61 replies to this topic

[Queen of England]

Seems a little complex.

I'd just simplify ghost heat. Scrap the existing linked ghost heat system, and just make it based on how much heat you generated in the last 500 ms. Set the limit at about 20, and increase heat over the limit by a fixed multiplier, e.g., x3 or something.

For example, If you generated 20 heat in the last 500 ms, everything is normal. Every point over that adds 2 ghost heat in addition to the normal weapon heat, so generating 30 heat in 500 ms adds 50 heat to your 'mech's heat (or 20 ghost heat in addition to your 30 weapon heat).

Then add a small bar next to the heat bar that keeps track of your heat in the last 500 ms, so you know how close you are to generating ghost heat.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 June 2016 - 02:30 PM, said:

If you are tired of PvP, then why are you campaigning for irritating, non-MechWarrior mechanics instead of PvE? Even power draw will not make you safe, it will just shift the meta.

I do campaign for PVE. I hope more then anything PGI can make a PVE experience even remotely resembling what AW has right now.

Queen of England, on 09 June 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Seems a little complex.

I'd just simplify ghost heat. Scrap the existing linked ghost heat system, and just make it based on how much heat you generated in the last 500 ms. Set the limit at about 20, and increase heat over the limit by a fixed multiplier, e.g., x3 or something.

For example, If you generated 20 heat in the last 500 ms, everything is normal. Every point over that adds 2 ghost heat in addition to the normal weapon heat, so generating 30 heat in 500 ms adds 50 heat to your 'mech's heat (or 20 ghost heat in addition to your 30 weapon heat).

Then add a small bar next to the heat bar that keeps track of your heat in the last 500 ms, so you know how close you are to generating ghost heat.

Ghost heat is more complex really...and it makes less sense. You can dual fire the guns together for no GH penalty, but if you chain fire them rapidly, you trigger ghost heat. You can fire like 2 PPCs, or 1 PPC and 1 ML, or 1 LPL and 1 LL or w/e combo doesnt incur GH......yeah, its way more ********.

[Sable]

I don't know why they had to make a power draw system. Wouldn't making a lower heat scale with faster cooling do the same thing? Limiting the total weapons that could be fired at once but not stifle gameplay

[LordNothing]

i figure it will be another factor pgi will fail to balance correctly. if you add up heat and damage, then thats pretty much the energy usage of the weapons. most thermodynamic systems are 50% or less efficient (most engines are only about 25% efficient). so heat represents the energy wasted in the system, and damage represents the energy actually used, and the sum is the total energy of the system. whole thing based on the rules of conservation of energy.

pgi will probibly just stick an arbitrary fudge factor on there instead, independent of the heat and damage values. its easier to balance this way i suppose, fewer interdependent values. i assume the mech is going to have an energy bank. weapons are going to draw energy at a certain rate, the engine will replenish it at a certain rate. and you have permanently linked weapon performance to engine size (interdependence make balance complicated).

then what do you have happen when you fire and there is not enough juice. in any real system you get a brownout, which causes all kinds of weird things to happen, primary of which the thing its powering stops working right. perhaps your lasers put out less damage per tick, and burn a little longer so the power supply can keep up. you can also divert power from elsewhere like slowing you down or turning off your radar.

more than likely it will be a cut and paste of the gauss mechanic, and simply lock you out of firing things if you try to fire too many things at once. most of my laser mechs i configure with a 1-2 punch, it will pretty much force you to do that (even potentially forcing you to chain fire or use *gasp* 3 or more groups).

Edited by LordNothing, 09 June 2016 - 04:07 PM.

[LordKnightFandragon]

LordNothing, on 09 June 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

then what do you have happen when you fire and there is not enough juice. in any real system you get a brownout, which causes all kinds of weird things to happen, primary of which the thing its powering stops working right. perhaps your lasers put out less damage per tick, and burn a little longer so the power supply can keep up. you can also divert power from elsewhere like slowing you down or turning off your radar.

I reckon in the simplest of forms, if you "brownout" your weapons, then a UAC Jam type mechanic is applied, indicating you over powered the circuits and they shutdown. Speed would drop by 50%, and you would have to simply wait maybe 4-5s while it resets itself.

The general idea would be a mechanic that is more or less forcing a slow down of fire output. Since, players dont do anything that isnt out right forced on them.

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 09 June 2016 - 04:30 PM.

[InspectorG]

Ace Selin, on 09 June 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

My Vision of Power Draw :

Needs moar Paulconomy™

[InspectorG]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 June 2016 - 04:29 PM, said:

The general idea would be a mechanic that is more or less forcing a slow down of fire output. Since, players dont do anything that isnt out right forced on them.

But the 'power draw' is Bass Ackwards if you want to reduce output.

MWO by nature favors taking initiative to hit first with high burst damage, pinpoint as an added bonus.

Now, why develop a whole new system when the tools are already in place?

The answer is in weapons grouping. And put a hard 1 second cooldown between the firing of the next group after the previous firing has ended.

Example:

Cicada has 6E, its the ML 'specialist' so to speak. 6x5=30 damage. If PGI thinks this is too much alpha then break it into 4/2.
Fire 4 then after beams end, cooldown of 1 second, then 2 can fire.

Meta-Whale: 2LPL/2Gauss/3ERML. PGI determines the alpha size for this variant/chassis. Then do maths.
Group 1 2lpl
Group 2 2Gauss + 2 ERML
Group 3 1 ERML

So it would look like 44 damage, 1 second, 26 damage, 1 second, 7 damage...

Alphas drop, more facetime required if you want to unload all guns on one target. TTK goes up.

Plus, Groups can be different between variants.

PGI would just have to do about 2 days of research to determine ideal baseline alphas for mechs/weightclasses and weapons system pairings that depict the ceiling of what damage should be.

Special cases like mechs that only run Dual Gauss(jager) can be tweaked towards that.

Existing quirks can be left pretty much alone on the viable mechs.

[LordKnightFandragon]

InspectorG, on 09 June 2016 - 05:05 PM, said:

But the 'power draw' is Bass Ackwards if you want to reduce output.

MWO by nature favors taking initiative to hit first with high burst damage, pinpoint as an added bonus.

Now, why develop a whole new system when the tools are already in place?

The answer is in weapons grouping. And put a hard 1 second cooldown between the firing of the next group after the previous firing has ended.

Example:

Cicada has 6E, its the ML 'specialist' so to speak. 6x5=30 damage. If PGI thinks this is too much alpha then break it into 4/2.
Fire 4 then after beams end, cooldown of 1 second, then 2 can fire.

Meta-Whale: 2LPL/2Gauss/3ERML. PGI determines the alpha size for this variant/chassis. Then do maths.
Group 1 2lpl
Group 2 2Gauss + 2 ERML
Group 3 1 ERML

So it would look like 44 damage, 1 second, 26 damage, 1 second, 7 damage...

Alphas drop, more facetime required if you want to unload all guns on one target. TTK goes up.

Plus, Groups can be different between variants.

PGI would just have to do about 2 days of research to determine ideal baseline alphas for mechs/weightclasses and weapons system pairings that depict the ceiling of what damage should be.

Special cases like mechs that only run Dual Gauss(jager) can be tweaked towards that.

Existing quirks can be left pretty much alone on the viable mechs.

But then that is a convoluted system of only being able to fire certain weapons based on damage amount. The power draw system I propose is literally just a pool of power which to draw power from, each weapon given a value based on overall power of the weapon, obviously weapons like a CERPPC would draw alot more then a ERLL, ERLL would obviously be 2nd on the list in terms of energy requirements.

The place it gets tricky is when it comes to ballistics, which are not high in heat and therefore wouldnt actually draw much power from the engine, but at the same time would need a rating so as not to completely invalidate energy weapons. I personally, given my current engine rating based system would place PPCs probably in the 10 range, so as to allow mechs like the Panther and Adder to still use them, since those are their primary weapons. An Adder with its 210 engine would still get 31.5 power draw(rounded up to 32), its 97KPH top speed would only draw 3 points for max speed, allowing 29 points still for weaponry. If it decided to chain fire it's 2 CERPPC in rapid succession, it would be left with 9 points, regenerating at 2 per second, maybe 5 per second might be better. But while it waits for both its engine to recharge power and the heat to cool down, it is basically exposed.

[oldradagast]

My prediction: Power Draw = Ghost Heat 2.0, a convoluted and illogical system that won't really fix anything.

New Meta = apply no more than the "power draw" trigger number for bad things to happen damage in a single, long-range, pinpoint attack. So much different, so impressed.

[InspectorG]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 June 2016 - 06:00 PM, said:

But then that is a convoluted system of only being able to fire certain weapons based on damage amount.

Just as convoluted as attributing energy draw to weapon firing.

But that is a FAR easier system to implement than coming up with a 'Heat Scale v2'. PGI couldnt get the first heat scale, why add another one?

If the purpose of a power draw system is to curb alphas, then weapon groupings is the easier to implement way. You have to pitch this stuff to PGI in the simplest, least work involved, way possible so they can ignore it.

[LordKnightFandragon]

InspectorG, on 09 June 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

Just as convoluted as attributing energy draw to weapon firing.

But that is a FAR easier system to implement than coming up with a 'Heat Scale v2'. PGI couldnt get the first heat scale, why add another one?

If the purpose of a power draw system is to curb alphas, then weapon groupings is the easier to implement way. You have to pitch this stuff to PGI in the simplest, least work involved, way possible so they can ignore it.

Actually attributing energy draw to weapon firing is actually as simple as a 128 oz cup full of water. You start with the 128oz, it refills at a rate of 8 oz per second, and you remove 40oz(fire a PPC), now you have 88oz left, it recharges 8, so now your back to 96, you then remove another 40oz(fire another PPC, reducing it to 56oz, now it goes up 8 again, putting you are 64. You choose to do nothing for 3s, so you gain 24oz, putting you back at 88oz and you pour out 40 more oz, putting you at 48 oz. My proposal is really no more convoluted then that. Itwould even be straight forward as to the amount of energy per weapon.

Machineguns would obviously be nearly 0, maybe 1 point per 5s of firing. Flamers would be probably 1 point per 3s of firing. SL and SPL would probably be 3 points per shot, ML/MPL would be like 5, ERML would be a 6. LL/LPL would come out at a 7, ERLL for IS would be an 8 and CERLL would be a 9. CLPL would also be a 9. ISPPC would be a 10, ERPPC would be 11, CERPPC would be a 12. For ballistics, im thinking maybe half their damage in power draw per shot. So, AC2, would be 1 point per shot, AC5 would be 2.5 per shot, AC10 would be 5 per shot and an AC20 would be 10 per shot. A Gauss Rifle, given its power and range would be a 12 alongside the CERPPC. SRMs would probably be equal to their launcher size, so SRM 2=2 points, 4=4 points and a 6=6 points. LRMs would probably also be equal to their launcher size, with a degrading power amount as the salvo increases so as not to completely invalidate large racks, more so then thye already are. So, LRM5=5 points, LRM10=7.5 points, LRM15=10 points and an LRM20=12.5 points.

I wouldnt put the power draw in a %, instead, I would put it in a flat number that reflects your power draw amount, just as ammo tells you how much you have left. If your in a Warhawk with a 340, it would start off the game sitting at 51. As you fire start moving and get up to 64.8kph, you would see it drop to 49, indicating 25kph per point, it would not draw power from anything slower then 25kph per increase. You then chain fire a pair of PPCs, your main heat bar jumps up about 30%, and your power draw bar drops from 49 to 29. So, you pull back, you wait for the mech to cool down and your engine to regenerate power. At 4 power per second, it would take like 5s to get 20 power back, putting you at 49, at which point you have cooled off and are ready to go again.

Ofc, I still think the simplest solution is a mild CoF and a 40 point heat scale....but still....

[InspectorG]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 June 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

Actually attributing energy draw to weapon firing is actually as simple as a 128 oz cup full of water.

Yes, until you calculate all the possible variables between all the different energy draws between all the different build combinations.

Adding another 'heat scale' like this exponentially created more opportunities for imbalances AND programming errors.

Why add that much extra work to PGI when capping weapon groups does essentially the same thing(curbing alphas)?

Hard 30 or 40 heat cap? Sure. Im down for that.

Cone of fire? No. Comps would see this as 'nintendo-izing' MWO while PGI is trying to build tourney play. Wont happen.

[LordKnightFandragon]

InspectorG, on 09 June 2016 - 06:56 PM, said:

Yes, until you calculate all the possible variables between all the different energy draws between all the different build combinations.

Adding another 'heat scale' like this exponentially created more opportunities for imbalances AND programming errors.

Why add that much extra work to PGI when capping weapon groups does essentially the same thing(curbing alphas)?

Hard 30 or 40 heat cap? Sure. Im down for that.

Cone of fire? No. Comps would see this as 'nintendo-izing' MWO while PGI is trying to build tourney play. Wont happen.

And if you go over your power draw, it will fire the weapons, but it will instantly "UAC Jam" all your weapons. Just like heat it would count all the power draw you used and go over the amount, but you would then have to wait until it got below your max power and reset all your weapons. Kinda like a minishut down.

I mean, yeah, a heat scale on a heat scale does seem derpy, but what I propose for the system will end up making more sense then what PGI does. Judging by their obsession with ghosts, I cant foresee their power draw not sucking worse. That is if they even going through with it, last I heard they no longer were.

Really a fixed, 40 point heat scale would solve alot of problems out right. Maybe 50 points....

[Airwind]

Your vision does not matter. unless you start a game company and make a game. Unless you are hired by PGI to gauge our opinion on the "current" idea they are implementing. These topics are very much useless IMO. time can be spent else where rather than predicting how mech resize will be or how writing up how MWO should be. go water the garden or something.

[Andi Nagasia]

i think its ganna be more based off heat,


simple Alpha to Heat,

if (Alpha > 35)
.......(Damage - 35 x {f(x) = 2^x}Heat)

so for each Point of Damage over 35, you start getting an increased amount of heat,
at 36-40 damage this may be negatable, but as you hit 45Damage you will get hit with massive heat,
so for each poin

[LordKnightFandragon]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 June 2016 - 07:34 PM, said:

i think its ganna be more based off heat,


simple Alpha to Heat,

if (Alpha > 35)
.......(Damage - 35 x {f(x) = 2^x}Heat)

so for each Point of Damage over 35, you start getting an increased amount of heat,
at 36-40 damage this may be negatable, but as you hit 45Damage you will get hit with massive heat,
so for each poin

So it is literally going to be Ghost heat 2.0? Thats actually kinda sad.

Airwind, on 09 June 2016 - 07:10 PM, said:

Your vision does not matter. unless you start a game company and make a game. Unless you are hired by PGI to gauge our opinion on the "current" idea they are implementing. These topics are very much useless IMO. time can be spent else where rather than predicting how mech resize will be or how writing up how MWO should be. go water the garden or something.

But I hate gardening...

And I know its ultimately useless to post ideas, but its fun to do so and see the replies and chatter that ensues. Right up until a meta *****'s panties get in a twist and they start flakin' all the usual L2P noob stuff...

Edited by LordKnightFandragon, 09 June 2016 - 07:56 PM.

[Johnny Z]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 June 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:

Actually attributing energy draw to weapon firing is actually as simple as a 128 oz cup full of water. You start with the 128oz, it refills at a rate of 8 oz per second, and you remove 40oz(fire a PPC), now you have 88oz left, it recharges 8, so now your back to 96, you then remove another 40oz(fire another PPC, reducing it to 56oz, now it goes up 8 again, putting you are 64. You choose to do nothing for 3s, so you gain 24oz, putting you back at 88oz and you pour out 40 more oz, putting you at 48 oz. My proposal is really no more convoluted then that. Itwould even be straight forward as to the amount of energy per weapon.

Machineguns would obviously be nearly 0, maybe 1 point per 5s of firing. Flamers would be probably 1 point per 3s of firing. SL and SPL would probably be 3 points per shot, ML/MPL would be like 5, ERML would be a 6. LL/LPL would come out at a 7, ERLL for IS would be an 8 and CERLL would be a 9. CLPL would also be a 9. ISPPC would be a 10, ERPPC would be 11, CERPPC would be a 12. For ballistics, im thinking maybe half their damage in power draw per shot. So, AC2, would be 1 point per shot, AC5 would be 2.5 per shot, AC10 would be 5 per shot and an AC20 would be 10 per shot. A Gauss Rifle, given its power and range would be a 12 alongside the CERPPC. SRMs would probably be equal to their launcher size, so SRM 2=2 points, 4=4 points and a 6=6 points. LRMs would probably also be equal to their launcher size, with a degrading power amount as the salvo increases so as not to completely invalidate large racks, more so then thye already are. So, LRM5=5 points, LRM10=7.5 points, LRM15=10 points and an LRM20=12.5 points.

I wouldnt put the power draw in a %, instead, I would put it in a flat number that reflects your power draw amount, just as ammo tells you how much you have left. If your in a Warhawk with a 340, it would start off the game sitting at 51. As you fire start moving and get up to 64.8kph, you would see it drop to 49, indicating 25kph per point, it would not draw power from anything slower then 25kph per increase. You then chain fire a pair of PPCs, your main heat bar jumps up about 30%, and your power draw bar drops from 49 to 29. So, you pull back, you wait for the mech to cool down and your engine to regenerate power. At 4 power per second, it would take like 5s to get 20 power back, putting you at 49, at which point you have cooled off and are ready to go again.

Ofc, I still think the simplest solution is a mild CoF and a 40 point heat scale....but still....

I don't know why but this reply gave the idea that auto cannons would draw power to auto load. Maybe even machine guns to load a new "belt" or "drum" or what ever so every 100 rounds.

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 June 2016 - 08:06 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 June 2016 - 08:20 AM, said:

Oh really it feels like COD? That has to be the best joke in this thread. I didn't realize you played Call of duty balled up the entire time, I used to do my own thing and be completely fine. What should MechWarrior feel like then? Standing far away from any teammates aimlessly wandering around out in the open? I don't remember any MechWarrior game quite like that. The whole "it doesn't feel like MechWarrior" argument doesn't resonate with me at all. Maybe you can educate me? I don't see how a power draw system would make it feel like MechWarrior. If anything, it belongs in a generic robot sim not MechWarrior as it has NEVER been a thing in MechWarrior or BattleTech.

Why does MechWarrior and Battletech have to be shackled by an 80's table top game instead of inspired by it.

MechWarrior Online balancing the two techs instead of straight up power creep created two separate techs instead of one. The best move yet and they get trolled about it none stop.

That they didn't go with stars vrs lances and instead its all lances allows them to add more players to the field like 16 vrs 16 without have a complete mess to juggle to do it and is also yet another argument that balance was the right move. Yet they got trolled about that every day.

For the tenth time MechWarrior Online is the picture of perfection when it comes to sticking close to its origins of Battletech compared to ANY OTHER GAME EVER MADE like ANY STAR WARS GAME or ANY STAR TREK GAME or any LOTR GAME and yet gets tolled about it daily..

More reasons balance was better for Battletech than power creep.

- Solaris, power creep means no Clan mechs on Solaris or only Clan mechs?????
- Credit and MC prices all adjusted for power creep??? Mech packs to??
- Why should an Inner Sphere guild be forced to field more active players than a Clan guild to justify power creep?
- also the two reasons above and I'm done here. I could think of more I'm sure and I'm also 100% sure time will present more reasons why balance is better than power creep.

+1 for a modern but true to its origins Battletech/Mechwarrior sim game which was originally "balanced" 3025 tech.

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 June 2016 - 08:37 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

LordKnightFandragon, on 09 June 2016 - 07:55 PM, said:

So it is literally going to be Ghost heat 2.0? Thats actually kinda sad.

im not saying it is, but its better so you can at least fire 3PPCs ect,
id rather it be linked to heat, then Ghost Damage, where part of your Alpha disappears,

[Karl Streiger]

OK the usual mistake:

• using the damage to decide if Ghost Heat whatever is applied or not
  
• Complete wrong because it is a nerf for big weapons
  
• while small weapons can still play Death Star

a terribad system that can not be "mirrored" by normally visible rules (for example a modified S7 heat system (x4 heat and x4 dissipation)

Don't forget the main issue the "Death Star" remains no matter what you do. This is the issue you have to solve - not the question if it should be possible to go full Alpha with 12 ER-M-Laser

The only issue with S7 would still be the mini death star - so give us a dispersion when firing multiple weapons at get the thing on the road.

Keep your terribad systems

---

Disclaimer:
I think that it is a bad system that smaller weapons have less beam / burst duration added to faster reloads.
I think that it is a problem to have Ghost Heat is apllied to 2 AC20s but for 2 Small Laser
I think that there is a problem with the "usability" of non boated weapons
I think that the ratio ammunition : heat is suboptimal
I think that the PPC on a Banshee should as big as on a Panther - if the weapon is smaller the damage output has to be reduced (missile tube mechanic)

So when you don't understand my statements - it might be language or it could be my position and how I think about balance

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 June 2016 - 10:18 PM.