162 replies to this topic

[Tarl Cabot]

Troutmonkey, on 09 February 2016 - 03:53 PM, said:

One of the biggest issues with the heat scale is the way it drastically effects the pacing of the game. Anything heat based becomes pretty much useless as you have to wait for your mech to cool down a lot. Meanwhile, ballistics users are still going to run around firing UAC5's all day without a care, even if their accuracy is slightly penalised.

If the heat scale is too harsh it will completely shift the meta and unbalance the game.
If the heat scale is too weak, it won't affect player behaviour.

You say that like it is a bad thing. Changing the heat scale, even in increments would make people change their builds, their habits, their methods. ACs do generate heat but with a smaller heat scale (Heat sink additive on 30cap smaller effect) increased heat dissipation, a more active heat scale effect, the number or the size of repeat energy alphas would decrease, as well as ballistics, more so close up.

It really comes down to how PGI would integrate it into the system. If PGI were to make any changes would it be done in increments or all at once? Example is Ghost Heat AND mech damage when exceeding the heat cap. Would have the Ghost Heat setup been implemented in its current form if heat cap damage had been allowed to cook for time on the Live server before adding GH?

Long range use for long range energy weapons, ballistics/shorter range energy for close quarters. There are people and teams in both normal queue and group/CW already using ballistics with the current heat scale.

Energy builds/hardpoints were primarily meant to be used as back up weapons or for missions that lacked supply depots. And I would also suggest that IS ballistics be changed to fire pellets in the same manner as Clan ballistics. The number of pellets would be the both weapon type and tech flavor.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 09 February 2016 - 05:26 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Tarl Cabot, on 09 February 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

Just to add about the COF, would the CoF bloom be adjustable based on distance? The bloom effect being smaller farther away the mech is, so that it has a high probability of hitting the mech but not all in the same location.

Take 3 ERLL, the bloom being small enough that as long as the CoF is centered over the mech torso, the lasers hit the mech and as the duration continues, as long as the crosshair is on the mech, the bloom shrinks.

Or to put it in another way, 3 different CoF setups (distance) with 2-3 subsets based on heat of firing mech, comparable speed of both mechs and time on target.

The most balanced way to do blow would be to offset the ray point at the target location based on how much you want to bloom. That way the amount bloom is the same at 100m as it is at 800m. If you do the bloom in screen space shots will land further way from your target at higher distances than close up.

Adjusting bloom to be dynamic based on how long it's over a mech is a bad idea in practice as many weapons require shots to be lead in a way where your cursor won't be over where you are aiming at.

[cazidin]

A small COF would offer a negligible difference from what we have now. A large COF would introduce an unnecessary level of RNG. You should avoid RNG mechanics nine times out of ten.