61 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

Is it even going to happen? Either way, I imagine it as a system similar to a movement point system in a turn based RTS, where you get a set amount of points to draw from.

The points would be based off 150% of 10% of your engine rating. So, if you have a 340 engine, you would get 34+17 for a total of 51 Power draw points. They would recharge maybe 2 points per second, maybe 3. But everything you do would draw from it. It would be a system that needs to be managed, just as heat, armor, ammo and everything. Every weapon would be given it's own power draw rating, I imagine PPCs would be like 10, LL would be 7, ERLL would be 9, a Gauss Rifle would be a 12, AC20 would be a 10. Medium laser would be a 5, small laser being a 3. Machinegun would be 1 per 2s fired. And so on(just rough numbers to work with).

Speed would be 1 power draw point per 25KPH, so your in a Warhawk doing the max 64.8kph, it will only do 1 point per 25KHPH, so the Warhawk would only incur 2 power draw points, where if it went 75kph, it would draw a 3rd.

So, the Warhawk with its 340, would have 51 power draw points to play with, so if it fired all 4 PPCs while moving 64,8KPH, it would use up 42 power draw points, in addition to heat.

I imagine this system could kinda curb alphas in that we might now have enough power to even fire all our guns. It would definitively curb the light mechs and their huge firepower, it would make the firepower more Light, Medium, Heavy, Assault.

If you took a Spider with 2 ML and 1 LL, and a 225 Engine, allowing it to go 121KPH. Using a 225 engine would give you 33 Power draw points. The ML being 5 points a piece and the LL being 7 points. If the Spider runs full speed at 121 KPH, you would be using 4 power draw points from movement, giving you 29 remaining for weapons fire.

I would probably envision a system where the hotter you get, you start to lose power draw points, maybe 1 point lost per 15% heat up to 50%, then 1 point per 15% heat until 75%, ending with 1 point per 10% until you shut down. But again, just rough numbers to give an idea.

Then for Clan mechs, when you lose a ST, it would lose 33% of it's power draw points.

Its a system that I imagine curbs power draw through not having enough points to fire everything.

[InspectorG]

Far easier fix is to limit weapon groupings and put a hard 1 second between firings of groups. Grouping limits can be mech/chassis-specific and quirked.

[Jonny Taco]

My guess is that firing more than 3 clan erm will make your mech shut down but 3x IS lpl will function just as they do now.

:>

[LordKnightFandragon]

Jonny Taco, on 09 June 2016 - 06:56 AM, said:

My guess is that firing more than 3 clan erm will make your mech shut down but 3x IS lpl will function just as they do now.

:>

Lol, the power draw would not be applied to heat, it would be it's own system. But yeah, I imagine if PGI does it, it will be something like that.

[Karl Streiger]

or we just burry the whole power draw system and use the system that is already there: Heat
Because Heat = Power. (with the stupid exception of the Goose Waffle)

[Alistair Winter]

RIP mechs with STD engines, RIP Locusts, RIP Vindicators... actually, Vindicators are already dead, so scratch that one.

But it's interesting to contemplate how it should work, ideally. I personally don't think engine size should be a factor. At the very least, XL engines should get a penalty, to force players to choose between firepower and durability vs speed and agility. And also to create a bigger difference between Clan and Inner Sphere play styles.

However, I also think it would be necessary for power draw quirks to alleviate the handicap for mechs with absurdly low engine caps, such as the inexplicable CTF-4X engine cap.

<sigh> It's just so frustrating that they have to invent a whole new game mechanic to replace ghost heat. I still feel like it would have been possible to avoid this by adjusting the core values.

[Mystere]

I'm not wasting any more brain cells on it until I actually see it.

[Tordin]

Agreed. Experience, then judge.

[Ace Selin]

My Vision of Power Draw :

[Raso]

How about we lower the heat cap so that any mech who wants to make the most use out of it's plentiful weapon slots would need to pick different sets of weapons which are useful at different ranges? Make it so that heat sinks don't up the heat cap so drastically but instead prominently effect heat dissipation.

What's that? Now you're afraid people will boat ACs too much? Then either up the heat of ACs or give them a small CoF because balance.

Don't add some convoluted meter we have to monitor.

[TheArisen]

As long as it's on the public test server for a good amount of time & works out.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Alistair Winter, on 09 June 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

RIP mechs with STD engines, RIP Locusts, RIP Vindicators... actually, Vindicators are already dead, so scratch that one.

But it's interesting to contemplate how it should work, ideally. I personally don't think engine size should be a factor. At the very least, XL engines should get a penalty, to force players to choose between firepower and durability vs speed and agility. And also to create a bigger difference between Clan and Inner Sphere play styles.

However, I also think it would be necessary for power draw quirks to alleviate the handicap for mechs with absurdly low engine caps, such as the inexplicable CTF-4X engine cap.

<sigh> It's just so frustrating that they have to invent a whole new game mechanic to replace ghost heat. I still feel like it would have been possible to avoid this by adjusting the core values.

I mean, yeah, a mild CoF, a much lower heat capacity, longer Cool downs and other mechanics that woulda made it far better in the long run, but no one wants any of that, so were stuck with what we have, which obviously is such an amazing system.

Also, if they didnt use engine size, then they would go with some arbitrary system where an Atlas would have less power draw then a Locust just because the Atlas is more OP. I think the engine system makes the most sense, since, well, the power is drawn from the engine. Soooo....

And yeah, mechs with low engine cap would suffer, but that is the give and take. Everyone seems to want everything in games anymore. If it was up to modern gamers, we would have Atlas moving 75kph and Locusts with Atlas armor, just because no one understands the give and take in games. The Locust isnt a mech that even relies on firepower, its a mech for pure scouting and relaying info. So it cant pack in a ton of guns, thats not its role afterall.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 09 June 2016 - 07:39 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Raso, on 09 June 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

How about we lower the heat cap so that any mech who wants to make the most use out of it's plentiful weapon slots would need to pick different sets of weapons which are useful at different ranges? Make it so that heat sinks don't up the heat cap so drastically but instead prominently effect heat dissipation.

What's that? Now you're afraid people will boat ACs too much? Then either up the heat of ACs or give them a small CoF because balance.

Don't add some convoluted meter we have to monitor.

Agreed. Although ACs are already hot as hell in MWO. Sadly, the difference between lasers, SRMs and ACs in MWO is more about how they deliver damage (DPS, burst damage, range, etc) rather than heat management. I'm not saying that they have identical heat, I'm just saying the difference should be far more substantial, IMO.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Mystere, on 09 June 2016 - 07:14 AM, said:

I'm not wasting any more brain cells on it until I actually see it.

Id love to give it a try. There are alot of systems id love to try in this game. We just cant get PGI to code it and try it.

Alistair Winter, on 09 June 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Agreed. Although ACs are already hot as hell in MWO. Sadly, the difference between lasers, SRMs and ACs in MWO is more about how they deliver damage (DPS, burst damage, range, etc) rather than heat management. I'm not saying that they have identical heat, I'm just saying the difference should be far more substantial, IMO.

ACs are only hot cuz of the ghost heat.....

Raso, on 09 June 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

How about we lower the heat cap so that any mech who wants to make the most use out of it's plentiful weapon slots....

Dont alot of mechs actually have some serious hardpoint inflation to begin with? Alot of these mechs wouldnt even carry that many guns.

[Raso]

Alistair Winter, on 09 June 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

Agreed. Although ACs are already hot as hell in MWO. Sadly, the difference between lasers, SRMs and ACs in MWO is more about how they deliver damage (DPS, burst damage, range, etc) rather than heat management. I'm not saying that they have identical heat, I'm just saying the difference should be far more substantial, IMO.

No argument here. That sort of re-design is a little beyond me, though.

[MeiSooHaityu]

How I envision power draw...

[LordKnightFandragon]

MeiSooHaityu, on 09 June 2016 - 07:45 AM, said:

How I envision power draw...

THat will probably be PGI's implementation of it, 1 CERPPC will be 100% of the power draw. 1 CERML will be 75% of it, while a IS ML will be 5% cuz Clans are OP!

[MeiSooHaityu]

Alistair Winter, on 09 June 2016 - 07:11 AM, said:

RIP mechs with STD engines, RIP Locusts, RIP Vindicators... actually, Vindicators are already dead, so scratch that one.

But it's interesting to contemplate how it should work, ideally. I personally don't think engine size should be a factor. At the very least, XL engines should get a penalty, to force players to choose between firepower and durability vs speed and agility. And also to create a bigger difference between Clan and Inner Sphere play styles.

I at least think the dray shouldn't be determined by engine size a lone, but also take into effect the size (tonnage) of the mech as well.

the lighter the mech, the less of a penalty it would get from movement, JJs, or pretty much any other draw source other than weapons.

Overall though, it needs to be a system easy to understand. If it gets too complicated with too many rules and too much affecting power, it probably would be too convoluted of a system to be good :/ .

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 09 June 2016 - 07:49 AM.

[Raso]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 June 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

Id love to give it a try. There are alot of systems id love to try in this game. We just cant get PGI to code it and try it.



ACs are only hot cuz of the ghost heat.....



Dont alot of mechs actually have some serious hardpoint inflation to begin with? Alot of these mechs wouldnt even carry that many guns.

Yes, they do. Combine this with MWO's already high heat cap and you have a prime environment for multi-laser, high alpha mechs. Hard point inflation and the high heat cap is one of the reasons we have a focus on simple boating builds, like 6 Mlas with a few LPLs rather than splitting that between LLas and PPCs for range Mlas and SLas for a mid range and brawls.

[Alistair Winter]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 June 2016 - 07:36 AM, said:

The Locust isnt a mech that even relies on firepower, its a mech for pure scouting and relaying info. So it cant pack in a ton of guns, thats not its role afterall.

I agree. Scouting and relaying info is super important in MWO. Role warfare is the cornerstone of this game.