Jump to content

Can We Just Double Armor And Hp Again Already?


337 replies to this topic

#101 stjobe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,498 posts
  • LocationOn your six, chipping away at your rear armour.

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:23 AM

View PostWolfways, on 20 September 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

While I'd like a lower heat capacity and increased dissipation (or preferably a slower weapon ROF) and I'd love to see a heat scale (BT's heat scale) my concern is that BT is heat over time while MWO is heat spikes. Having a heat scale at about 30% would seriously hurt high heat weapons like the (already bad imo, even before the speed nerf) ER/PPC's. you couldn't fire without constantly being affected by heat. The Nova would be useless! :huh:

I made this image a long time ago for a completely different thread about heat, but I still think it shows some relevant facts:

Posted Image
Edit: Please note the most overlooked fact on this image: The TT heat scale has 0 after the blue heat sink boxes, at the start of the green "safe" boxes", NOT at the very left where MWO's 0% is.

As you can see by the dotted vertical lines, the heat penalties start at 37.5% if you have 10 SHS, and 50% if you have 10 DHS (or 20 SHS).

Of course, a faster dissipation would be necessary with a lowered cap, or we'd all be overheating continuously.

As for the Nova, I don't think it's able to alpha all its weaponry in TT either, but I might be mistaken (not a big Clan fan). Edit: It can't. 12 CERML is 60 heat, 14 CDHS is 28 cooling, leaving 32 residual heat and automatic shutdown.

Edited by stjobe, 20 September 2014 - 11:29 AM.


#102 Syncline

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 205 posts
  • LocationColorado

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:26 AM

That would be a fun way to try to balance Clan tech: give IS mechs with Endo and/or FF some sort of bonuses to compensate for the absurd amount of critical space they take.

Edited by Syncline, 20 September 2014 - 11:27 AM.


#103 Corbon Zackery

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 1,363 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:28 AM

Yet it might be simpler to reduce the damage of weapons to give mech more survivability.

#104 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:31 AM

I have another alternative: make convergence manually adjustable either in the settings, in-game, or both. Let the player determine their convergence sweet spot.

#105 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:35 AM

View PostCorbon Zackery, on 20 September 2014 - 11:28 AM, said:

Yet it might be simpler to reduce the damage of weapons to give mech more survivability.

same thing as doubling armor, by a different name, No thanks.

View PostMystere, on 20 September 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

I have another alternative: make convergence manually adjustable either in the settings, in-game, or both. Let the player determine their convergence sweet spot.

Yeah..that would not be remotely abused by Compies.

#106 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:37 AM

View Poststjobe, on 20 September 2014 - 11:23 AM, said:

I made this image a long time ago for a completely different thread about heat, but I still think it shows some relevant facts:

Posted Image

As you can see by the dotted vertical lines, the heat penalties start at 37.5% if you have 10 SHS, and 50% if you have 10 DHS (or 20 SHS).

Of course, a faster dissipation would be necessary with a lowered cap, or we'd all be overheating continuously.

As for the Nova, I don't think it's able to alpha all its weaponry in TT either, but I might be mistaken (not a big Clan fan).


You'd be surprised, we have superior to 2.0 heatsinks already.

10 DHS.
TT: 30 threshold, 2/s cooling.
MWO:
Cooling Rate : 2.30 heat/sec
Heat Threshold : 60


15 DHS.
TT: 30 threshold, 3/sec cooling.
MWO:
Cooling Rate : 3.10 heat/sec
Heat Threshold : 68.39999999999999

20 DHS. Until we get to the high end of heatsinks.
TT: 30 threshold, 4/sec cooling
MWO:
Cooling Rate : 3.91 heat/sec
Heat Threshold : 76.8

But that threshold more than makes up for it. The ability to fire 7 PPCs at once? And cool that fast?

There's another thing, too.

Your graph (as I mentioned before) overlays cooling on top of threshold, creating an illusion that cooling thusly equals threshold. It does not. It gives you a 10 second window to work with, but ultimately you take your heat made in 10 seconds and subtract the 10 seconds of cooling you received just before you compare it to the heat scale to see if you ran enough heat to be punished.

Here, for penalties you'd have to run above X amount of heat for X amount of time to see it happen, as you can't pause every 10 seconds to check for punishments and you can't use a 10 second window to apply punishments for something you did 11 seconds ago. It would need to apply in real time against what you have. Yet, applying it instantly is a bit harsh and impractical (when hitting and beating a shutdown risk, it's because said pilot hit Override or managed to space his shots just right to avoid hitting 30 during his firing sequence. To have it suddenly hit without warning makes it very hard to mimic that.)

[Any time you fire enough heat to reach a shutdown penalty, you can break it down mathematically to avoid ever hitting 30 heat at any one point in time; as the 'risks' get higher it becomes harder and harder to do, and when you automatically shut down it is because it is now impossible to break it down as a second by second heating/cooling without hitting 30].

[Try it! Take any mech that doesn't shut down and break the firing sequence down across 10 seconds. Make it hard, too. Now when they do shut down but it's possible to avoid, like an RNG shutdown at say 80% threshold, just rework the math a tiny bit and bam, you'll see where the pilot made the mistake of firing that one laser just a little too soon, hitting 30 and shutting down. It's actually a bit of fun though tedious to write it down].

------

As for the Nova, across 10 seconds it could safely fire 36 heat. You could do 5 ER ML at once, then 2 more ER ML about 4 seconds later to prevent shutting down or being punished in any way, and then in 6 seconds after that be ice cold again (that's with simple 2.0 DHS, 30 threshold).

Thus the most you could fire and still get back to zero heat within 10 seconds of when you started to fire is 7 while moving at half speed (6 while moving at full speed; the faster you go the more heat you generate). The most you can fire at once is 5.

The Nova's sheer count of ER ML was actually related to how easily the lasers were destroyed by through-armor criticals. Backups keep it fully functional even after losing 3 to 6 lasers. I once had a Nova lose 11 lasers before losing any arms.

Last edit. I promise!

Edited by Koniving, 20 September 2014 - 11:45 AM.


#107 Lucian Nostra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 1,659 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:38 AM

View PostSable, on 19 September 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

Title says it all. The spike damage nonsense wouldn't be such a problem if it took a whole lot more effort to bring down a mech. Heat management skills would be more valuable since you wouldn't be able to alpha all day long. Maybe it's just tonight but MWO is not fun right now.


Actually doing so will make spread weapons (lasers, SRMs, LRMs) even weaker and pinpoint even stronger. The more armor you have to sandblast away deepens the gap between pinpoint and spread.

#108 ShadowbaneX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:39 AM

View PostReitrix, on 19 September 2014 - 10:29 PM, said:

Not really. Its essentially the same thing as a toggle, but bound to R.


Make it so that the Atlas' head turns to face whichever target it's locked on to.

View PostMystere, on 20 September 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

I have another alternative: make convergence manually adjustable either in the settings, in-game, or both. Let the player determine their convergence sweet spot.


It's the 30st century, convergence should automatically be set to whatever you're locked on to...perhaps it should have a default if you're not locked on to something...might make more people actually use it.

Edited by ShadowbaneX, 20 September 2014 - 11:44 AM.


#109 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:40 AM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 20 September 2014 - 11:35 AM, said:

Yeah..that would not be remotely abused by Compies.


Unless I am reading you wrong, how can compies abuse this?

#110 Rebas Kradd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,969 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:46 AM

View PostMystere, on 20 September 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:


Unless I am reading you wrong, how can compies abuse this?


The whole argument is that convergence is more effective than non-convergence. So why would compies choose anything besides the better option?

#111 Thorqemada

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,400 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:47 AM

NO - you can not simply double Armor and Internal Structure bcs the protection increase will benefit the Mechs with high Armor Values more than Mechs with low Armor Values.

NO - Mechs in MWO are not more durable than in TT bcs the Firerate of Weapon has been Increased more than the protection thus making Mechs actually WEAKER than in TT (muliplied by the Pinpoint-Accuracy of most weapons also).

See the WHOLE and not only fragmented details of the gameplay!

Edited by Thorqemada, 20 September 2014 - 11:48 AM.


#112 IceSerpent

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,044 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:49 AM

View PostMystere, on 20 September 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

Unless I am reading you wrong, how can compies abuse this?


I think what Bishop is referring to is a situation where you camp in front of a ridge your opponents have to crest (or corner they have to get around) and set your weapons to converge at the distance to that ridge or corner. That way you're always "zeroed in" while folks coming at you are not, as they have no way of knowing how far away from that ridge/corner you are sitting until they get LOS.

#113 -Natural Selection-

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Liquid Metal
  • Liquid Metal
  • 1,631 posts
  • Locationdirty south

Posted 20 September 2014 - 11:58 AM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 20 September 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:


how in any way would it reduce people voting weapons, or focusing fire? If anything it will force more people to do it to have any chance of bringing someone down.




I said "Some" weapons.

I guess this stems from a couple people I know that run pure LRM assaults.. It drives my bat sht crazy that every other match they personally do well in an xl assault with nothing but LRMs but the rest of the team suffers from the lack of the tonnage in the mix of the fight.

#114 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:02 PM

View PostRebas Kradd, on 20 September 2014 - 11:46 AM, said:

The whole argument is that convergence is more effective than non-convergence. So why would compies choose anything besides the better option?


Kindly elaborate. I must be slower than normal today.


View PostIceSerpent, on 20 September 2014 - 11:49 AM, said:

I think what Bishop is referring to is a situation where you camp in front of a ridge your opponents have to crest (or corner they have to get around) and set your weapons to converge at the distance to that ridge or corner. That way you're always "zeroed in" while folks coming at you are not, as they have no way of knowing how far away from that ridge/corner you are sitting until they get LOS.


I wouldn't call that abuse. That's just smart play.

#115 Bishop Steiner

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Hammer
  • The Hammer
  • 47,187 posts
  • Locationclimbing Mt Tryhard, one smoldering Meta-Mech corpse at a time

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:05 PM

View PostMystere, on 20 September 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:


Unless I am reading you wrong, how can compies abuse this?

Um...if we can "manually adjust our convergence" why would companies (well anyone, actually) not have minimal convergence? Manually adjusting does ....nothing, unless I am totally misunderstanding you?

#116 EvilCow

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,243 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:06 PM

View PostWolfways, on 20 September 2014 - 11:15 AM, said:

While I'd like a lower heat capacity and increased dissipation (or preferably a slower weapon ROF) and I'd love to see a heat scale (BT's heat scale) my concern is that BT is heat over time while MWO is heat spikes. Having a heat scale at about 30% would seriously hurt high heat weapons like the (already bad imo, even before the speed nerf) ER/PPC's. you couldn't fire without constantly being affected by heat. The Nova would be useless! :huh:


One of the things done right in MW4 was the heat dissipation time for weapons, it was not instantaneous, the heat was released over a period of time and heat sinks were able to start working immediately. It is also realistic if you think at it, heat does not propagate instantly.

Massive weapons would release it more slowly because their sheer mass, light ones would be more spike-like.

If such a parameter is implemented in MWO then the heat scale can be reduced and heat for weapons would have a prolonged effect, not just a spike.

I also remember the data structures in the code, they had lists of "heater" objects that applied 1 heat per second until their time elapses.

Edited by EvilCow, 20 September 2014 - 12:07 PM.


#117 Artgathan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 1,764 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:16 PM

Alternative solution: give weapons their TT DPS.

People like to make claims like "since armor is doubled from TT, our weapons are not as effective!", conveniently forgetting that while armor was doubled, weapons' fire rates were tripled (at least).

Yes, a single AC/20 strike in MW:O is not equivalent to equivalent to a single AC/20 strike in TT. However, in MWO you can fire that sucker 2.5 times in 10 seconds compared to the one shot you get in TT.

#118 Mystere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 22,783 posts
  • LocationClassified

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:22 PM

View PostBishop Steiner, on 20 September 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

Um...if we can "manually adjust our convergence" why would companies (well anyone, actually) not have minimal convergence? Manually adjusting does ....nothing, unless I am totally misunderstanding you?


Minimal convergence? [My brain must be really slow today].

In any case, let me explain further ...

Instead of having the automatic convergence we now have that is unfortunately also instant (which I think is the real but unsolvable culprit due to CryEngine), convergence will have to be a fixed distance set in the game's settings. We also can have separate convergence distances for head/torso and arm-mounted weapons.

Alternatively or in addition, convergence can be adjusted in-game via mouse-wheel or key presses.

So if a player wants to have all weapons hit at the same location, the target must be within the convergence sweet spot that was set.

Edited by Mystere, 20 September 2014 - 12:24 PM.


#119 ShadowbaneX

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,089 posts

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:24 PM

View PostArtgathan, on 20 September 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Alternative solution: give weapons their TT DPS.

People like to make claims like "since armor is doubled from TT, our weapons are not as effective!", conveniently forgetting that while armor was doubled, weapons' fire rates were tripled (at least).

Yes, a single AC/20 strike in MW:O is not equivalent to equivalent to a single AC/20 strike in TT. However, in MWO you can fire that sucker 2.5 times in 10 seconds compared to the one shot you get in TT.


As...unfond of the AC/2 as I am and in drastic favour of having it's DPS reduced, giving it TT DPS values would essentially make it a stupidly long range Machine Gun. Firing once every ten seconds or cutting the damage values by half is a bit much.

Edited by ShadowbaneX, 20 September 2014 - 12:24 PM.


#120 Augustus Martelus II

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 476 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMontréal, QC Canada

Posted 20 September 2014 - 12:25 PM

lol its already twice the normal values....lol no for a double armor value

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 20 September 2014 - 12:26 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users