have roughly 2x the fire rate of TT, to keep that in line, I would say to make it a hard cap at 50 for DHS and make it 60 for SHS. Make DHS true DHS, and to make SHS viable, they have the slightly higher heat cap.

Thoughts?

Isn't the fire rate irrelevant if we are talking alpha damage?

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

While the heat capacity being limited to 30 would definitely be a much better solution to energy heavy alphas. I think increasing heat on ammo-based weapons may be required to bring in all other weapons to ensure the game doesn't just switch to boating Ballistics or Missiles.

Correct, but then there would be no benefit to being ammo based. You need something to out weigh the possibility of running out of ammo. Not that it wasn't a rotten balancing mechanic to begin with.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

Correct, but then there would be no benefit to being ammo based. You need something to out weigh the possibility of running out of ammo. Not that it wasn't a rotten balancing mechanic to begin with.

I didn't say they need to have heat increased to energy amounts, but a lot of issues with the Gauss Rifle early in this game's lifetime would've been solved if they had given it heat at least on par with the AC20.

They should have less heat than energy weapons, but they shouldn't be no heat weapons. If you keep ballistics as is and change the heat cap, the Dire Wolf can still put a lot of firepower downwind, and still maintain a huge advantage over IS assaults which you just indirectly nerfed because of their energy -> ammo based hardpoint ratio.

[Sybreed]

LauLiao, on 09 September 2014 - 12:39 PM, said:

The 30 limit of TT heat wasn't really comparable. If you hit 30 heat in TT, then chances are your mech shut down, your ammo exploded, and your pilot took damage. That 30 point chart was of penalties for going over your real "heat cap" which was determined by the number of heat sinks you had.

hmm good point, but we need a system that'd both prevent crazy alphas, permit neutral builds to exist and remove the need of ghost heat.

[Savage Wolf]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 01:19 PM, said:

I didn't say they need to have heat increased to energy amounts, but a lot of issues with the Gauss Rifle early in this game's lifetime would've been solved if they had given it heat at least on par with the AC20.

They should have less heat than energy weapons, but they shouldn't be no heat weapons. If you keep ballistics as is and change the heat cap, the Dire Wolf can still put a lot of firepower downwind, and still maintain a huge advantage over IS assaults which you just indirectly nerfed because of their energy -> ammo based hardpoint ratio.

True and I do indeed agree that many problems with Gauss is simply that is has almost no heat. But it also shows that you cannot solve the alpha problem with heat in any way as long as ballistics and missiles needs to have lower heat. Because then they would be superior.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

True and I do indeed agree that many problems with Gauss is simply that is has almost no heat. But it also shows that you cannot solve the alpha problem with heat in any way as long as ballistics and missiles needs to have lower heat. Because then they would be superior.

Not necessarily, considering the large tonnage and critical requirements generally limit that on their own.
Say the Gauss had its charge-up removed, but also had PPC level heat (Clan Gauss paying for it's lesser tonnage with being less heat efficient) do you really think that would be a problem? Same with the AC20/10s, the Annihilator sacrifices a lot just to mount 4 AC10s, a lot more than the quad Gauss Dire does, so I'd like to think that the real problem loadouts come from the performance outliers within those weapon types anyway.

To help prevent DPS weapons from either being overnerfed or overpowered, you could also introduce heat spread (which existed in MW4) where the heat generated by the weapon was actually spread out over a time period (and could actually be longer than the cooldown) meaning buildup was slower but you stayed in heat penalty area for a longer time.

Another thing to keep in mind is something that was modded into MW4 by a select few, dissipation was affected by your heat level so it lessened the time between being able to fire high heat weapons if you were able to ride the line.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 September 2014 - 01:44 PM.

[DrSlamastika]

I don care ybout ghost heat, just buff a speed of PPCs and bring back CLAN ER MEDIUM LASERS . . no this xxxx

My DWF is full of heatsinks and connot keep cool 6 lasers

Edited by DrSlamastika, 09 September 2014 - 01:40 PM.

[Zyllos]

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

Any type of weapon spread can be adjusted to and would still not spread in any way the same as in TT. In counter strike some players hit just fine despite weapon spread.
The only way to get the same spread as TT is to roll dice and that would not be fun.

This is anecdotal as the only thing in common between CS and MWO is that they are shooters.

Just because the spread can be compensated for in CS does not mean this will happen in MWO. Also, having just enough spread to hit side torsos will lead to an improvement in the PP damage.

The spread does not need to match exactly the TT to fix the problem, it isn't that black-and-white.

Edited by Zyllos, 09 September 2014 - 01:46 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

Not necessarily, considering the large tonnage and critical requirements generally limit that on their own.
Say the Gauss had its charge-up removed, but also had PPC level heat (Clan Gauss paying for it's lesser tonnage with being less heat efficient) do you really think that would be a problem? Same with the AC20/10s, the Annihilator sacrifices a lot just to mount 4 AC10s, a lot more than the quad Gauss Dire does, so I'd like to think that the real problem loadouts come from the performance outliers within those weapon types anyway.

But if ballistics have less heat per damage than energy as they have to be because of ammo dependancy and tonnage, then they would be able to do more damage before reaching the heat cap in an alpha than energy weapons would. It might require a Dire Wolf to do so, but in that case, everyone would want a Dire Wolf.
And a Gauss Rifle with PPC heat still does 5 damage more for the same heat. But yeah, it would help.

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 01:34 PM, said:

To help prevent DPS weapons from either being overnerfed or overpowered, you could also introduce heat spread (which existed in MW4) where the heat generated by the weapon was actually spread out over a time period (and could actually be longer than the cooldown) meaning buildup was slower but you stayed in heat penalty area for a longer time.

High DPS is a different problem than the alpha problem and the heat system is actually good for solving that, even if ammo dependancy still screws that a bit. But as I said, a different problem.

[AztecD]

30 Base heat
Make heatsinks work as intented [ Neutral builds available]
Have high heat effects kick in, i mean a 2 ERLL spider is still running at full speed and still hitting perfectly
Ammo should cook off and you should be able to "Dump Ammo"
ghost heat is just lazy and my 19DHS 2 PPC+1ML awesome is still not heat neutral

[Savage Wolf]

Why do people insist on using heat to solve this problem? Think outside the box.

Is it just because you don't want to break away from TT rules?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 02:02 PM, said:

Why do people insist on using heat to solve this problem? Think outside the box.

Is it just because you don't want to break away from TT rules?

It isn't so much people don't want to think outside the box, it is more that there are enough convoluted mechanics within this game and no one wants to see more added to solve a problem that could solve with an existing system. I love Homeless Bill's power suggestion, but at the same time, why can't heat be made to solve both high alphas AND high dps builds.

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

But if ballistics have less heat per damage than energy as they have to be because of ammo dependancy and tonnage, then they would be able to do more damage before reaching the heat cap in an alpha than energy weapons would. It might require a Dire Wolf to do so, but in that case, everyone would want a Dire Wolf.
And a Gauss Rifle with PPC heat still does 5 damage more for the same heat. But yeah, it would help.

Here is the big thing, in TT you will see the dominating weapon type slowly transfer from energy to missile/ballistic the heavier a mech go (there are always exceptions like the Awesome and Hellstar, but for the most part this could be considered true). There is a reason for that, simply put energy weapons have a low space/tonnage requirement initially as opposed to Ballistics and Missiles. The more energy weapons you slap on though, the less efficient adding more on becomes, where as Ballistics and Missiles are much more linear due to their relatively low heat.

The key here is keeping the efficiency of Energy vs Ammo dependent weapons in line. Before ghost heat, Energy weapons were king thanks to high heat thresholds and Stalkers and have been brought back with the Clans and the SCrow/Timby/Dire Whale builds. Ammo based weapons need to increase DPS/Alpha by a bit over energy weapon, but their tonnage/critical requirements keep this increase in check due to the low amount of Mechs that can take advantage of this efficiency (after all it comes with trade-offs). This also allows the lighter mechs to better compete with the damage output of the heavier mechs making them slightly more viable.

[Xanquil]

Simple fix.
1: All shots cause a .5 sec global cool down
2: Alpha strikes count as a single shot
2a: Alpha strikes scatter from pinpoint like SRMs/LB-X
2b: The more weapons fired the larger the spread.

This would not only get rid of ghost heat, it would also make the game much more like "a battletech game: than it is now. it would also go a long way towards making weapons a bit more balanced.

[Savage Wolf]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

It isn't so much people don't want to think outside the box, it is more that there are enough convoluted mechanics within this game and no one wants to see more added to solve a problem that could solve with an existing system. I love Homeless Bill's power suggestion, but at the same time, why can't heat be made to solve both high alphas AND high dps builds.

While I do agree that we hardly need more mechanics that complicates the game even further I see no other way. And so far it would replace one already present mechanic (Ghost heat) with another simpler one (Energy/Power). So in any case, an improvement.
And heat cannot solve the problem. As I mentioned earlier, it would either make energy weapons superior or inferior. Heat could only solve the problem if all weapons in the game was equally based on heat, unlike now where we have ballistics based on ammo and tonnage/space.
And I would love if they did that because that would certainly simplify mech building enourmously without really losing any depth. But that would change stock mechs which we cannot unfortunately.

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Here is the big thing, in TT you will see the dominating weapon type slowly transfer from energy to missile/ballistic the heavier a mech go (there are always exceptions like the Awesome and Hellstar, but for the most part this could be considered true). There is a reason for that, simply put energy weapons have a low space/tonnage requirement initially as opposed to Ballistics and Missiles. The more energy weapons you slap on though, the less efficient adding more on becomes, where as Ballistics and Missiles are much more linear due to their relatively low heat.

The key here is keeping the efficiency of Energy vs Ammo dependent weapons in line. Before ghost heat, Energy weapons were king thanks to high heat thresholds and Stalkers and have been brought back with the Clans and the SCrow/Timby/Dire Whale builds. Ammo based weapons need to increase DPS/Alpha by a bit over energy weapon, but their tonnage/critical requirements keep this increase in check due to the low amount of Mechs that can take advantage of this efficiency (after all it comes with trade-offs). This also allows the lighter mechs to better compete with the damage output of the heavier mechs making them slightly more viable.

But MWO does not even follow this curve in an attempt to make sure that assault mechs are just for all intents better as they were meant to be in TT. Thus why they cost more C-bills and/or BV. In MWO PGI has been smart enough to try close the gap between the potential of a light vs an assault. Making an AC20 not that much better than a medium laser that it used to. But still better.

And as you mentioned, we have assaults based on energy and some on ballistics. If not both types are relevant for assaults then some chassis will simply be trash.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 02:47 PM, said:

But MWO does not even follow this curve in an attempt to make sure that assault mechs are just for all intents better as they were meant to be in TT. Thus why they cost more C-bills and/or BV. In MWO PGI has been smart enough to try close the gap between the potential of a light vs an assault. Making an AC20 not that much better than a medium laser that it used to. But still better.

And as you mentioned, we have assaults based on energy and some on ballistics. If not both types are relevant for assaults then some chassis will simply be trash.

Actually MWO exacerbates the distance between lights and assaults. Otherwise people wouldn't hate mechs like the Preta, Viper, and Pixie because of their abuse of pulse and JJs and are worth more than their BV dictates however cheesy they may be. The only reason the curve suffers in MWO, is because of the heat curve being borked. The better Assaults in TT don't mount massive alphas, they have a more diverse loadout to be effective at all ranges. The Highlander IIC and Dire Wolf Prime are some of the best Clan Assaults for their BV and have very few weaknesses as opposed to Assaults like the Bane.

As for heat not being able to solve the problem, I doubt that and would love to see it at least attempted.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 September 2014 - 03:04 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

Actually MWO exacerbates the distance between lights and assaults. Otherwise people wouldn't hate mechs like the Preta, Viper, and Pixie because of their abuse of pulse and JJs and are worth more than their BV dictates however cheesy they may be. The only reason the curve suffers in MWO, is because of the heat curve being borked. The better Assaults in TT don't mount massive alphas, they have a more diverse loadout to be effective at all ranges. The Highlander IIC and Dire Wolf Prime are some of the best Clan Assaults for their BV and have very few weaknesses as opposed to Assaults like the Bane.

I have no doubt that it was not always the case in TT, but it was still their intent that the heavier mech was overall better than a lighter one. That's why they made the UrbanMech, because it was simply cheap so you could have more for the price of an Atlas.
And it's not working fully in MWO with their goal either. That's why mediums suffer so. But it's still better than if they hadn't tried. Then role warfare would be impossible (not that we aren't still waiting on that, but at least it could be done).

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 02:58 PM, said:

As for heat not being able to solve the problem, I doubt that and would love to see it at least attempted.

But they did. It's called ghost heat.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

I have no doubt that it was not always the case in TT, but it was still their intent that the heavier mech was overall better than a lighter one. That's why they made the UrbanMech, because it was simply cheap so you could have more for the price of an Atlas.
And it's not working fully in MWO with their goal either. That's why mediums suffer so. But it's still better than if they hadn't tried. Then role warfare would be impossible (not that we aren't still waiting on that, but at least it could be done).

In general, light mechs were less effective than Assaults regarding TT. It was however not a linear progression and the Real Time Simulations have always made them less effective than they were in TT (Phantom C would in no way be as powerful as it was in TT for example).

Using the Urbanmech is a terrible example btw because even in canon it was considered terrible, it was in no way considered a good light mech.

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 03:14 PM, said:

But they did. It's called ghost heat.

Ghost Heat =/= Heat Capacity + Ammo Dependent Weapon Heat Increase
Those two are in no way similar.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 September 2014 - 03:27 PM.

[Savage Wolf]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 September 2014 - 03:24 PM, said:

Ghost Heat =/= Heat Capacity + Ammo Dependent Weapon Heat Increase
Those two are in no way similar.

You said a heat based solution. And ghost heat is heat based.
And no, heat cap is different, is slightly better, but still fix the problem about it not being able to balance the different weapon types equally. And that's a heat inherent problem. Ghost heat has it too for the same reasons. It just also have other problems.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Savage Wolf, on 09 September 2014 - 03:37 PM, said:

You said a heat based solution. And ghost heat is heat based.
And no, heat cap is different, is slightly better, but still fix the problem about it not being able to balance the different weapon types equally. And that's a heat inherent problem. Ghost heat has it too for the same reasons. It just also have other problems.

Argue semantics all you want, Im sure most people knew what I meant by "heat-based". Regardless, I would love to see how well a more reasonable approach to heat balancing would work, considering it worked decently for a certain MW4 mod imo.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 September 2014 - 03:48 PM.

[Dracol]

Mister D, on 09 September 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Generally speaking, it does seem to solve some problems.
In place of a convergence system, it keeps TTK in a 1v1 scenario fair.

There are some exceptions I would like to see tweaked, such as Large Lasers (IS) having a cap of 3 instead of two, and just maybe desyncing clan Med/Small lasers from being grouped towards ghost heat.

Removal of staggerfire Ghostheat on the AC-2 absolutely needs to be gotten rid of.

And some exceptions I would like to see added such as UAC-5 being adjusted better.

Otherwise, it does what it is intended to do.

Mixed loadouts instead of boating still wins the ghost heat minigame.

^^ echoes my thoughts nearly perfectly

Sybreed, on 09 September 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

hmm good point, but we need a system that'd both prevent crazy alphas, permit neutral builds to exist and remove the need of ghost heat.

IMHO, heat neutral builds should be rare. Building mechs to circumvent heat management should make them less powerful and non-competitive. Heat is part of the game and if you want to be good you should have to learn to work with it.