100 replies to this topic

[Salvag3]

So I have been wondering lately, what other options the dev team was looking at to mange the weapon spam.

And really I was thinking about it because I wonder why they didn't just make your mech start to preform like crap as its heat climbs, things like reduced speed, turning ability, twist rate, Radar range, hud malfunctions... Stuff like that.

[Gamuray]

Not sure what else they were looking at, but keeping the heat cap lower would have sufficed and even made alphas with a couple different lasers that do even more damage than all-the-same alphas just as inefficient. Your idea would also be interesting

[Lightfoot]

6 PPC Stalkers = Ghost Heat. Was the way of it. Overheat has no cap in MWO and players were willing to take the minor damage for the one-shot kills. In other MechWarrior games that kind of heat spike kills the mech.

[FupDup]

The other option was to fire Paul.

I like that option.

[Salvag3]

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the kinda stuff I talked about along with ammo cooking off what happened to a mech in classic TT. It's been ages since I played.

[Coralld]

Salvag3, on 25 January 2016 - 03:54 PM, said:

So I have been wondering lately, what other options the dev team was looking at to mange the weapon spam.

And really I was thinking about it because I wonder why they didn't just make your mech start to preform like crap as its heat climbs, things like reduced speed, turning ability, twist rate, Radar range, hud malfunctions... Stuff like that.

I do not know what other options they were looking at but what I do know is that Ghost Heat as it is called now was actually an idea from the community and was kind of popular at the time, also, there were accusations that PGI wasn't listening to the community and blah, blah, blah. So PGI decided to go with Ghost Heat as a way of killing two birds with one stone.

Edited by Coralld, 25 January 2016 - 08:14 PM.

[FupDup]

Salvag3, on 25 January 2016 - 08:08 PM, said:

Correct me if I am wrong but isn't the kinda stuff I talked about along with ammo cooking off what happened to a mech in classic TT. It's been ages since I played.

For ammo explosions in particular, I'm going to get flamed so hard for saying this but I think that heat-induced ammo explosions would actually have some bad consequences for balancing.


If somebody is using a loadout that mixes energy weapons with either missiles and/or ballistics, they will generate significant heat and thus trigger the explosion penalty, and probably die.

But if somebody is using a loadout that boats purely energy/lasers, they might generate a lot of heat but they will be completely immune to explosion penalties because they have no ammo to explode in the first place.

Ballistic boats technically are at risk of the ammo explosions, but many of them have such low heat output that they don't have to worry about triggering the ammo explosion penalty. There are a few Ghost-Heat ones that qualify as being hot, and those would of course see even less use than they do today.

Missile boats have significant heat output and have ammo that is liable to go boom, so they get double penalized.


Basically, mixed loadouts and missile loadouts get hit when they don't deserve to get hit, while lasers are completely immune and some ballistic loadouts can often sidestep it.

[Summon3r]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

The other option was to fire Paul.

I like that option.

+1

[FupDup]

Coralld, on 25 January 2016 - 08:13 PM, said:

I do not know what other options they were looking at but what I do know is that Ghost Heat as it is called now was actually an idea from the community and was kind of popular at the time, also, there were accusations that PGI wasn't listening to the community and blah, blah, blah. So PGI decided to go with Ghost Heat as a way of killing two birds with one stone.

I don't recall the community ever suggesting that certain weapon groups fired together would generate more heat than their listed mechlab values multiplied by the number of guns (e.g. 3 PPCs would normally generate exactly triple the heat of 1 PPC).

[MischiefSC]

Ghost Heat was never a community idea. Community ideas were all around a viable heat scale.

PGI nixed that and looked for something adequately arcane and problematic and settled on Ghost Heat. Because it was the least coding to generate the most convolution.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 08:21 PM, said:

For ammo explosions in particular, I'm going to get flamed so hard for saying this but I think that heat-induced ammo explosions would actually have some bad consequences for balancing.


If somebody is using a loadout that mixes energy weapons with either missiles and/or ballistics, they will generate significant heat and thus trigger the explosion penalty, and probably die.

But if somebody is using a loadout that boats purely energy/lasers, they might generate a lot of heat but they will be completely immune to explosion penalties because they have no ammo to explode in the first place.

Ballistic boats technically are at risk of the ammo explosions, but many of them have such low heat output that they don't have to worry about triggering the ammo explosion penalty. There are a few Ghost-Heat ones that qualify as being hot, and those would of course see even less use than they do today.

Missile boats have significant heat output and have ammo that is liable to go boom, so they get double penalized.


Basically, mixed loadouts and missile loadouts get hit when they don't deserve to get hit, while lasers are completely immune and some ballistic loadouts can often sidestep it.

The last thing we need is another aspect of the game where RNGesus can rear its ugly head and kill players at random because of high heat, or at least save it for if you shut down well over the heat cap.

If PGI wants to implement consequences of running high heat they could do a lot of different things.

75% = 5% lower movement speed
80% = HUD flickering
85% = Slower heat dissipation
90% = Loss of targeting

etc, etc. I'm just spit balling here (probably not a good way to argue considering how PGI does things) but if PGI and people want this game to have a serious competitive aspect, we can't have players randomly die because of something like that.

Its a similar situation to the ******* "suppression system" in Battlefield. I don't need an arbitrary RNGesus to make my sniper bullet shoot 30 degrees off angle to make me be "suppressed", If I'm keeping cover because someone is shooting at me, guess what? I'm ******* suppressed.

The less random ******** the better.

Edited by Sigilum Sanctum, 25 January 2016 - 08:31 PM.

[Coralld]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 08:24 PM, said:

I don't recall the community ever suggesting that certain weapon groups fired together would generate more heat than their listed mechlab values multiplied by the number of guns (e.g. 3 PPCs would normally generate exactly triple the heat of 1 PPC).

Well I do, but the thing was no one could agree on how many weapons would trigger the heat penalty nore could they agree on how much heat one would be penalized. The idea originated in the community but the number of weapons fired that would trigger the penalty and the amount of heat you were penalized with was all PGI.

MischiefSC, on 25 January 2016 - 08:25 PM, said:

Ghost Heat was never a community idea. Community ideas were all around a viable heat scale.

PGI nixed that and looked for something adequately arcane and problematic and settled on Ghost Heat. Because it was the least coding to generate the most convolution.

Again, yes it was, but you are not wrong about the adjusting the heat scale values idea and such as that was also one of the ideas being floated around the community at that time along with hundreds of others. An idea I was for.

Excuse me sir but you appear to have dropped your tin foil hat. Now I agree PGI is known for coming up with bad ideas and I to can only facepalm when they do, but please, stop acting like they did this to spite you by p*ssing in your corn flakes.

Edited by Coralld, 25 January 2016 - 08:41 PM.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Salvag3, on 25 January 2016 - 03:54 PM, said:

So I have been wondering lately, what other options the dev team was looking at to mange the weapon spam.

And really I was thinking about it because I wonder why they didn't just make your mech start to preform like crap as its heat climbs, things like reduced speed, turning ability, twist rate, Radar range, hud malfunctions... Stuff like that.

A heat scale would only take effect after you fired that massivly-converged volley.

The only way to stop pinpoint damage is with a reticule bloom effect.

The game originally had delayed convergence, and your weapons would converge on target as long as you held your reticule over it. However, Host State Rewind was introduced to retroactively check and see if your shots impact the enemy as a function of ping. This system is calculated server-side. The developers found that, in order to stop cheaters from keeping their client's reticule always convergence-synced to the rangefinder, they had to make convergence checks server-side as well, AND the convergence checks had to be sent through the HSR calculations. This created a massive bandwidth hog: every time you pointed your cross hair at the enemy, the game was constantly performing checks just as much as a if you were pouring shots on the enemmy with an allways-on beam weapon.

So, they had to scrap delayed convergence in favor of keeping the HSR system in effect. At least now your shots' "accuracy" are ping-adjusted to increase your perceived performance and to reduce ping's effect on whether or not your shots impact the target.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 25 January 2016 - 08:46 PM.

[charov]

An alternative to the ghost heat? Ghost cooldown of course. So, if you fire λ ML or λ UAC5 each weapon cooldown is increased by λ² * 10%. Basically, if you α with a 10xER SL EXE, you have to wait 3 matches before being able to fire again

Jokes aside, it will definitely kills meta boats though.

Spoiler

[El Bandito]

FupDup, on 25 January 2016 - 08:00 PM, said:

The other option was to fire Paul.

I like that option.

Seconded, and thirded.

[cSand]

You know, I'm sure I've said this before

but calling out staff personally, is about as unclassy as it gets.

I love you guys, but I guarantee if you actually met Paul, you would not have the sack to tell him to his face he should be fired. You would wither like a peen after a day in the Atlantic ocean and be like "hi" smile and wave

It's like that mean girls movie, but on a e-forum.

Edited by cSand, 25 January 2016 - 09:07 PM.

[FupDup]

cSand, on 25 January 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

You know, I'm sure I've said this before

but calling out staff personally, is about as unclassy as it gets.

I love you guys, but I guarantee if you actually met Paul, you would not have the sack to tell him to his face he should be fired. You would wither like a peen after a day in the Atlantic ocean and be like "hi" smile and wave

It's like that mean girls movie, but on a e-forum.

[Coralld]

cSand, on 25 January 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

You know, I'm sure I've said this before

but calling out staff personally, is about as unclassy as it gets.

I love you guys, but I guarantee if you actually met Paul, you would not have the sack to tell him to his face he should be fired. You would wither like a peen after a day in the Atlantic ocean and be like "hi" smile and wave

It's like that mean girls movie, but on a e-forum.

That tends to happen on the inter-webs, armchair warriors sitting safely behind their desk, believing they are not accountable for what they say as they hide behind anonymity.

Its sad really.

Edited by Coralld, 25 January 2016 - 09:15 PM.

[Salvag3]

Well I don't think I would want ammo cook off to happen unless you override your shut down and went past max heat, as long as you kept yourself from totally over heating it wouldn't be a problem, that Way the player was pretty much still in control

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

cSand, on 25 January 2016 - 09:00 PM, said:

You know, I'm sure I've said this before

but calling out staff personally, is about as unclassy as it gets.

I love you guys, but I guarantee if you actually met Paul, you would not have the sack to tell him to his face he should be fired. You would wither like a peen after a day in the Atlantic ocean and be like "hi" smile and wave

It's like that mean girls movie, but on a e-forum.

I haven't called him out on the forums since I don't know what his job title and purpose is, but if I were to meet him face-to-face I wouldn't have an issue letting him know some of his/their ideas are pretty ******* stupid... But then again, I don't think damned near any veteran on this forum has an issue with face-to-face confrontation.