20 replies to this topic

[SpiralFace]

I actually typed most of this up a bit ago before putting it away, but with the renewed talks about the Timber Wolf / Storm Crow and other topics similar, I thought I would finally finish this up and get it out there.

HEAT SCALE

Everyone’s favorite topic from two years ago I know. But recent talks around everything going on have only made me think on just how dated the current heat scale is in the current game, and that it is due up for another iteration to re-enforce and refine the intent that lead to its implementation in the first place.

Much like my prior Assault mode proposal, I want to try to provide something tangible for implementation and why. So forgive the length of this one. I do want to say that for this one I consider myself to simply be wildly expanding what Homeless Bill has proposed in the past. I don’t agree with everything in his proposal, but much of I write here is going to be similar to his, so credit where credit is due on some of what I type here.

Rough reasons heat scale was originally implemented:

• To curb the use of single weapon spam mechs that where heavily dominant in previous mechwarrior games.
  
• To limit the effectiveness of single weapon group alphas
  
• To Limit the effectiveness of high damage pin point
  
• To encourage diversification in weapon loads
  
• To reduce overall TTK.

Failings of the current system:

• Fails to account for weapon synergies
  
• Clan tech provides ample opportunities to get crazy high alpha synergies.
  
• No visual indication of how / when this is triggered in game.
  
• Has curbed single weapon spam only to replace it with double weapon synergies dominating.
  
• Does very little to curb the TTK when weapon synergy combos so easily circumvent the damage output intentions of heat scale.
  
• Is compromised by quirks offsetting or negating the intentional drawbacks of the system.
  
• Only really affects energy weapons. Most Missiles and Ballistics can all but ignore the effects of the system.

Biggest issue illustrated:

Which alpha creates more heat for a mech?

Spoiler

The ER PPC’s clock in at a whopping 63.9 generated heat. The clan weapon cocktail that can do almost 3 times the damage in a single alpha strike? 46 heat. Nearly 30% less heat generated, for nearly 3x the amount of raw damage output in a single strike.

And the sad thing? That same cocktail clocks in at only 5 heat points above what firing 3 REGULAR PPC’s gets you for the same ridiculous damage output.

This chasing of the highest damage combos to circumvent the heat scale on single weapon spam has led to essentially synergized “combo weapons” like lasers vomit, Gauss / AC 5 PPC before it, and Gauss ER ML's now. That can end up capitalizing on alphas for massive alpha strikes well above what any single weapon spam of the same weapon could ever do. And much higher then what many accepted as the “norm” for the time heat scale was originally implemented.

And as long as heat scale exists in its current state, the game Meta, especially on the clan side, will primarily revolve around what kind of weapon synergies can you use to circumvent the currently implemented heat scale, while maximizing pin point / focused point damage. Which is why the clan meta has begun to solidify in the state that it is currently in.

It doesn’t have to be like this though.

I would like to propose the following:

Heat Scale 2.0 High End Proposal

• Replace the hidden heat scale mechanics with a universal “engine power draw” meter.
  
• All weapons will create an energy usage spike that is applied to the meter based primarily on their damage output. With all weapons contributing to the same meter.
  
• The meter will dissipate over a short amount of time. Replicating the hidden “second between shots” already in the system with something more visual.
  
• Firing weapons that exceed this meter will incur both a flat heat penalty, as well as a percentile recycle penalty for all weapons still in recycle states from firing.

Initial Mechanic Proposal:

This aspect is much like many other proposals out there, so I don’t wish to dwell on it too long (as we’ve all heard the ideas before.) But for the sake of completeness, the idea of this is that all weapons create an “energy spike” when fired, which fills up a meter to represent the energy draw created from the said weapons. (Often referred to a threshold meter in other proposals,) when you fire too many weapons together, or in rapid succession to one another. The only difference form what others are proposing to what I am proposing is that I wish for the system to be scalable and universal, as well as affect recycle times in addition to heat spikes. Which makes it a bit more universal of a punishment rather than easily ignored by weapons such as ballistics and missile weapon systems.

Rough mockup image showing a heat spike of around 15 points:



The ballpark mechanics I would set as a base line would be:

• Initial Weapon engine draw values equal their total damage output with “spread” weapons like LRM’s, SRM’s, and LBX clusters accounting for 75% of their total damage potential in the spike. Triggered every time a weapon is fired. (So a ML would have a energy draw value of 5, while a single SRM 6 would have a draw value of 9.)
  
• Some weapons can be exempt from these draws. (MG’s, flamers.)
  
• The engine power draw meter allows for 30 points of “safe draw” before penalties kick in.
  
• This meter reduces at a rate of 30 points per second. Only when weapons are not in use. (full second to fully cool down. Will not reduce the meter throughout the duration of laser burn times.)
  
• Whenever you trigger weapons that bring your meter past 30 points, you will immediately receive .75 heat for every point of heat that exceeds 30 points and will add 1.5% weapon cool down time per point to all weapons in the cool down process. (So a dual AC 20 firing both cannons would go 10 points over the threshold generating 7.5 heat and adding 15% more time to the weapon’s cool down timer.)

This should roughly emulate much of what the IS already has going for them with their weapons chart, while not punishing energy weapons like PPC’s since the heat scale heat generated is now a GLOBAL value, not something directly tied to individual or family weapon pairings.

These changes should have the following results:

• Penalties are no longer binary, but dynamic to the amount on the meter itself. Currently, if you fire that 3^rd PPC at .0001 seconds before the invisible “ghost heat timer” cools down, you still incur the full penalty from the ghost heat. In this proposed scenario, it’s the METER that provides the penalties, so if you get your timing slightly off and incur a single point over on the meter, you are only punished for .75 heat and 1.5% cooldown. Not 100% of the full penalty value.
  
• UI should visualize the process making it easier for newer players to understand what is going on.
  
• What triggers the penalties still adheres to what the developers had initially set up for their initial implementation.
  
• Doesn’t punish Clan weapon effectiveness or efficiency’s as a generalization, but provides a dynamic give and take to how the clan’s UTILIZE those weapons in the field. Making Clans still carry potential to dish out massive damage, making them a more skill focused faction as was initially proposed at their launch.
  
• Creates more tactical depth between utilizing weapons with the intent to maintain DPS, or restrict DPS in favor of doing massive spike damage.
  
• Removes the massive ghost heat punishments by focusing more on alpha’s applying moderate, GENERALIZED heat, while affecting DPS (Less punishing to new players when your mech doesn’t shut down from underneath you when you’re just learning, more game play depth in what it takes to get the most out of a mech.)

Play Dynamics.

The main intent of these changes is to adapt a play dynamic that rewards players who are able to ride the power threshold, while discouraging PURE high alpha being the sole way to augment your weapon systems. But without completely negating the use of a sudden burst of high alpha damage. Rather, add a tactic to using it.

At a top down level, this would ideally see high alpha damage cost a mech its sustained DPS in addition to its heat penalty. Making the pill a bit tougher to swallow for a sustained engagement to rely solely on alpha after alpha being the primary way mechs engage each other. As well as not being able to simply ignore the penalties by relying on primarily low heat / high damage weaponry. (As who seriously cares about the heat penalty on 4 SRM launchers being fired in their current state?)

But at the same time, consider reducing the heat penalties on mechs that do exceed the threshold to allow the high alpha to always be a tactical option for someone.

As a rough example, if a Meta Timber wolf C was punished with a 45% recycle time penalty for firing all of its weapons at once, (Written before the recent nerfs, let’s just assume the May 19 patch was reverted,) a mechwarrior in an open engagement would have a risk / reward dynamic to whether he would need better general DPS in his engagement by riding the threshold line, or if he wants to risk his DPS to potentially maim, or cripple an enemy mech while he has a good shot.

While this won’t eliminate high Alpha damage, it does increase the “cost” of having builds that synergize weapon load outs for the sole purpose of maximizing damage. As that synergy would only come at the cost of sustained DPS if they wished to capitalize on it. But still leave it as an option for mechwarriors skilled enough to know when to push a mech to alpha, or when you need to focus on doing more sustained damage in an engagement. (Just another tool in the hands of a skilled mechwarrior to use at the right opportunity.)

Additionally, adding a per second cool energy draw disbursement would punish those kinds of mechs that wouldn’t care at all about either extra heat or lower recycle time due to low counts on both. (Looking at you 5 UAC 5 Direwolf.) This way, if you find yourself going over the threshold, you don’t “auto reset” and instead being to see a downward curb in your weapons sustained usefulness if you intend on breaking the threshold consistently.

Conclusion

I’m well aware that this is nothing more than a rough outline of ways to potentially improve off of the proposal already put out by Homeless Bill and others. But as recent rumblings from the town halls, quirks, forums, youtubers, and podcasts have started to circle back around to the old Time To Kill being an issue, this seems like a good opportunity to revisit a system that was implemented with the best of intentions, but could probably use a 2.0 re-look pass applied to it to fix the shortcomings of the current systems that sees single weapon spam simply replaced by weapon synergies that are specifically there to bypass heat scale for massive weapon alphas anyways.

The goal isn’t to dissuade the use of high alpha’s, but rather provide a more well balanced and well-rounded alternative, that provides more of a give and take so that they are no longer the SOLE contributing factor to the effectiveness of a mech.

Thanks for sticking with this admittedly long proposal.

Edited by SpiralFace, 25 May 2015 - 06:35 PM.

[orcrist86]

Not a bad approach. Far less severe than my own thoughts, which brought in pilot health related to hear scale like table top. Pilot death from heat exhaustion or electrocution doesn't play well, though I could see it as part or a combined stock Solaris mode.

[K1ttykat]

This seems like a reasonable solution. Something that bothers me is that the heat meter is already supposed to limit the number of weapons you can fire and now this is another meter that has the same purpose just over a shorter timespan. This isn't really a practical complaint though.

The most important aspect of this proposal is non-binary penalties. We absolutely need either non-binary penalties or some way to reliably fire off multiple alphas (like 2+2ppc). Sure you can use 2 groups on chainfire but slight misclicks can cause ghost heat. No, waiting exactly .5s is NOT a skill.

I like that there is a cool down penalty which is something pgi could add right now without a complete overhaul. I think the cool down penalty should be bigger than the heat.

Ghost heat as we have it now would work a lot better if pgi followed its own rules. How exactly did the 42dmg erML alpha make it through without ghost heat?

I think that range should be a factor in determining how much engine energy a weapon uses, not just damage. Close range builds are more adversely affected by increased face time due to the greater importance of torso twisting at that range. Shorter range weapons should require less engine energy, and longer range weapons more.

[TygerLily]

Seems alright to me! I love the idea of making an alphastrike into a tool and making chain fire more relevant.

[Kanajashi]

Looks good. although I am not as much of a fan of the recycle time penalty. But I would love to see any system that makes all play styles viable, each with their own costs and benefits.

Edited by Kanajashi, 25 May 2015 - 07:24 PM.

[SpiralFace]

Kanajashi, on 25 May 2015 - 07:23 PM, said:

Looks good. although I am not as much of a fan of the recycle time penalty.

This mainly came about because threatening ballistics like AC 5's an Gauss rifles and SRM's with heat is a hollow threat. And its why even in the current system, no one cares if you get ghost heat after 3 clan UAC 5's, No one cares about adding a 4th SRM 6 launcher. Ghost heat in reality only really matters for laser weapons, and AC 20's. Even Splat Cats can get away with firing off MULTIPLE full volleys of SRM 6's without skipping a beat. But add a 3rd PPC? Nearly double the heat penelty.

There really isn't much you can do with heat against weapons who's main draw is that they are "low heat" pieces of equipment. But recycle time and overall DPS is a much better incentive.

It doesn't invalidate what alphas do best, Apply heavy amounts of damage in a short burst. Only puts a "cost" on those crazy alpha's that sees it as a combat option, and its up to the Mechwarrior to decide what fits the situation best? A bigger hit to overall DPS to apply better damage on a target now? Or better overall DPS across a set period of time.

Which is the bigger thing here. I wouldn't want to see an outright removal of alpha's as a valid option so much as have a better "leveled playing field" so the entire game doesn't continue to just boil down to "who can circumvent the heat scale system the best?"

Edited by SpiralFace, 25 May 2015 - 08:59 PM.

[Postumus]

Sounds like a reasonable system. The main problem with it, however, is how in the hell do they explain this to a new player? You will have the regular heat pool, which weapon heat values will add to, and then a weapon power draw system on top of that, and some interaction mechanics between the two.

It seems to me like it would be a lot more reasonable to just give TT heat values the boot and rationalize heat values based on things like damage, dps, range, spread, ammo use, weight, crit slots etc. Under such a system, I'm guessing that gauss would end up with a lot more than 1 heat per shot, and ballistic/laser synergy would be much less of an issue.

[jay35]

Quote

Clan tech provides ample opportunities to get crazy high alpha synergies.

But only for the couple Clan mechs that actually have the right combination of engine size and armor upgrades that allow enough speed *and* free tonnage to make it effective, and by the DWF because that's how it's supposed to be (a barely mobile turret with insane levels of firepower to deal with anything that attempts to face-stare it in the narrow arc in front of it where it can actually effectively deal its massive damage).

The rest of the time, using "Clan tech" as an excuse to do things is a moot point because Clan tech runs hotter and cannot be truly boated effectively by many Clan mechs, therefore it is not a consistent problem, it is an exception. To do something to "Clan tech" as a whole, without accounting for how that would nerf a lot of already bad or borderline-bad Clan mechs, would be a mistake.

Quote

[The current system] Does very little to curb the TTK when weapon synergy combos so easily circumvent the damage output intentions of heat scale.

The only real issue with TTK is a group of mechs focus-firing one mech (or someone in a Light mech being foolish enough to stand still in front of a 90+ ton assault mech). In pretty much every other scenario of two mechs 1-vs-1, TTK is just fine where it is today. The people that seem to have the most trouble with TTK are those who use joysticks to aim (a bad habit that was the best way to aim in old mechwarrior games but is not in MWO) which ensures they will not deal damage as effectively as their opponent, or those who habitually make bad tactical decisions that wind up with their mech in the open being blasted apart by multiple enemies. They epitomize the need to 'learn to play' the game better. There are plenty of people willing to help or tutor new/novice players to help them become more proficient. The only one to blame for not taking advantage of that is themselves, and they have no right to dictate how this game plays when they refuse to learn how to play it better. Yes, MWO requires a bit of tactical thinking and careful play.

Quote

[The current system] Only really affects energy weapons. Most Missiles and Ballistics can all but ignore the effects of the system.

And rightly so. Aside from the fallacy in your statement, being that boating missile weapons DOES create significant ghost heat, Ballistics SHOULD be able to not suffer the heat effects more common to Energy-based and Missile systems. That helps make up for their significant downsides such as cycle rate and overall weight.

Quote

[The current system] Fails to account for weapon synergies

True. However, that was not its purpose. Its purpose, as you stated earlier, is to reduce boating of one weapon type, particularly Energy and Missile weapons which are not as tonnage-limited as Ballistics. And it does that fairly well, with a few exceptions. It changed the meta to become one of combined weapon loadouts, and naturally smart players will gravitate towards loadouts that synergize well. Not seeing the problem with that.

Your proposed system, while interesting, is much more complex and therefore less friendly to new players and casual pilots alike. It also forces the game toward play at a glacially slow pace. MWO already is a high TTK game* compared to most fps games. Raising it further only caters to the armchair tabletoppers that aren't part of the competitive scene, while turning off competitive-minded players looking for skill-based play that rewards aiming skill and tactical positioning. By raising TTK to a longer duration, you also inherently reduce the value of tactical positioning because you are reducing the value gained by the element of surprise or any other tactical advantage by giving the loser in the exchange more opportunity to survive what should have been a fatal error.

*TTK stands for Time To Kill, and a having high TTK means it takes a long time to kill the target. MWO already has as fairly high TTK compared to how it started out. Armor values have been doubled, and many mechs have been given additional internal structure on top of that. Aside from focused fire from multiple enemies at once (or making a bad decision in a Locust), TTK is generally just fine. It's certainly not a reason to implement a system like you're proposing.

I do agree that the current ghost heat system could use better UI representation to communicate its status and impact during combat.

Edited by jay35, 25 May 2015 - 10:01 PM.

[SpiralFace]

Postumus, on 25 May 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

Sounds like a reasonable system. The main problem with it, however, is how in the hell do they explain this to a new player? You will have the regular heat pool, which weapon heat values will add to, and then a weapon power draw system on top of that, and some interaction mechanics between the two.

It seems to me like it would be a lot more reasonable to just give TT heat values the boot and rationalize heat values based on things like damage, dps, range, spread, ammo use, weight, crit slots etc. Under such a system, I'm guessing that gauss would end up with a lot more than 1 heat per shot, and ballistic/laser synergy would be much less of an issue.

Sadly, they did that before in all other MW games. It didn't work.

It lead to single weapon boating being the "end all be all" of the system. Its what lead to heat scale being implemented in the first place.

This system isn't perfect, but I would argue that its much more user friendly then what is currently in the game. Having a bar that dissipates over a single second that is dependant on spiked energy draw is much better then a hidden cooldown timer that penalizes you 100% of the penalty if a player is even less then a second off on his timing. As noted, at least under this system, the scale penalizes you based on the offense rather then the arbitray input on the keyboard.

Ultimately, Heat scale was still implemented to curb player behavior found in previous MW games that lead to single weapon boating being all the game boiled down to. At the end of the day, the game shouldn't boil down to who boats one weapon the best. At the very least now, you have "who boats synergy x or y the best." Which is a step up from previous games, but still carry's the exact same issues that only a narrow few mechs can ever compete with those kinds of combo's.

All this aims to do is take the idea's that heat scale was supposed to handle and address them in a way that is a step up in the direction of both making it more accessible to new players (when everything isn't hidden behind timers no one sees,) allows for more experimentation and diversity, given that you aren't shoe horned into the "select few" weapon combo's that work in the game allowing the feild to be widened a bit. (There will still be "ideal" combo's, but this is meant to widen what is available, not simply remove what is there,) as well as make it deeper for veterans. Allowing a deeper game while playing that doesn't just amount to chasing single click alpha weapon synergies.

[SpiralFace]

jay35, on 25 May 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

But only for the couple Clan mechs that actually have the right combination of engine size and armor upgrades that allow enough speed *and* free tonnage to make it effective, and by the DWF because that's how it's supposed to be (a barely mobile turret).

The rest of the time, using "Clan tech" as an excuse to do things is a moot point because it runs hot and cannot be truly boated effectively by most Clan mechs, therefore it is not a consistent problem, it is an exception.

The problem still stands that the "exceptions" essentially become the norm because they become clear winners when they are able to circumvent the system itself when many other mech's can't. Even under this proposed system, mechs that are the "average" would barely be affected by this system. You won't see any clan mechs that are less then a heavy class or a laser vomit medium ever even effected by this. Nor would many of the heavies and assaults that don't sit at the top of the meta. (Common summoner builds wouldn't even be touched by this in any significant way.)

jay35, on 25 May 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

The only real issue with TTK is a group of mechs focus-firing one mech (or someone in a Light mech being foolish enough to stand still in front of a 90+ ton assault mech). In pretty much every other scenario of two mechs 1-vs-1, TTK is just fine where it is today.

I agree with this. This isn't a proposal meant to drive TTK into the ground. Its a proposal to widen the field so the end all be all of the game doesn't boil down to who can do the best high alpha build better then the other guy. I'm proposing for the most part that most energy based ghost heat gets trimmed down compared to what it is now. You can still equip the same loadouts, dish out the same damage, and not be penalized at all, the only thing that changes is that you either do so as a more DPS oriented build, or you sacrafice DPS for the benefit of high pinpoint alphas. You still have the option, and heat is not there to penlize you to where its prohibative to do so. The only thing it does is pretty much mean that if you want to take that shot to do that massive amount of damage over a short period of time, you do so at the expense of your next recycle time.

jay35, on 25 May 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

And rightly so. Aside from the fallacy in your statement, being that boating missile weapons DOES create significant ghost heat, Ballistics SHOULD be able to not suffer the heat effects more common to Energy-based and Missile systems. That helps make up for their significant downsides such as cycle rate and overall weight.

LRM's yeah, and SRM's only when its something like a splat cat. (And even then it can get many more alpha's off then any energy weapon going 3 weapons over its ghost heat "allowance.) As for the ballistics, I can't disagree more. Their recycle rates and overall DPS are already better then lasers, and the fact that they are unaffected by ghost heat only sees the meta shift heavily to their use. Its why you see Gauss ER ML's, or Gauss LPL's be so common, as well as why boating 5 UAC 5's on a dire is effective, despite being 2 weapons over its "ghost heat" limit through a system specifically designed to curb single weapon spam. With the exception of AC 20's, ballistics can pretty much ignore the effects of ghost heat.

jay35, on 25 May 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

True. However, that was not its purpose. Its purpose, as you stated earlier, is to reduce boating of one weapon type, particularly Energy and Missile weapons which are not as tonnage-limited as Ballistics. And it does that fairly well, with a few exceptions. It changed the meta to become one of combined weapon loadouts, and naturally smart players will gravitate towards loadouts that synergize well. Not seeing the problem with that.

It did do it fairly well. I'm not arguing it didn't work, I'm arguing that all it shifted the game towards coming up with combo's specifically meant to get around it to do the same massive damage that the system was meant to curb. I don't have an issue with the combo's, what I have an issue with is that those combo's are meant to chase damage to a point where most other mechs in the game simply cannot compete. Either because they do not have the diversity of hard points to do so, or they are restricted in some other ways. This is meant to provide more options for mechs that simply cannot compete with those other mechs. The mechs that still utilize those combos' still have them, and they still remain potent, but they simply are no longer the "end all be all" of the game. Allowing more diverse loadouts or options because everyone isn't simply chasing narrow combos for what people concider "good."

jay35, on 25 May 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

Your proposed system, while interesting, is much more complex and therefore less friendly to new players and casual pilots alike. It also forces the game toward play at a glacially slow pace. MWO already has a high TTK game* compared to most fps games. Raising it further only caters to the armchair tabletoppers that aren't part of the competitive scene, while turning off competitive-minded players looking for skill-based play that rewards aiming skill and tactical positioning. By raising TTK to a higher level, you also inherently reduce the value of tactical positioning because you are reducing the value gained by the element of surprise or any other tactical advantage by giving the loser in the exchange more opportunity to survive what should have been a fatal error.

On the new player front, I completely fail to see how having a system that treats everything on a level playing field through integrated UI over an arbitrary system completely hidden from the player with no explanation through the game or while your playing in a game is worse. A system that currently sees people macroing keys to ensure they don't get penalized because they pressed a button a fraction of a second before an invisible cool down timer goes off. A system that reinforces a ridged meta that a minority of mechs can preform well (because lord knows new players will know those weapon combo's, or those specific mechs that are the "easy button" loadouts that they can just roll around in.)

Not to mention that this proposal hardly effects a majority of mechs in the game. Almost all starting mechs a player would have would either not be affected by this system in any significant way, or they would have to learn the arbitrary system anyways to use the mech in the first place. (Looking at you trial banshee.) So I fail to see how this is "new player unfriendly" in comparison to not only what we have now, but also in regards to mech or loadout diversity when everything plays on a level field over having to teach players the exact way to get around the inlaid restictions.

Again on the TTK side, I'm not trying to run TTK into the ground. This proposal is about widening the field to what is viable so what is "good" doesn't get reduced down to chasing an alpha number using the "special combo" of weapons is the only way something is good in the game. This has nothing to do with TT, and I honestly don't know where you are getting that from when I was pretty explicit within the proposal that I want to deepen tactical play so its not just reduced down to some first order optimal build that you can one button push through the game, but have it come down to player skill (and positioning is always going to be a big thing in this game.)

jay35, on 25 May 2015 - 09:48 PM, said:

*TTK stands for Time To Kill, and a having high TTK means it takes a long time to kill the target. MWO already has as fairly high TTK compared to how it started out. Armor values have been doubled, and many mechs have been given additional internal structure on top of that. Aside from focused fire from multiple enemies at once (or making a bad decision in a Locust), TTK is generally just fine. It's certainly not a reason to implement a system like you're proposing.

TTK is fine, but this system has nothing to do with TTK and everything to do with Alpha chasing. You can still get the same DPS out of builds, DPS builds already out there like AC Jagers, pulse firestarters, and nearly any mech under 60 tons is pretty much unaffected by this. To flip the example of the Twolf I used around, T-wolf laser vomit as it stands already has a 15-30% cooldown reduction period. What would players think if you only had that cool down when you fired all your weapons, but when you space out the shots, that cool down reduction pretty much goes away. Because that is what I'm proposing. Adding more tactical depth to the game to widen the field, make it more transparent and even to allow it to be easy to digest, and allow those players that are more skilled at the game physical options to how they wish to approach playing the game while in the match rather then having a frames viability begin and end in the mechlab.

Edited by SpiralFace, 25 May 2015 - 11:05 PM.

[happy mech]

you could achieve similar results by modifying the heat system (cap, dissipation, weapon heat), keep it simple without duplicate mechanics

[Wasabi Kemosabe]

I like the proposal, but I would add one thing. The "Energy draw threshold" should be relative to engine size. This would create another balancing tool and encourage diverse builds in that players will have to find their own balance of speed and firepower when a larger engine means a higher threshold there is the potential for greater firepower but also a lighter engine frees more room for weapons at the cost of a lower energy draw threshold. It balance function and dps against potential and skill.

[Zymn]

I've always felt that a system like this is what the game needs. It will also allow PGI a simpler knob to turn to balance the more over/ underpowered chassis/ variants by quirking the reactor size.

Another possibilty for energy weapons specifically would cut the beam short if the threshold is exceeded, loosing damage. Adding recycle time matters less to energy boat skirmishers like the firestarter who will still be able to zip in drop their alpha then 'meep meep!' run away.

[SpiralFace]

happy mech, on 26 May 2015 - 12:26 AM, said:

you could achieve similar results by modifying the heat system (cap, dissipation, weapon heat), keep it simple without duplicate mechanics

This isn't a duplicate mechanic so much as putting a visual representation of a mechanic that is currently implemented but hidden. As well as improve the already existing system to where its not so binary, nor easy to circumvent for people who are "in the know."

I would also argue that we wouldn't have similar results refining the systems you pointed out.

We had that at one point. And the inefficiencies of that system and how it restricted frame viability down to what mech can boat a single weapon the best was the direct result that lead to Heat Scale / Ghost heat being implemented in the first place.

Ghost heat is not a perfect system, but it served a purpose which for a time did make things better. But with both quirks, and Clan tech now in the game essentially seeing definitive power-creep make its way back in while still arbitrarily punishing loadouts that are no longer relevant (and arguably never where in the first place,) Its a good time to re-look into what we can do to improve what we already have within the game system.

All this proposal does is try to streamline and make a system that is already in the game more visible, and more fair then what we have now.

[AbsUserName]

Postumus, on 25 May 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

It seems to me like it would be a lot more reasonable to just give TT heat values the boot

that would be to make a new game out of the blue, but then one wouldn't need to get that expensive licence from microsoft, right?

Postumus, on 25 May 2015 - 09:33 PM, said:

and rationalize heat values based on things like damage, dps, range, spread, ammo use, weight, crit slots etc. Under such a system, I'm guessing that gauss would end up with a lot more than 1 heat per shot, and ballistic/laser synergy would be much less of an issue.

this is precisely what the BattleTech designers did when they made the game in the 80's and updated in the 90's, and many, many computer games followed

the gauss rifle is the heaviest weapon in the game right now. this is it's own penalty. And gauss rifle has a minimum range in the wargame rules.

Edited by AbsUserName, 26 May 2015 - 12:16 PM.

[SpiralFace]

To be fair, even in TT, the Gauss rifle is arguably the best weapon in the game. It, and the Clan ER PPC are the ONLY long range head capping weapons in the game (weapons that can kill you with a single head shot.)

In TT, it was balanced with a minimum range, the explosion mechanic on a HUGE component, and through BV being one of the most expensive BV weapons in the game.

Not all of that is an option here in a MW game. In all honesty, I would rather see overall recycle time take a hit over the heat (as its more characteristic of the weapon and its massive heat efficiency and potent direct damage.)

The issue with it now is only in how easy it is to combine and be the central pillar that allows you to rack up even higher direct damage alpha with very little drawback once you get the skill to easily pull off the charging mechanic.

[Domenoth]

SpiralFace, on 25 May 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

I actually typed most of this up a bit ago before putting it away, but with the renewed talks about the Timber Wolf / Storm Crow and other topics similar, I thought I would finally finish this up and get it out there.

HEAT SCALE

.
.
.

One thing that I'm not seeing addressed specifically by your proposal is the builds that don't abuse the current system, but sound like they would under your new system.

I'm all for taking the logical next step with regards to:

SpiralFace, on 25 May 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

Biggest issue illustrated:


Which alpha creates more heat for a mech?

I agree it's ridiculous that the right set of weapons add up to 84 damage and go un-penalized. But what about Mechs that rely on fast-recycle weapons like the 2 x AC/2 + 2 x AC/5 Jagermech. I haven't seen a single thread calling for nerfs on 2 x AC/2 + 2 x AC/5 Jagers, but your proposal says "meter reset" doesn't occur until the Mech stops firing:

SpiralFace, on 25 May 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

This meter reduces at a rate of 30 points per second. Only when weapons are not in use. (full second to fully cool down. Will not reduce the meter throughout the duration of laser burn times.)

Since the Jager above needs to hold down the trigger to be effective, it seems like your system would change these Mechs into something that you deal with by "ignore it and it will go away" (i.e. heat rises, AC cooldown times increase, Mech becomes ineffective) where today you either have to maneuver where it can't shoot you anymore or work with your team to return enough fire that it has to hide.

In my opinion, some weapon combos are fine and should be able to fire indefinitely until heat reaches shutdown levels (i.e. the system already works for them and they should remain unaffected by any tweaks made to the system). These types of weapons pay a large "cost" in the form of "facetime" required to achieve any noteworthy damage. How would your proposed system provide "exemptions" for Mechs using these types of weapons systems exclusively (i.e. not throwing in a Gauss, 3 LL, 6 ML, and an SRM for good measure)?

I think part of my concern stems from you suggesting that weapon damage is the primary factor for your meter modified only by "spread" features. That seems to penalize AC's heavily because it removes their one design advantage that is high tonnage + ammo traded for low heat values with each salvo.

Edited by Domenoth, 26 May 2015 - 05:09 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

The only issue for myself is every suggestions so far, from this suggestion to others to the current implementation, do not include the negative movement/responsiveness of the heat scale except the final shutdown/damage/destruction threshold.

Parts of the balancing act that are missing: mech responsiveness and speed. I could understand not including ammo explosions as that would likely increase the energy weapon loads, but every mech is ability to move and aim at the same speed, but it low heat or high heat.

How effective would the timberwolf (simply using this mech as an example) be if its engine representation dropped from tis CXL-375 to half/third/quarter of that after passing a specific threshold? And after hitting that threshold, the negative effects would remain in affect for 5/10 seconds only after staying below a specific threshold.

How would it run if the skills also took a hit, in such a way that as with the engine output? At a specific heat level, the mech skills would be rendered useless for a set period of time. This would include not just the speed increase, but the other settings, such as the twist speed, heat threshold, etc.

The 3rd set of items would the actual modules become less effective at higher heat levels. And this would affect not just range or cooldown timer but radar derp/zoom/seismic/etc.

Lights, fast meds/heavies would have their speeds affected with continuous firing, making them easier targets. Right now the only thing they have to worry about is simply getting a shutdown/override-pop a cherry while moving at the same speed, be it to get to the rear of an assault or get back into cover. For slower mechs it would make them more of a turret and have a slower reaction to viable targets if they keep up heavy fire to approach the max threshold.

The last thing would be to set a hard heat cap. It does not need to be 30 but it should not be as dynamic as it is now.

[SpiralFace]

Domenoth, on 26 May 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

One thing that I'm not seeing addressed specifically by your proposal is the builds that don't abuse the current system, but sound like they would under your new system.

I think the proposal was already long enough as it is, and as this is a generalization of the underlying systems, didn't need them. Specifically because it would just turn into yet another "This is really about nerfing X or Y frame!" discussions which it really isn't. This is a proposal to improve a core system that is already in the game that is currently hidden from most players, and no longer accomplishes what it set out to do.

It has nothing to do with frame balance.

Domenoth, on 26 May 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

I agree it's ridiculous that the right set of weapons add up to 84 damage and go un-penalized. But what about Mechs that rely on fast-recycle weapons like the 2 x AC/2 + 2 x AC/5 Jagermech. I haven't seen a single thread calling for nerfs on 2 x AC/2 + 2 x AC/5 Jagers, but your proposal says "meter reset" doesn't occur until the Mech stops firing:

Since the Jager above needs to hold down the trigger to be effective, it seems like your system would change these Mechs into something that you deal with by "ignore it and it will go away" (i.e. heat rises, AC cooldown times increase, Mech becomes ineffective) where today you either have to maneuver where it can't shoot you anymore or work with your team to return enough fire that it has to hide.

Under the proposed system, That particular Jagermech would be unaffected by these changes. Here is what the sequence of events would be under the proposed system:

• The Jager would fire its 2 AC5's, and 2 AC2's in a single trigger pull generating a total of 14 energy draw (in relationship to the damage output.
  
• The energy draw Dissipates at a rate of 30 points per second. Which means that 14 points would take .47 seconds to fully dissipate the energy draw.
  
• The AC 2 has a base recycle rate of .72 seconds. And a Max recycle rate of .684 after fast fire and weapon modules. (Quirks would still affect it, but not by much.)
  
• Because of this, there is zero chance for this build would be affected by any form of penelty proposed under this system.

The entire point of this proposal is to curb max alpha chasing while promoting more of a tactical "give and take" between mass alpha and DPS oriented builds. Most mechs outfitted for DPS would remain unaffected by these changes. And mechs built around max Alphas can physically stagger fire their weapons similar to what DPS oriented mechs do to circumvent the penalties, while still always having the option for a full alpha.

Domenoth, on 26 May 2015 - 04:53 PM, said:

How would your proposed system provide "exemptions" for Mechs using these types of weapons systems exclusively (i.e. not throwing in a Gauss, 3 LL, 6 ML, and an SRM for good measure)?

I think part of my concern stems from you suggesting that weapon damage is the primary factor for your meter modified only by "spread" features. That seems to penalize AC's heavily because it removes their one design advantage that is high tonnage + ammo traded for low heat values with each salvo.

So I've said it elsewhere, but I'm not married to the idea that it has to soley revolve around damage. I propose that not as a core feature, but a baseline to judge everything from at least at an initial state. I would be fine with having different weapons affect the system differently, (which is why spread damage weapons already got an immediate exception in the proposal.) But I would say that those kinds of values would have to be dialed in through testing. Not by playing spreadsheet warrior. (If anything to streamline an already lengthy proposal.) Exceptions to the rule are listed as well (MG's and flamers listed.)

But I would absolutely caution the use of "exceptions" for anything. This system is meant to provide a baseline for what is considered a fair alpha baseline across the board no matter what the armament. If you provide exceptions, you suddenly create a precedent that simply throws the meta towards the mechs that can abuse the exception into something that can circumvent the system. (its how we originally go here because meta is already dictated by those that can chase massive alphas while circumventing ghost heat.)

That doesn't mean that it has to be set to 30 (That is just a base line I used based off of the already existing ghost heat mechanics.) It can be higher if it needs to be, and weapons can be dialed in appropriately, but I would say the "exceptions" should be handled through the quirk system, which would already further "modify" the current results. (As this is a proposal for ghost heat changes, quirks would still be in play.)

Tarl Cabot, on 26 May 2015 - 06:12 PM, said:

The only issue for myself is every suggestions so far, from this suggestion to others to the current implementation, do not include the negative movement/responsiveness of the heat scale except the final shutdown/damage/destruction threshold.

I think you are misunderstanding this proposal, This proposal is a replacement for the current Heatscale / ghost heat system that is triggered when firing too many weapons together. It has nothing to do with the actual "heat scale" as in the physical heating / shutdown threshold of the mech. (I know, I always found it confusing that the dev's named this feature "Heatscale" in the first place.)

I like idea's like that, but its kinda a completely different discussion from what this proposal is trying to cover. (spiked alphas as opposed to physical heat effect through your generated heat.)

Edited by SpiralFace, 27 May 2015 - 10:00 AM.

[Domenoth]

SpiralFace, on 27 May 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

Here is what the sequence of events would be under the proposed system:

• The Jager would fire its 2 AC5's, and 2 AC2's in a single trigger pull generating a total of 14 energy draw (in relationship to the damage output.
  
• The energy draw Dissipates at a rate of 30 points per second. Which means that 14 points would take .47 seconds to fully dissipate the energy draw.
  
• The AC 2 has a base recycle rate of .72 seconds. And a Max recycle rate of .684 after fast fire and weapon modules. (Quirks would still affect it, but not by much.)
  
• Because of this, there is zero chance for this build would be affected by any form of penelty proposed under this system.

This explanation makes sense and addresses all of my concerns. But I would say your previous explanation:

SpiralFace, on 25 May 2015 - 06:03 PM, said:

• This meter reduces at a rate of 30 points per second. Only when weapons are not in use. (full second to fully cool down. Will not reduce the meter throughout the duration of laser burn times.)

did not clearly express your intentions. Perhaps you could tweak that slightly to indicate what counts as "in use" and what doesn't.

SpiralFace, on 27 May 2015 - 09:59 AM, said:

I think the proposal was already long enough as it is, and as this is a generalization of the underlying systems, didn't need them. Specifically because it would just turn into yet another "This is really about nerfing X or Y frame!" discussions which it really isn't. This is a proposal to improve a core system that is already in the game that is currently hidden from most players, and no longer accomplishes what it set out to do.

It has nothing to do with frame balance.

It sounds like you may have slightly misunderstood my concerns here. I was attempting to give a general statement about Mechs that fall into a specific category and then I moved on to illustrate what types of Mechs I was concerned about by specifically referencing the Jagermech.

Basically, it seemed like your plan might have unintended side-effects for a select group of chassis. But since you expanded on the specifics for the Jagermech and addressed my concerns, I am no longer worried that your suggestion would negatively impact chassis that are currently not in need of a nerf.

Edited by Domenoth, 27 May 2015 - 11:04 AM.