223 replies to this topic

[Spleenslitta]

Another thing that's possible is engine energy production and energy storage. it goes like this.
Everything uses energy - Firing weapons, moving, JJ's, BAP, ECM, AMS. Some things takes more/less energy than others.
All energy weapons use up a lot of energy as well as causing high heat. Having ECM or BAP on at all times takes away an amount of the energy produced by the engine the entire time it's on.

Moving at full speed also consumes energy but never more than the engine can produce. So you can never use up all your energy by just running around.
But if you use up all the energy you got stored up in your battery through firing weapons the engine has to produce more energy to enable you to move at top speed or do other things.
Gauss could have a high energy demand to fire but no charging up....or both charging up the Gauss and high amounts of energy is necessary to fire.
Whatever it takes to make it balanced.

There are some things that should require a low amount of energy of course. For example. Torso and arm yaw should take a bare minimum amount of energy.
MG's should be practicly free of energycharge to fire and so on.
Should bigger engines have a higher energy production and/or storage? I haven't got a faintest clue.
All i know is that if this heatscale and engine energy was put into the game i would be very....satisfied.

[XtremWarrior]

Could this Heat-Scale be also a solution to the DHS tax?

Like SHS rising the threshold before you suffer any heat effects more than DHS would;
and DHS keeping their better heat dissipation over time?

Then, if you want to alpha strike only, you could keep SHS to be able to escape after firing, and if you want to fire more consistently then you'd have to take DHS.
Don't know if it's a good way to make SHS usefull, though. (I still hope they get saved one day!)

[Spleenslitta]

Seems nobody paid attention to Cdlord's announcement of the thread he made in the feature suggestions forum.
If you want attention on this you guys need to go there and vote on the different links he put in that thread.
He put 11 links in that thread so you got plenty of ideas to choose from.

Heat Scale Ideas

[Davers]

cdlord, on 05 October 2015 - 10:45 AM, said:

Well, since you did't read the whole thing I will paste it again.

This has precedent in TT though, what we have now isn't true to lore or how it's supposed to be.

As for equalized TTK. I realize that might not have been the best term to use, but it was the closest I could think of. I do not expect a stock build to preform as well as a custom build, however I do not think the differences should be so drastic. New players are really turned off when they peek around a hill and are instantly melted down. Call it teamwork, call it optimized, I call it one less player for MWO.

I would think we would still need to have a Heat Threshold of some kind (TT and MWO are based on number and type of heat sinks but maybe it could be changed to something else for balance) unless the goal is having all non-gauss users to be permanently penalized the instant combat starts.

Why are stock loadouts worse than customized ones? Because TT is a game of positioning and attrition and MWO is a game of peekaboo and high alphas. If there was less 'bleed over' in weapon ranges maybe mixed load outs would be more favorable. If having a single AC5 was useful (which it wasn't in TT despite many mechs armed that way), if a single LRM5 wasn't purely dead weight...well, it would be a very different game.

[CDLord HHGD]

Davers, on 05 October 2015 - 11:53 AM, said:

I would think we would still need to have a Heat Threshold of some kind (TT and MWO are based on number and type of heat sinks but maybe it could be changed to something else for balance) unless the goal is having all non-gauss users to be permanently penalized the instant combat starts.

Why are stock loadouts worse than customized ones? Because TT is a game of positioning and attrition and MWO is a game of peekaboo and high alphas. If there was less 'bleed over' in weapon ranges maybe mixed load outs would be more favorable. If having a single AC5 was useful (which it wasn't in TT despite many mechs armed that way), if a single LRM5 wasn't purely dead weight...well, it would be a very different game.

Methinks this is in the wrong thread.

The very weight and size of the gauss plus ammo is a big nerf in it's own right. The fact that you can fire two at once and equip four on a DWF was never meant to be. Else the TRO would have it.

[Khobai]

extremely bad idea

all this would accomplish is making dual gauss superior to every build

because it will do high pinpoint damage without incurring penalties

ALL HAIL THE NEW GAUSS OVERLORDS

Quote

The very weight and size of the gauss plus ammo is a big nerf in it's own right

except its really not a big nerf at all. people happily use gauss now. if you make the heat system even more punitive gauss just becomes that much better.

Quote

would think we would still need to have a Heat Threshold of some kind

this. you need a threshold/buffer of some kind. It makes no sense to fire ONE laser and then suffer a movement penalty. Thats dumb as all hell.

For this idea to work you would need a heat buffer where you incur no penalties. The buffer would be equal to your double heatsinks * 2.

So for example if you have 15 double heatsinks youd get a buffer of 30 heat.

So from 1-30 heat thered be no penalty. And then from 31-60 heat youd suffer the heatscale penalties

Edited by Khobai, 05 October 2015 - 12:41 PM.

[Roadkill]

cdlord, on 25 September 2015 - 05:23 AM, said:

Sure enough. Make it a 40 point threshold or condense the penalties to the upper portion of the list. I just tried to match the CBT line for line as a start.

The problem with conversion is that in BT your heat sinks are instantaneous. You have no heat if you fire 3 x PPC but you have 30 heat sinks.

To mimic that effect, in MWO the threshold should start at 31 heat and run up to 60. (Or whatever numbers make the most sense.) The point being that the first half of the heat scale should be penalty-free because that's effectively how it works in TT.

[Khobai]

Quote

The problem with conversion is that in BT your heat sinks are instantaneous. You have no heat if you fire 3 x PPC but you have 30 heat sinks

To mimic that effect, in MWO the threshold should start at 31 heat and run up to 60. (Or whatever numbers make the most sense.) The point being that the first half of the heat scale should be penalty-free because that's effectively how it works in TT

no the threshold should be based on your number of double heatsinks * 2

in tabletop if you have 10 DHS then you can generate 20 heat and still break even at 0 heat.

but if you have 15 DHS then you can generate 30 heat and still break even at 0 heat.

And if you have 20 DHS you can generate 40 heat and still break even at 0 heat.

The amount of heat you can generate without incurring a penalty is directly related to how many heatsinks you have.

Edited by Khobai, 05 October 2015 - 12:43 PM.

[Roadkill]

Khobai, on 05 October 2015 - 12:42 PM, said:

no the threshold should be based on your number of double heatsinks * 2

Roadkill said:

(Or whatever numbers make the most sense.)

Sure, fine, whatever. Like I said, use whatever numbers make the most sense.

The point is that the first part of the scale should not incur any penalty at all to mimic the fact that TT heatsinks work instantaneously.

[r4plez]

Timberwolf581, on 25 September 2015 - 05:07 AM, said:

I like this.

I recently played MW4 again and I noticed that running hot made my HUD flicker and reduced my top speed and turning speed. (legs and torso)
I want that in MWO.

But Paul Inouye gave us Ghost Heat- adapt and be gratefull to that great mind of gaming industry!

[CDLord HHGD]

Roadkill, on 05 October 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

The problem with conversion is that in BT your heat sinks are instantaneous. You have no heat if you fire 3 x PPC but you have 30 heat sinks.

To mimic that effect, in MWO the threshold should start at 31 heat and run up to 60. (Or whatever numbers make the most sense.) The point being that the first half of the heat scale should be penalty-free because that's effectively how it works in TT.

If that's what you think would work. Really, I left it open with my last sentence in my OP. I just wanted to get the ball rolling in a direction.

[Lightfoot]

Only if we get full DHS 2.0 because MWO has heatsinks turned way down. I don't mind managing mech heat, but that comes with DHS 2.0 on all DHS. Otherwise no way.

[CDLord HHGD]

Obligatory yet surprisingly necessary disclaimer:

cdlord, on 25 September 2015 - 05:02 AM, said:

Now, is a 30 point threshold correct? Are my penalties too severe? I have no idea. This is a proposal for discussion.

[Davers]

Lightfoot, on 05 October 2015 - 01:59 PM, said:

Only if we get full DHS 2.0 because MWO has heatsinks turned way down. I don't mind managing mech heat, but that comes with DHS 2.0 on all DHS. Otherwise no way.

You do know that with the Pilot Skills many mechs have higher than 2.0 heat sink efficiency, right?

r4plez, on 05 October 2015 - 12:47 PM, said:

But Paul Inouye gave us Ghost Heat- adapt and be gratefull to that great mind of gaming industry!

GH was proposed on the Forums long before it was put in game.


Lastly, I don't think using TT Heat tables works well in a game with triple fire rates. Maybe something that felt more like TT than trying to directly copy from it.

[Roadkill]

cdlord, on 05 October 2015 - 01:57 PM, said:

If that's what you think would work. Really, I left it open with my last sentence in my OP. I just wanted to get the ball rolling in a direction.

With Khobai's clarification, yeah I think it would, even using PGI's numbers.

Use your 30-Point "penalty" scale, but you get X penalty-free heat before that scale starts where X is your total heat sink capacity. 1.0 for singles, 1.4 for doubles, and 2.0 for in-engine doubles.

I'd go further, but that would require re-working the entire heat system that PGI's using.

[Weeny Machine]

John1352, on 25 September 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

Suddenly the only weapons on the field would be AC5s and Gauss Rifles!

...and some people would realize that they really cannot aim and would go back to lasers.

[CDLord HHGD]

Roadkill, on 05 October 2015 - 02:11 PM, said:

With Khobai's clarification, yeah I think it would, even using PGI's numbers.

Use your 30-Point "penalty" scale, but you get X penalty-free heat before that scale starts where X is your total heat sink capacity. 1.0 for singles, 1.4 for doubles, and 2.0 for in-engine doubles.

I'd go further, but that would require re-working the entire heat system that PGI's using.

Might as well... It needs it.....

[nehebkau]

All you would end up with is a Gauss nor 2 on every mech that could carry them.

[Johnny Z]

I like this idea the most because it deals with two problems. One, is max alphas that really are not in the spirit of the game design, all the way back to the original battletech, and two, high speeds that are also not very sim like in alot of cases.

This choice between firepower and durability goes back to X-Wing and Tie fighter with shield vrs speed vrs weapons. I know that from reading about it.

If this idea isnt good enough then another has to be come up with. I am honestly not 100% sure which is the best. This topics idea is easier because it uses the heat scale and addresses a few problems.

Another alternative is a reactor energy pool addition.

This topic also improves the sim in a noticable way, where as a reactor pool addition may not. Although the effects of this topic could be included in a reactor pool addition.

Higher heat for movement should be included in this change if its the way to go.

Edited by Johnny Z, 05 October 2015 - 02:26 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

nehebkau, on 05 October 2015 - 02:14 PM, said:

All you would end up with is a Gauss nor 2 on every mech that could carry them.

How is that any different from now?