237 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Pjwned, on 08 August 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

How are you going to fix this without increasing the heat cap at all unless you slow down every weapon to be ~3x as slow or something about as ridiculous?

Thinking critically, if PGI wanted the weapons to fire 3 times faster, they should have dealt 3 times less heat, had 3 times more ammo, and dealt 3 times less damage as starting values to be tweaked on.



We didn't get that.

[Koniving]

Mawai, on 05 August 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

Your example for a 250 engine lists dissipation as 2.3 and 1.15 and I don't know where the 0.3 and 0.15 come from.

"Skill tree."
Cool Run is 7.5% faster dissipation.
Heat containment is 10% higher heat threshold/cap.
Elite doubles all basics (15% and 20% respectively).
http://keikun17.gith...heat_simulator/
Enjoy!

(Yes I know I'm late to the party but whee.)

[Koniving]

Mcgral18, on 08 August 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

Thinking critically, if PGI wanted the weapons to fire 3 times faster, they should have dealt 3 times less heat, had 3 times more ammo, and dealt 3 times less damage as starting values to be tweaked on.

We didn't get that.

First step in a Battletech to realtime simulation translation that I did in my little design document here... is essentially what you've said.

Spoiler

Take the ratings as the intention of "this much damage/heat/etc." for "roughly X amount of time", and that if used akin to tabletop of one rating per use -- it'd work out to the source material. And if people use it more aggressively, they'll have some heat issues. Otherwise, within ten seconds that weapon will deal its rated damage for its rated heat and will be very likely to hit at its stated accurate range.

Edited by Koniving, 08 August 2015 - 05:37 PM.

[Pjwned]

Mcgral18, on 08 August 2015 - 05:29 PM, said:

Thinking critically, if PGI wanted the weapons to fire 3 times faster, they should have dealt 3 times less heat, had 3 times more ammo, and dealt 3 times less damage as starting values to be tweaked on.



We didn't get that.

Maybe so, but other Mechwarrior titles didn't do anything as drastic as that.

[NocturnalBeast]

Andi Nagasia, on 08 August 2015 - 02:35 PM, said:

the idea is that since SHS are 1Ton & 1Slot they are more Condensed(Thicker),
so they should Hold more Heat before becoming Overcome by such Heat,

and Since DHS are 1Ton & 2-3Slots they are More Porous(Thinner more Veins),
so they should Displace more Heat than their move Condensed Counterparts,

remember DHS are only Defined as giving double SHS Heat Dissipation but Bulkier,
so this could be added and still fit within BattleTech from within a Lore standpoint,

Well, technically, we have no idea about exactly how HS in the 31st century would work, or what exactly they are made from, but I would assume that the DHS have more surface area / fins which allow them to dissipate heat more quicky. HS are not meant to become overcome with heat, they are just intended to transfer heat to a surface that will allow air to flow through or over it (AKA transfers heat into the atmosphere).

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 08 August 2015 - 04:05 PM, said:

Even without raised heat cap, DHS are better than SHS in MWO, because heat neutral mechs are harder to create and much less effective (unless a Gauss boat).

Yes, DHS are better. They are SUPPOSED to be. But if heat sinks did not also raise the heat cap, they would be closer.

Pjwned, on 08 August 2015 - 05:24 PM, said:

That's fine, except that never comes into play as an advantage in MWO because the engine heatsink advantage with DHS means you always have better cooling for less tonnage and crit slots.



Okay, so what if heatsinks didn't raise the heat cap then? With heatsinks more or less taking their dissipation values from Battletech's "10 second turns" (which doesn't apply here, in more ways than one) with weapons obviously firing faster than every 10 seconds, there wouldn't be enough heat dissipation if nothing could increase the heat cap.

How are you going to fix this without increasing the heat cap at all unless you slow down every weapon to be ~3x as slow or something about as ridiculous?

What PGI could have done is make the damage and heat per weapon ALSO be over ten seconds. A medium laser (or ANY weapon) could play just as it does now, but the heat and damage would be lower. This would allow the removal of the double armor bandage.

Pjwned, on 08 August 2015 - 06:42 PM, said:

Maybe so, but other Mechwarrior titles didn't do anything as drastic as that.

Other MechWarrior titles, quite frankly, did it wrong. But it didn't matter as they were designed to be single player PvE games.

[TheArisen]

Sorry to barge in but I think it's just silly that we can't mix and match singles & doubles.

Single HS are old tech so doubles should be better.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 04:36 AM, said:

Yes, DHS are better. They are SUPPOSED to be.

You keep saying this, but with no other reason than "because Lore."
You can spout Lore until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change that this is a different kind of game and that balancing DHS and SHS does not ruin the battletech feeling and instead adds depth to the game.

MWO probably should've gone the route of MW4 and just remove the issue entirely by making one heat sink type the ONLY heat sink type so this whole conversation could've been avoided.

[Eggs Mayhem]

I'd definitely be open to the approach of having SHS increase heat capacity and having DHS increase heat dissipation. But I would say that this change would have to come with the removal of the base heat cap so that the difference between SHS and DHS can be felt more, in addition to having in-engine HSs behave as their external counterparts. So it'd look something like this:

Currently:
SHS heat cap: Base + #SHS
DHS heat cap: Base + (1.4 * #DHS or 2 * #InternalDHS)

New:
SHS heat cap: 3 * #SHS
DHS heat cap: 2.1 * #DHS

Currently for a 10HS mech:
SHS: Cap: 40, Diss: -1/s
DHS: Cap: 50, Diss: -2/s

Proposed fix for 10HS mech:
SHS: Cap: 30, Diss: -1/s
DHS: Cap: 21, Diss: -1.4/s

Currently for a 20HS mech:
SHS: Cap: 50, Diss: -2/s
DHS: Cap: 64, Diss: -3.4/s

Proposed fix for 20HS mech:
SHS: Cap: 60, Diss: -2/s
DHS: Cap: 42, Diss: -2.8/s


In addition to giving a purpose to SHSs, these particular values will make the name 'Double Heat Sink' more accurate. The amount of time to bleed off a full heat cap (100%) is twice as long for SHSs as it is for DHSs. Another added bonus of course would be an overall increase to TTK due to the engine HS normalization and the overall lowering of heat caps for DHSs.

Of course a complete overhaul would be needed to fix the heat system, but this would be a good quick fix in the right direction.

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 August 2015 - 10:48 AM, said:

You keep saying this, but with no other reason than "because Lore."
You can spout Lore until you are blue in the face, it doesn't change that this is a different kind of game and that balancing DHS and SHS does not ruin the battletech feeling and instead adds depth to the game.

MWO probably should've gone the route of MW4 and just remove the issue entirely by making one heat sink type the ONLY heat sink type so this whole conversation could've been avoided.

"Because lore", as you put it, is the only reason so many people funded the game to make it possible.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 01:20 PM, said:

"Because lore", as you put it, is the only reason so many people funded the game to make it possible.

It's a nice assumption, but not completely true. There are many paying players that couldn't care less about the lore. If you think that the Mechwarrior series has only drawn in hardcore BT fans, you would again be wrong.

That said, there is the "spirit of the law" versus "rule of the law" argument going on here. Do singles being inferior to doubles go against the spirit of battletech? Not really, there is more to battletech than the effectiveness of heat sinks. Does it go against the rules of battletech? Yes.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 August 2015 - 01:57 PM.

[Pjwned]

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 04:36 AM, said:

Yes, DHS are better. They are SUPPOSED to be. But if heat sinks did not also raise the heat cap, they would be closer.

So it's fine if SHS has some actual value in Battletech even if it isn't much value, but if it's worthless in MWO (which is not only due to a different heat system) then it isn't fine to buff it to be at least viable without touching DHS or removing DHS as the superior option in most builds.

Lore isn't the only excuse to do or not do something because the lore comes from a completely different kind of game.

Quote

What PGI could have done is make the damage and heat per weapon ALSO be over ten seconds. A medium laser (or ANY weapon) could play just as it does now, but the heat and damage would be lower. This would allow the removal of the double armor bandage.

There are some merits to doing that I suppose, but I have a feeling that if nothing else people would get bored and quit (possibly including me) if the game was slowed down to such an extent; I'm not going to get into it too much though.

Quote

Other MechWarrior titles, quite frankly, did it wrong. But it didn't matter as they were designed to be single player PvE games.

Fair enough, single player games don't really require the most delicate balance (or at least not compared to online games like MWO) so their methods were probably at the very least flawed.

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 August 2015 - 01:54 PM, said:

It's a nice assumption, but not completely true. There are many paying players that couldn't care less about the lore. If you think that the Mechwarrior series has only drawn in hardcore BT fans, you would again be wrong.

That said, there is the "spirit of the law" versus "rule of the law" argument going on here. Do singles being inferior to doubles go against the spirit of battletech? Not really, there is more to battletech than the effectiveness of heat sinks. Does it go against the rules of battletech? Yes.

Nope, its absolutely true. The initial Founders program made this game possible. The vast majority of those founders, if indeed not ALL of them, funded the game because of the BattleTech franchise tag.

Without this, no MW:O. Period

Sure, since its inception many more people have put money into this game. Many of them with no more care about what the game is based on than the price of tea in China. But without the founders, the game would never have gotten that far.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 03:18 PM, said:

Nope, its absolutely true. The initial Founders program made this game possible. The vast majority of those founders, if indeed not ALL of them, funded the game because of the BattleTech franchise tag.

You are making a large assumption, one that you can't prove or state as fact like you do. Some were in fact excited for a new Mechwarrior because they liked previous entries, not everyone is super familiar with lore or really cares.

So quit making BS claims.....

Now were a larger chunk of founder TT purists than there exist currently within the population? Probably, but not to the extent you seem to think.

Edit: Either way, it doesn't mean this game should be held back simply because a portion of the Founders were TT purists. Saying that TT fans were the first whales doesn't mean your voice matters more.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 August 2015 - 03:31 PM.

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 August 2015 - 03:21 PM, said:

You are making a large assumption, one that you can't prove or state as fact like you do. Some were in fact excited for a new Mechwarrior because they liked previous entries, not everyone is super familiar with lore or really cares.

So quit making BS claims.....

Now were a larger chunk of founder TT purists than there exist currently within the population? Probably, but not to the extent you seem to think.

Edit: Either way, it doesn't mean this game should be held back simply because a portion of the Founders were TT purists. Saying that TT fans were the first whales doesn't mean your voice matters more.

I'm am pretty confident in my assertion. It is logical to assume that when sold as "a thinking man's shooter" and a "BattleTech sim" that the first people to put money into the game were NOT thinking "Hey, a game based on BattleTech! Lets make it happen so that we can later lobby to have it changed into something that ISN'T BattleTech!"

Judging by the amount of early players who have already quit the game over 3PV, Ghost heat, consumables, re-spawns, and other things that have deviated from BattleTech, my allegations seem pretty well founded.

DHS are a direct upgrade to SHS in BattleTech. The messed up heat system makes DHS even better compared to SHS, but the problem is the heat system, NOT the viability of SHS. Messing with yet another tenet of the game that drew the founders in is a wrong move.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

I'm am pretty confident in my assertion. It is logical to assume that when sold as "a thinking man's shooter" and a "BattleTech sim"

I like how with your logic thinks the thinking man's shooter part goes hand in hand with Battletech sim. When in fact they are not mutually inclusive.

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Judging by the amount of early players who have already quit the game over 3PV, Ghost heat, consumables, re-spawns, and other things that have deviated from BattleTech, my allegations seem pretty well founded.

Again, you are making a lot of assumptions that those contentious points have anything to do with Battletech and not trying to make this game different and more tactical. Case in point, I was against all those things being added to the game, yet here I am arguing for better SHS and deviating from Battletech. Surprise!!!

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 03:55 PM, said:

Messing with yet another tenet of the game that drew the founders in is a wrong move.

Yes, because making this game deeper by giving people actual choices is such a bad move

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 August 2015 - 04:06 PM.

[Hotthedd]

WM Quicksilver, on 09 August 2015 - 04:03 PM, said:

I like how with your logic thinks the thinking man's shooter part goes hand in hand with Battletech sim. When in fact they are not mutually inclusive.


Again, you are making a lot of assumptions that those contentious points have anything to do with Battletech and not trying to make this game different and more tactical. Case in point, I was against all those things being added to the game, yet here I am arguing for better SHS and deviating from Battletech. Surprise!!!


Yes, because making this game deeper by giving people actual choices is such a bad move

You are entitled to your opinion as to why many people have left, and I am entitled to mine. Saying I cannot prove my point because we cannot know why so many left is an appeal from ignorance fallacy.

I also was against these things, and still play, but every one of the "corerule ignore" changes has me playing less and less.

This game could have been so much more than it has become.

I believe in tough choices being good for the game, but I also believe in hard upgrades as a necessary C-bill sink.

[Deathlike]

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

This game could have been so much more than it has become.

That falls more upon PGI, and not the community at large.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

You are entitled to your opinion as to why many people have left, and I am entitled to mine. Saying I cannot prove my point because we cannot know why so many left is an appeal from ignorance fallacy.

I wasn't saying that everyone was like me in the disapproval of those issues because of Battletech reasons but you also can't simply state generalizations when they are known to be false in certain cases and use it to further your argument.

Hotthedd, on 09 August 2015 - 04:13 PM, said:

I believe in tough choices being good for the game, but I also believe in hard upgrades as a necessary C-bill sink.

You realize by making it a tough choice in choosing between heat sinks, it becomes more of a C-bill sink because it isn't just a way to inflate the cost of buying a mech? Not all variants will stay SHS by default, just like not all DHS variants would stay that way by default. Rather than being a one-time tax, you may incur the tax multiple times to experiment or shifts in the meta.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 09 August 2015 - 04:23 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Deathlike, on 09 August 2015 - 04:18 PM, said:

That falls more upon PGI, and not the community at large.

Absolutely. The community may (or may not) have asked for some of these, but PGI did the bad decision making.

I did not mean to imply that this was any player's fault.

WM Quicksilver, on 09 August 2015 - 04:21 PM, said:

I wasn't saying that everyone was like me in the disapproval of those issues because of Battletech reasons but you also can't simply state generalizations when they are known to be false and use it to further your argument.


You realize by making it a tough choice in choosing between heat sinks, it becomes more of a C-bill sink because it isn't just a way to inflate the cost of buying a mech? Not all variants will stay SHS by default, just like not all DHS variants would stay that way by default. Rather than being a one-time tax, you may incur the tax multiple times to experiment or shifts in the meta.

I do not know them to be false. I believe them to be true.

there are already tough choices in the game. There are few c-bill sinks.