231 replies to this topic

[Fut]

Kiiyor, on 19 September 2014 - 05:39 PM, said:

Hey, I'm all for it, really. My concern about new players is valid, however. Think back to when you started - how long did it take you to become competitive? Not proficient - competitive. Maybe I'm old, but it took me a while. Most young whippersnappers (lol) nowadays need to be engaged far, far earlier than previous generations. It's why people like Michael Bay movies so much; there's usually an explosion in the first thirty seconds.

What we need, is in-game tutorials. Once people can get hands on with a system in an environment that doesn't reward experimentation with sudden, brutal and bewildering death, adding extra complexity probably isn't as big an issue.

Pandering to this is not a good idea and it does not help the situation.
People watch Michael Bay movies, but they are not good movies. Please don't let PGI become the Michael Bay of the gaming industry.

[Xanquil]

The problem is that a fixed 30 heat scale brakes too many mechs, and isn't what TT has. The heat chart is what happens if you go over what your heat sinks can get rid of in that round. the issue is MWO is adding the full 30 to that with the only time you shut down being at the 30 point (HS(dhs) total + 30) If that number was brought down by 16 it would be closer to what TT has.
In addition even if a max 30 was put in ghost heat would still be around because of pinpoint alphas.

I'm all for adding a detrimental heat scale but it wouldn't get rid of ghost heat. Only when pinpoint alphas are "changed" will we ever have a chance to get rid of ghost heat.
The fear of heat neutral mechs has more to d with all of them hitting the same location at the same time every time without any break, than it does with the way the heat scale works.

If pinpoint alphas were not a thing, we could have heat sinks that worked as fast as the weapons we have fired. and maybe even true DHS.

[Kiiyor]

Fut, on 19 September 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Pandering to this is not a good idea and it does not help the situation.
People watch Michael Bay movies, but they are not good movies. Please don't let PGI become the Michael Bay of the gaming industry.

Oh god, i'm not suggesting that either. LOL, I must be lacking coffee or something.

I read an article recently about engagement with gamers from different countries, and the rates of abandonment of games that were not readily engaging and accessible. The crux of it was that gamers from America in particular had to be grabbed almost immediately, of they would not 'lock in' with a game, and would move on to something more immediately visceral. The effect was explained through the emergence of technology allowing instant gratification (handheld devices, high speed internet etc) meaning attention spans (and in turn player patience) were far lower, meaning a game without an instant hook often led to gamer boredom and an immediate break in immersion. Hence my 'whippersnappers' comment.

The author was frustrated that 'slow burn' games, or games designed with lots of complexity in the vein of Dwarf Fortress were next to impossible to become immediate mainstream hits (and by extension, justify high development costs with high returns).

It's why most of the big AAA games nowadays open with some of the most intense fight scenes of the game. Even SpecOps, a game that was bucking shooter trends with some big pauses for introspection was re-written to include the helicopter Kerblammo scene at the start. It's also why lots of games have the "PRESS E TO WATCH THE BIG AWESOME BUILDING EXPLODING! THIS IS AWESOME" mechanic, that offers no gameplay at all other than some shiny light gratification.

MWO is lucky in that it has a core group of BT fans that are probably quite a bit older than the average gamer. Having interest in TT also helps.

My point was that newer (younger) players might be put off by the slower nature of combat, and the complexity of the combat system, and might be drawn to glitzier glamour games like the aforementioned COD or even Hawken to a lesser extend. I'm all for added complexity (really, I want extra heat penalties, more weapon modifiers, more complex modules, far larger tactical maps, aerospece...) but I also want new players to play the game, and keep playing it.

I'm not suggesting we pander to the COD generation, i'm saying we need to acknowledge that they exist, they outnumber us, that they expect an immediately gratifying game experience, and that we and PGI want their money.

I think an in-game tutorial will help immensely to bridge the gratification gap between learning the ropes and doing well.


EDIT: grammar

Edited by Kiiyor, 19 September 2014 - 07:56 PM.

[Pika]

Fut, on 19 September 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

Pandering to this is not a good idea and it does not help the situation.
People watch Michael Bay movies, but they are not good movies. Please don't let PGI become the Michael Bay of the gaming industry.

While I don't disagree with your sentiment, when it comes to gaming this is needed.

If you want to see what happens to an MMO when it sticks to it's guns and refuses to adapt and embrace emerging markets and player demographs, you end up with WW2 Online: Battleground Europe. A game still trying to sell itself on historical accuracy, yet wants you to pay for your sub in yearly chunks and makes new players trek for 10+ minutes just to run into a tank. I used to play this game for years, now I can't stomach it at all.

How does this relate to MWO? We need explosions and excitement within the first few minutes then trickle out the depth and let them explore at their own pace. I hate myself for saying it, but it's what players want these days.

Now if you'll excuse me I need a cold shower.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Xanquil, on 19 September 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

The problem is that a fixed 30 heat scale brakes too many mechs,

Spoiler

and isn't what TT has. The heat chart is what happens if you go over what your heat sinks can get rid of in that round. the issue is MWO is adding the full 30 to that with the only time you shut down being at the 30 point (HS(dhs) total + 30) If that number was brought down by 16 it would be closer to what TT has.
In addition even if a max 30 was put in ghost heat would still be around because of pinpoint alphas.

I'm all for adding a detrimental heat scale but it wouldn't get rid of ghost heat. Only when pinpoint alphas are "changed" will we ever have a chance to get rid of ghost heat.
The fear of heat neutral mechs has more to d with all of them hitting the same location at the same time every time without any break, than it does with the way the heat scale works.

If pinpoint alphas were not a thing, we could have heat sinks that worked as fast as the weapons we have fired. and maybe even true DHS.

What mechs do you feel would get broken though?

Lights and Mediums would get a bit of a boost, and dissipation can still get increased on SHS and DHS.

I ask because I could have easily missed a build, as I continue to look at this. For example, here's a table that shows weapons to individual heat spikes, not pushing beyond Heat Scale Penalties:

Spoiler

Noticed used original values... Will tweak later!

This second one is a look at some grouped weapons as to their combined heat spike(and it's still expanding) to their potential damage done all at once:

Spoiler

So limiting the heat spike to around ~14 to ~17 is an okay starting point that can see adjustments based on what's best for MWO, along with a boost to dissipation as necessary.

And this can ignore Heat Effects so that the Cap is at a full 30, and not sticking to original Heat Effects (with the Shutdowns starting at 14 and so on).

Edited by Praetor Knight, 19 September 2014 - 09:51 PM.

[Ultimax]

DeathjesterUK, on 19 September 2014 - 12:03 AM, said:

So, I can clearly see that one of the big issues with the current iteration of the game is that the heat is...not so balanced. Having started playing the game again, I can see why. Ghost heat is killing creativity in the design of mechs and ultimately is not needed in the game. Why this was implemented I have no idea, when there is a great way, already laid out by FASA, to ensure that the heat has gradual degradation of the mechs performance.

Heat is something that should be hazardous to the mech and even to the pilot. There should be increasing performance hits from it being harder to target and hit, to the mech becoming slower and slower, to the risk of ammo exploding and vaporising your mech. There should even be an option to cook yourself in your cockpit from overheating. Take a look at the basic heat char below from Battletech. With some work, this could be used to make this game a far more thoughtful and tactical shooter...as it was supposed to be. Let me know what you guys think.

PS: It should come as no surprise that I think Ghost Heat should be removed completely.

This is a real time first person shooter.

Overheating and getting your face stomped in is already pretty punitive.


The only thing this will do is push people, even more, toward ballistics and the mechs that can run them.


The reason for this is that unlike TT, where 2 minutes of combat are resolved over the course of 1 or more hours, 2 minutes of combat is 2 minutes of combat.


All the time you have to think and chat, while you roll dice on a table top? That doesn't exist here.

You are making snap decisions inside small single digit second windows - there is a heap of information on the screen and it's pretty unrealistic to think players will be able to keep all of the above penalties in mind in the heat of fast paced combat.


So players will gravitate, just like human beings do in all aspects of life, to the path of least resistance that grants the highest rewards* and capitalize on the "poorly built mechs" that decide to cripple themselves by going energy heavy.


We do not need this system in this game.


*Humans do this because it is smart to do this.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 19 September 2014 - 10:02 PM.

[Quxudica]

DeathjesterUK, on 19 September 2014 - 12:03 AM, said:

So, I can clearly see that one of the big issues with the current iteration of the game is that the heat is...not so balanced. Having started playing the game again, I can see why. Ghost heat is killing creativity in the design of mechs and ultimately is not needed in the game. Why this was implemented I have no idea, when there is a great way, already laid out by FASA, to ensure that the heat has gradual degradation of the mechs performance.

Heat is something that should be hazardous to the mech and even to the pilot. There should be increasing performance hits from it being harder to target and hit, to the mech becoming slower and slower, to the risk of ammo exploding and vaporising your mech. There should even be an option to cook yourself in your cockpit from overheating. Take a look at the basic heat char below from Battletech. With some work, this could be used to make this game a far more thoughtful and tactical shooter...as it was supposed to be. Let me know what you guys think.

PS: It should come as no surprise that I think Ghost Heat should be removed completely.

The system would need to be modified to work with the spikes we get in MWOs realtime environment. Otherwise you would be popping in and out of penalty zones with almost every shot or so in some mechs, there would need to be a more gradual curve. Best thing I've thought of is, for example, having the penalties apply after being above a certain heat threshold for a period of time, spiking to 70% does nothing as long as you cool off reasonably quickly while running at 60% for several seconds incurs performance hits on your mech.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Ultimatum X, on 19 September 2014 - 10:00 PM, said:

The only thing this will do is push people, even more, toward ballistics and the mechs that can run them.

If this is an issue with IS mechs, I personally would love to see IS Ballistics mimic Clan Ballistics with increasing the number of bullets fired per trigger pull.

Quxudica, on 19 September 2014 - 11:03 PM, said:

The system would need to be modified to work with the spikes we get in MWOs realtime environment. Otherwise you would be popping in and out of penalty zones with almost every shot or so in some mechs, there would need to be a more gradual curve. Best thing I've thought of is, for example, having the penalties apply after being above a certain heat threshold for a period of time, spiking to 70% does nothing as long as you cool off reasonably quickly while running at 60% for several seconds incurs performance hits on your mech.

And a 30 threshold is still very generous, even with Heat Scale penalties (Ghost Heat) looking at various weapon combos fired at once.

The basic idea I've been preferring is reducing Heat Capacity for more Heat Dissipation to keep combat fluid while reducing big damage spikes.

[Roadbeer]

Pika, on 19 September 2014 - 07:56 PM, said:

If you want to see what happens to an MMO when it sticks to it's guns and refuses to adapt and embrace emerging markets and player demographs, Look at Star Citizen that has raised over $50 million dollars in a niche market and banking on nostalgia.

Fixed that for you.

[kapusta11]

Just stop confusing everyone. The idea of heatscale is:

• Increased dissipation ~0.5 per double heatsink
  
• 30 heat soft cap
  
• Penalties AFTER exceeding it

Penalties include: internal structure damage, ammo detonation, accel/decceleration rate reduction, torso twist speed reduction, shutdown, engine explosion, nothing that involves RNG. Penalties exist to make people obey the rules, or make it more beneficial, period.


What the first two changes do:

• Make energy boats (especially assaults with only energy hardpoints) viable, their sustained damage will match that of ballistics.
  
• And lmit their firepower by setting a heat cap for energy alphas. Timberwolf for example will get it's nerf without affecting anything else.

Edited by kapusta11, 19 September 2014 - 11:58 PM.

[jaxjace]

Ghost heat limit should go up by one at least. that means able to fire one more weapon than we currently can for everything. just ramp the scale up by one. and im good.

[Quxudica]

jaxjace, on 20 September 2014 - 01:27 AM, said:

Ghost heat limit should go up by one at least. that means able to fire one more weapon than we currently can for everything. just ramp the scale up by one. and im good.

That only exacerbates the current issue, it doesn't solve it.

[RockmachinE]

I disagree, the general idea of heat as its implemented now is good. Individual penalties based on heat would just make the game frustrating.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice TT elements for gameplay, it seems a lot of people don't understand this point.

[jaxjace]

Quxudica, on 20 September 2014 - 01:29 AM, said:

That only exacerbates the current issue, it doesn't solve it.

how?

[KraftySOT]

Either system is better than what we have. The solaris, or the CBT scale.

Louis Brofist, on 20 September 2014 - 04:30 AM, said:

I disagree, the general idea of heat as its implemented now is good. Individual penalties based on heat would just make the game frustrating.

Sometimes you have to sacrifice TT elements for gameplay, it seems a lot of people don't understand this point.

Nope...thats why we have half the player base we used to have. Because thats not true.

Also Ill grant you "sometimes"

But you people use it as an excuse for EVERYTHING.

What "sometimes" are you talking about? Be QUANTITATIVE. Otherwise youre not really contributing.

Face this fact:

The IP is not attracting new people. It just isnt. You either like it, or you dont. There are a finite number of people who play mechwarrior games. Pleasing the majority of them is the way to go.

By ignoring the TT and plethora of rules across all the different books and game types, youre instantly shutting out half of your player base.

[KraftySOT]

And I think accuracy penalties coming in, in some way, will go a long long way to making heat something important, and that effects how the battles go down. Namely being tagged repeatedly at a full run at long range in the CT over and over again by snipers with hoards of boated up FLD weapons and pinpoint accurate lasers.

I have no problem with sniper boats...but at least make it challenging for them. Every FPS on the market makes sniping at least somewhat difficult through sway, breathing, bullet drop, cone of fire, etc...were not asking for completely innaccurate mechs. But at some point people have to realize that the ridiculous level of accuracy in the weapons is part of the problem.

If we cant get accuracy penalties before heat comes into play, at least make it an issue for guys running hot sniper builds. Give them something to manage and give the brawlers the chance to get close, or lights an extra second or two of tag/scouting.

It would make a big difference in how tactical and strategic the games are.

And I dont think anyone has a problem with the Hellstar, as long as its risky to run around in, and isnt blowing people up in alpha left and right.

Long before I ever heard of a Hellstar...it was the Supernova.

Translating the RESULTS of combat from the TT would make everyone happier. Namely that mechs arent running around putting their entire alphas into peoples chests at long range.

Edited by KraftySOT, 20 September 2014 - 12:50 PM.

[DeathjesterUK]

So, there has been a lot of constructive and very smart discussion about the Heat Issue and the way that FASA implemented heat. I have to say that I am impressed. While I know that the Heat Scale from FASA couldn't be transferred over to MWO 1 for 1, it could have certain aspects of it implemented. What I would like to hear from people at this point is, not why it couldn't be put into MWO but, how it could be implemented.

How do you feel it could be implemented and what would need to happen? Further to this, what repercussions do you think there would be to its implementation and how do you feel that those negative results could be mitigated?

I would like to point out that a heat system that gradually degrades mech performance was already in place in Mechwarrior 4. It worked very well. I would recommend people take a look at that.

Edited by DeathjesterUK, 20 September 2014 - 01:47 PM.

[KraftySOT]

I think you could do 1:1 if you made all the recycle times the same. So long as the heat you made is gone by the time you can fire again, if youre heat neutral, all is well. Then you have 30 heat cause the shut down and the add in the effects to movement, ammo explosions, and accuracy, and you have a TT system that achieves the same goals as ghost heat.

Mounting 4 PPCs and 30 DHS in an assault if fine, and if he's moving, he's going to become an in accurate turret in 3 alpha strikes. (well not that severe, but a 20% reduction in speed, from a 4-6 to 3-5 or 3-5 into a 2-3...30kph is pretty darned slow) He's gonna get plagued by locusts as they say (reamed by lights)

If you dont want to go that route, and want to stay with just generalities, then id say you still stick with the 30 heat scale (or the 120 extrapolated scale from solaris, that functions essentially the same but with higher resolution) and youre hitting movement and accuracy penalties at the correct places on the scale, ammo explosions a possibility at the highest levels, and doubling the scale should just kill you out right (it enabled the auto ejection we'll say).

If we want to go on the lighter side id say a 10% reduction in "over all performance" every 10 "heat" on the scale, with a maximum of 30% penalty to aiming, movement, and have every 10 heat over 30, increase your "restart up" time by a few seconds that could be tweaked to everyones liking.

[KraftySOT]

The light solution would be the easiest to implement and not need changes to other systems, and still at least have the TT in mind, AND would be like what we were used to in MW4.

Its a start. It would be better than what we have now.

Terra Therma would suck alot more.

I believe the way youd represent it graphically is just placing the heat scale where the 100% bar is now, and have the ticks light up and then go dark as heat builds and dissapates instead of the bar giving you fidelity that doesnt seem familar.

Also I think thats easier for people to understand. When you see a weapon makes 10 heat in the mech lab, then you go into the game and fire it and you see your heat go up to 17% and then go down to 0...that doesnt make any sense. Theres a major disconnect there.

If youre from the other games or TT, you understand that ok, theres some abstraction here and the info is obscure...but if you come from the TT you probably dont like obscure information...ghost heat makes it even MORE obscure.

If you have a scale that clearly shows, I have 20 heat disapation, I fired 25 heat worth of weapons, now I have 5 heat...that makes sense instantly.

If the 1-5 ticks are lit up you know, ok, I passed my heat threshold by 5.

Theres no disconnect between the information you see in the weapon stats, and their function in the game itself.

[Trip Hammer]

I really believe that implementing heat in this way would be great for this game. There would be a lot of initial alphas at the start of a match but then players would have to learn a little trigger discipline to avoid the heat penalties.

However I don't know if the TT heat penalties are the best for the game. Someone earlier in this post suggested having the IU flicker more and more and I'm all for that. I would also suggest that it become more difficult to hold target locks and reduced engine efficiencies that would slow the mech speed and torso twist speeds as well.

Just my two cents worth.