Drunk Posts Happen
#21
Posted 02 March 2016 - 11:43 AM
Care to enlighten us with some concrete evidence? I dont even remember this being presented to us this way.
#22
Posted 02 March 2016 - 11:47 AM
Revis Volek, on 02 March 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:
Care to enlighten us with some concrete evidence? I dont even remember this being presented to us this way.
I think the post he's referring to was this one from July 2014: http://mwomercs.com/...ctive-feedback/
#23
Posted 02 March 2016 - 11:56 AM
FupDup, on 02 March 2016 - 11:47 AM, said:
You mean the poll posted about 2 years after ghost heat was implemented?
#25
Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:02 PM
A third category, power draw capacity has always been what I advocated for.
I dont honestly remember anyone I play(ed) ever asking for the ghost heat system. Hard caps sure. Hardpoint sizing limits sure. But nothing like the stacking ghost heat system we have now.
That being said, whether the masses voted yes to ghost heat or not, I am just glad to see the mechanic changed to something that will hopefully help the game.
#26
Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:03 PM
#27
Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:05 PM
Mead, on 02 March 2016 - 11:33 AM, said:
I don't see how that could realistically be implemented. That's way too complicated of a system in my opinion
FupDup, on 02 March 2016 - 11:57 AM, said:
Prosperity Park mentioned PPC/Gauss limiting, and that thread I dug up seems to be the only fit.
I can't ever remember anything like he's describing and I remember the very first day Ghost Heat was implemented. We had to dig around on the forums and bug PGI just so we could have an explanation on how the dam thing worked so we could avoid overheating.
It wasn't even in the patch notes, there was never ANY kind of discussion or notice to this system that I can recall
#28
Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:19 PM
For example, Russ stating the server tick rate was at 32. You can find posts on unit's forums quoting Russ saying that after the data migration, but you won't find a single trace of that here on the forums.
#29
Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:31 PM
Aresye, on 02 March 2016 - 12:19 PM, said:
For example, Russ stating the server tick rate was at 32. You can find posts on unit's forums quoting Russ saying that after the data migration, but you won't find a single trace of that here on the forums.
In this particular case he's wrong though. That's not how the implementation of ghost heat went.
#32
Posted 02 March 2016 - 12:44 PM
#33
Posted 02 March 2016 - 01:48 PM
LordNothing, on 02 March 2016 - 12:44 PM, said:
I get the feeling they 'announce' things. Judge our reaction to it. Take the best ideas from the forum and then start programming, pretending it was their idea all along. The give away is they always do our ideas just slightly... wrong.
...so salty today Valentine...
#34
Posted 02 March 2016 - 02:27 PM
Ooh, fire enough weapons and extra heat, yaaaaay- wait, that's how it was.
This fixes nothing. Give us actual heat penalties. Fix perfect convergence.
#35
Posted 02 March 2016 - 03:35 PM
Edited by Coralld, 02 March 2016 - 03:37 PM.
#36
Posted 02 March 2016 - 03:38 PM
EasyPickings, on 02 March 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:
No, it isn't. That chart is from a conversion of MechWarrior into the d20 RPG system.
This is the actual heat scale:
People also tend to misunderstand what this scale means on this forum, as well, so, here's an example. I'm piloting the Timber Wolf C(C). It has two Large Pulse Lasers and three ER Medium Lasers, and I fire off an alpha strike. In table top, the LPL generates 10 heat and the ERML generates 5, so my total heat generated from weapons fire is 35 (10+10+5+5+5). I have 25 double heat sinks, which dissipate 50 heat. At the end of the round, I add up the heat from my weapons fire (35) and the heat from my movement (0-3), and subtract my dissipation (50) from that number. In this example, this means I have 0 heat and suffer no penalties.
Edited by Queen of England, 02 March 2016 - 03:52 PM.
#37
Posted 02 March 2016 - 03:46 PM
Probably Paul: "But you guys voted for ghost heat. So ... that's what you want right? Nope, not changing it, you already voted."
#38
Posted 02 March 2016 - 03:54 PM
And now they are doing the exact same nonsense again, and I'm really suspecting at this point it's just because they don't want to admit that a proper heat scale would fix most of the problems with this game.
#39
Posted 02 March 2016 - 04:51 PM
You are right about one thing though, Paul doesn't get enough credit, but then again he hasn't earned it.
3 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users