252 replies to this topic

[Steve Pryde]

Are they going to connect dmg stats to 10 sec. round rule? So a ppc does in table top 10 dmg in 10 sec, so in MWO it would make only 4 dmg with 4 sec. cooldown.

[Sandpit]

Dingo Red, on 27 February 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

Well I'm pretty happy that it's being acknowledged. It sounded like it was still in the design phase though, would be nice to get some details. I'm willing to put a little faith in PGI on this one.

well Russ stated it was 90-05% done with design phase and ready for initial implementation for internal testing. Provided it doesn't just completely break the game (which Russ also stated with 90% certainty it won't), it should be ready for implementation by the end of this summer.

Steve Pryde, on 27 February 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Are they going to connect dmg stats to 10 sec. round rule? So a ppc does in table top 10 dmg in 10 sec, so in MWO it would make only 4 dmg with 4 sec. cooldown.

That's an interesting idea...

I wonder if it could be based on a timing mechanic based on TT type RoF translated to a real time shooter. Not sure how they'd really be able to do that though.

[Blue Boutique]

Wonder if it will be more of MW2 where the heatsinks had to cool down your weapons first before getting rid of internal heat. Chainfiring helps keep the mech cool when you're carrying 8 CMPL but alpha all of them will overtax your 22 heatsinks and pile a a lot of heat into the reactor.

[Wolfways]

Accused, on 26 February 2016 - 08:31 PM, said:

It will be interesting.

They want to stick to lore....yeah well can we do more of that please?

When it suits them.

[Mahpsy]

I got a feeling its gona be something like how Armored core boosters work. where as long as your using the thing sparingly(in this case boosters not guns) you get more time and use out of it. but pass a threshold (the red bar at the bottom in the video) your recharge is significantly longer hammering on your mobility in this case.

Edited by Ragingdemon, 27 February 2016 - 04:03 PM.

[Sandpit]

Blue Boutique, on 27 February 2016 - 03:26 PM, said:

Wonder if it will be more of MW2 where the heatsinks had to cool down your weapons first before getting rid of internal heat. Chainfiring helps keep the mech cool when you're carrying 8 CMPL but alpha all of them will overtax your 22 heatsinks and pile a a lot of heat into the reactor.

Interesting as well.

I just really think the easiest way to help mitigate alphas is implement a heat scale with penalties for running hot. Before, with ghost heat, I didn't think it would be feasible and thought PGI would take the stance that they're too far into development to revamp such a major part of the game, but apparently I was wrong.

It's also amazing how much animosity and cynicism would be avoided if PGI would, I dunno, spend 30 minutes out of their work week to relay info like this.

I mean seriously, how hard is it to post "We know you guys have been discussing the heat scale, we're having internal discussions and working on trying to find a new system"?

Instead PGi sits around and says absolutely nothing for 3 years in this regard and wonders why people feel like they don't listen to the community. That's what really irritates me about all of this, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

Any kind of heat scale system would be better than we have now. Power draws and such aren't needed. A good heat scale would solve and heavily mitigate most, if not all, of the alpha problems with the game.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 27 February 2016 - 01:17 PM, said:

Spider 5V: 3 Medium Pulse Lasers
Alpha Strike: 18 damage (3 * 6)
18 damage * 5 = 90 seconds = 1.5 minutes

Lol

But Fup, you can't run 3 MPL on the Spider-5V.

2E in the CT is too much alpha potential!

[Triordinant]

Dingo Red, on 27 February 2016 - 03:03 PM, said:

Well I'm pretty happy that it's being acknowledged. It sounded like it was still in the design phase though, would be nice to get some details. I'm willing to put a little faith in PGI on this one.

I'm not sure if I remember correctly, but I think he said May was when it was rolling out.

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 27 February 2016 - 04:05 PM, said:

Interesting as well.

I just really think the easiest way to help mitigate alphas is implement a heat scale with penalties for running hot. Before, with ghost heat, I didn't think it would be feasible and thought PGI would take the stance that they're too far into development to revamp such a major part of the game, but apparently I was wrong.

It's also amazing how much animosity and cynicism would be avoided if PGI would, I dunno, spend 30 minutes out of their work week to relay info like this.

I mean seriously, how hard is it to post "We know you guys have been discussing the heat scale, we're having internal discussions and working on trying to find a new system"?

Instead PGi sits around and says absolutely nothing for 3 years in this regard and wonders why people feel like they don't listen to the community. That's what really irritates me about all of this, but that's neither here nor there I suppose.

Any kind of heat scale system would be better than we have now. Power draws and such aren't needed. A good heat scale would solve and heavily mitigate most, if not all, of the alpha problems with the game.

I don't think the traditional BT heat penalties translate well into a real time game. PGI doesn't want RNG added to aiming and I think players would revolt if their pilot was 'knocked unconscious'.

When we look at what Russ said (alpha strikes are still possible and the balance will be around heat- but not added heat) it seems only logical that the heat cap is just going to be lowered, possibly with harsher penalties for overheating.

Of course Gauss will still laugh at the concept of balancing alpha strikes with any kind of heat penalty.

[Macster16]

I really don't like the sound of "1 - 2 alphas per match" - that sounds like it's opening up a whole can of convolution.

Alphas are only really problematic to ttk when they're pinpoint (hence vomiting being so attractive). IMO, they should just go with introducing a heat cap - simple, easy to understand and straight forward to tweak for balancing purposes. It'll force mixed builds like ACs + lazers for example which have an element of desynchronization unlike the lolphas going around at the moment.

[cazidin]

I dub the new mechanic... GHOST HEAT II.

[Anjian]

The best and most elegant way I can think of --- and one that has real life precedents as this is used on dual or triple mounted turret guns --- is to input built in lag on the second and third weapons and so forth that they don't fire at the same time but in a short duration chain burst.

I also think that should extend to LRMs too, so they fire in a stream like C-LRMs, and not as a cluster. SRMs will fire in a fast chain too, which is actually in game on a few select mechs that has a single port for the SRMs.

The real life reasons for doing this --- note for example how rocket barrages are done --- is to prevent shells and rockets colliding each other in midair. It all goes back before the Second World War.

Obviously this will call for rebalancing and requirks, but it may potentially reduce TTK but this has to be matched by increasing mech agility and evasiveness even on the largest assault mechs.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 27 February 2016 - 06:05 PM, said:

But Fup, you can't run 3 MPL on the Spider-5V.

2E in the CT is too much alpha potential!

Oops, lol, I meant 5D.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 27 February 2016 - 06:48 PM, said:

I don't think the traditional BT heat penalties translate well into a real time game. PGI doesn't want RNG added to aiming and I think players would revolt if their pilot was 'knocked unconscious'.

When we look at what Russ said (alpha strikes are still possible and the balance will be around heat- but not added heat) it seems only logical that the heat cap is just going to be lowered, possibly with harsher penalties for overheating.

Of course Gauss will still laugh at the concept of balancing alpha strikes with any kind of heat penalty.

I don't think an exact port would work well either. That's why you modify it for a shooter. You can still implement a heat scale with movement modifiers, the way heat accumulates and dissipates, and increase visual effects as a penalty as well such as flickering hud, slower lock times, slower target gathering info, there's a whole myriad of ways to work a true heat scale.

One of the largest culprits behind the alphas and the way this game is played is the heat scale we have now. There's zero penalty for doing it. You don't have to make penalties so severe that firing off a couple salvos of a coupel of medium lasers causes drastic reduction in mech performance. It's a matter of adjusting numbers at that point, but you can't do that with the current heat system because there are no penalties, there is no heat scale other than a gauge that lets you know you're about to shut down because you got too hot.

Macster16, on 27 February 2016 - 07:07 PM, said:

I really don't like the sound of "1 - 2 alphas per match" - that sounds like it's opening up a whole can of convolution.

Alphas are only really problematic to ttk when they're pinpoint (hence vomiting being so attractive). IMO, they should just go with introducing a heat cap - simple, easy to understand and straight forward to tweak for balancing purposes. It'll force mixed builds like ACs + lazers for example which have an element of desynchronization unlike the lolphas going around at the moment.

He didn't say 1-2 aplhas per match, he said if your alpha is one of those 50+ alphas you might only be able to pull off a couple per match.

There's a big difference in that wording and just "1-2 alphas per match"

[Khobai]

Quote

More than likely a 33 pt heat cap to allow for up to 3 PPC's to fire max while moving without shutting down.

33 is way too low. that would be stupid.

all that would accomplish is making dual gauss/laser reign supreme

if you cap heat then gauss becomes new meta.

Quote

I just really think the easiest way to help mitigate alphas is implement a heat scale with penalties for running hot.

thats the best way to kill off high heat weapons. but low heat weapons like gauss will dominate and 40-50 damage alphas will still be a thing.

the heatscale isnt really the problem. battletech has a much more lax heatscale than MWO (BT has true double heatsinks as well as no ghost heat) and alphas arnt a problem because it has random hit locations and doesnt allow convergence.

The problem is precise aiming combined with convergence. Thats always been the problem. Heat has nothing to do with it.

Edited by Khobai, 27 February 2016 - 08:31 PM.

[Davers]

Sandpit, on 27 February 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

I don't think an exact port would work well either. That's why you modify it for a shooter. You can still implement a heat scale with movement modifiers, the way heat accumulates and dissipates, and increase visual effects as a penalty as well such as flickering hud, slower lock times, slower target gathering info, there's a whole myriad of ways to work a true heat scale.

One of the largest culprits behind the alphas and the way this game is played is the heat scale we have now. There's zero penalty for doing it. You don't have to make penalties so severe that firing off a couple salvos of a coupel of medium lasers causes drastic reduction in mech performance. It's a matter of adjusting numbers at that point, but you can't do that with the current heat system because there are no penalties, there is no heat scale other than a gauge that lets you know you're about to shut down because you got too hot.


He didn't say 1-2 aplhas per match, he said if your alpha is one of those 50+ alphas you might only be able to pull off a couple per match.

There's a big difference in that wording and just "1-2 alphas per match"

Seeing how players overwhelmingly were opposed to slower lock times and slower target info gathering in the Infotech test, I can't really see PGI being too keen on adding that- not to mention that doesn't affect the best builds in the game which are all direct fire.

I just don't feel like flittering HUDs and movement penalties will actually curb alpha strikes- especially not to the level that Russ was speaking of.

[Narcissistic Martyr]

I wonder if they decided to adopt my engine power idea...

In short your mech makes only so much power which it uses for energy weapons, charging gauss, moving, BAP, ECM, etc.

Plus available engine power is way easier to teach in the tutorial than ghost heat.

[Macster16]

Sandpit, on 27 February 2016 - 08:14 PM, said:

He didn't say 1-2 aplhas per match, he said if your alpha is one of those 50+ alphas you might only be able to pull off a couple per match.

There's a big difference in that wording and just "1-2 alphas per match"

So it's not a heat thing then, but rather a damage number threshold? Once my "alpha" hits a certain number, I get some sort of "ghost penalty" because I alpha'd over some arbitrary number? A typical AS7-S build carries a 60+ alpha but it's not pinpoint and has a very short range, it shouldn't be penalised for alpharing. How is this new system going to distinguish between different loadouts?

Like I said, it's looking like more layers of complication and convolution.

Sigh

I really wish Russ would've just given us the details instead of teasing us with one-liners that leave us all scratching our heads.

[Sandpit]

Davers, on 27 February 2016 - 08:26 PM, said:

Seeing how players overwhelmingly were opposed to slower lock times and slower target info gathering in the Infotech test, I can't really see PGI being too keen on adding that- not to mention that doesn't affect the best builds in the game which are all direct fire.

I just don't feel like flittering HUDs and movement penalties will actually curb alpha strikes- especially not to the level that Russ was speaking of.

there's a rather large difference in implementing a slower lock time as a standard mechanical feature and implementing a heat scale where at certain high levels if you spike and continuously run hot you're going to start having that. One is an avoidable or at the very least, player mitigated issue through well rounded builds not focused on the "meta" os building mechs based entirely upon the min/max math surrounding DPS and simple heat management.

The other is a hard coded mechanic constantly in play no matter what the player does.

I think some of you are reading waaaaaaaaaaaay too much into the "30 point alpha" "50 point alpha". These numbers are not the system and Russ specifically stated they were just examples for illustration purposes.

Macster16, on 27 February 2016 - 08:42 PM, said:

So it's not a heat thing then, but rather a damage number threshold? Once my "alpha" hits a certain number, I get some sort of "ghost penalty" because I alpha'd over some arbitrary number? A typical AS7-S build carries a 60+ alpha but it's not pinpoint and has a very short range, it shouldn't be penalised for alpharing. How is this new system going to distinguish between different loadouts?

Like I said, it's looking like more layers of complication and convolution.

Sigh

I really wish Russ would've just given us the details instead of teasing us with one-liners that leave us all scratching our heads.

I would rather have that on a REGULAR BASIS (hint hint Russ and PGI) as opposed to over-hyped "promises" of what will happen 6 months from now and now other info or updates on it until then. I love the info dispersed in the townhall. There's absolutely no reason they can't have smaller bites of info on ideas like that posted here on the forums and actually make use of their newsletters and information dispersal tools instead of exclusively using Twitter and vlogging once in a blue moon with NGNG

[Sandpit]

Khobai, on 27 February 2016 - 08:25 PM, said:

33 is way too low. that would be stupid.

all that would accomplish is making dual gauss/laser reign supreme

if you cap heat then gauss becomes new meta.



thats the best way to kill off high heat weapons. but low heat weapons like gauss will dominate and 40-50 damage alphas will still be a thing.

the heatscale isnt really the problem. battletech has a much more lax heatscale than MWO (BT has true double heatsinks as well as no ghost heat) and alphas arnt a problem because it has random hit locations and doesnt allow convergence.

The problem is precise aiming combined with convergence. Thats always been the problem. Heat has nothing to do with it.

I just don't see Gauss as an issue. That meta died out long ago and it has nothing to do with heat scale or other weapons. It had to do with the Gauss getting nerfed with the charge mechanic, the poptart nerfing, and players finally adjusting to that strategy.

Gauss wouldn't be any more or less dangerous with this kind of system than they currently are. They're an extremely heavy low heat ammo reliant weapon with a charge mechanic and extremely long cool down rate that are much more effective when being used at 600+ meters than they are in any kind of brawl.

A heat scale wouldn't change that. Gauss was really only a major "issue" during the poptart craze. Once that mechanic and dynamic were adjusted the gauss became what it is now and no amount of sensible heat system (even under the ghost heat mechanic which pretty much everyone agrees never solved the issue in the first place) is going to change it that dramatically.

What you will see are more well-rounded builds using multiple weapon system types more in line with what the spirit of Btech rules intended them to be and less boating of 1 weapon type.

Sure you'll still have some boating and some munchy builds, but they become less efficient against builds that take that into consideration.