819 replies to this topic

[Navid A1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 05:35 PM, said:

Black Widow is nice and mobile. Yeah so on the tournament build ACs are dominant. On the live build, energy boats have been nerfed, AND "energy draw" is not gonna touch dakka builds. So what do you think is going to happen? Its pretty obvious that ACs are going to take over.

Any system that takes into account only damage does not have a lot of potential, when it doesn't consider that the damage is applied in different ways.



Its just ghost heat that ties all weapons together and gives you a heat penalty if you do more than 30 damage at once, that's all it is.

Well... Russ himself said that different weapons have different multipliers affecting their damage when it is calculated in energy draw system.

srns and lrms have less contributing damage than their listed damage, while dps weapons have more... that is as far as i remember.

[Gas Guzzler]

Navid A1, on 09 August 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

Well... Russ himself said that different weapons have different multipliers affecting their damage when it is calculated in energy draw system.

srns and lrms have less contributing damage than their listed damage, while dps weapons have more... that is as far as i remember.

Where did he say that? Someone suggested that and he said "possible" that doesn't mean anything.

Even still, if an AC5 = ML to the power draw system, something is wrong.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 09 August 2016 - 05:43 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Navid A1, on 09 August 2016 - 05:38 PM, said:

dps weapons have more

He has never once said that, and actually just said last night that it is all about damage.

[Navid A1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 05:42 PM, said:

Where did he say that? Someone suggested that and he said "possible" that doesn't mean anything.

Even still, if an AC5 = ML to the power draw system, something is wrong.

It was mentioned a couple months ago i think.

Also, AC5 may be equal to a ML in damage... but they are different in everything else.
with the tonnage difference one can pack 4 meds and some heatsinks and have more dps
Then there is the range and travel times and convergence, where 2 LLs or ERLLs can be more effective with the same tonnage.
AC5 has pinpoint, dps and range going for it... a fair trade for being heavy and ammo dependent.

And certainly... tweaks and considerations will be required, we'll see how it goes in the PTS.

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

He has never once said that, and actually just said last night that it is all about damage.

Then I may be mistaken. I'm sure I saw it somewhere.

dps weapons like AC5s and UAC5s need multipliers.

Edited by Navid A1, 09 August 2016 - 05:54 PM.

[FupDup]

On a more constructive note, I think that if they go through with it, the "best" way to do it would be to assign an "energy" variable to every weapon in an XML. This is a manual process, as opposed to an "automatic" system like the one we fear (e.g. all weapons with 5 damage are considered the same).

This variable could be increased or decreased to be anything on a per-weapon basis. Some ground rules could include:

• Short range weapons given more generous energy ratings than long range, e.g. AC/20 shouldn't consume more power than a Gauss
  
• Weapons with spread should be more generous, like the LRM20. Obviously SRMs shouldn't benefit too much from this. Long beam durations also count here (e.g. Clan ERLL).
  
• Weapons that are crappy for various reasons (e.g. LBX) should have their ratings be lower than expected.
  
• Even with the exceptions above, the raw damage per hit is still a factor.

For example, even though an IS SL has 3 damage, its energy variable might only be like 1 in a crappy effort to make people actually use it for once. Or, honestly, just make it 0 energy. Most people would still avoid using it even then.

[Navid A1]

FupDup, on 09 August 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:

On a more constructive note, I think that if they go through with it, the "best" way to do it would be to assign an "energy" variable to every weapon in an XML. This is a manual process, as opposed to an "automatic" system like the one we fear (e.g. all weapons with 5 damage are considered the same).

This variable could be increased or decreased to be anything on a per-weapon basis. Some ground rules could include:

• Short range weapons given more generous energy ratings than long range, e.g. AC/20 shouldn't consume more power than a Gauss
  
• Weapons with spread should be more generous, like the LRM20. Obviously SRMs shouldn't benefit too much from this. Long beam durations also count here (e.g. Clan ERLL).
  
• Weapons that are crappy for various reasons (e.g. LBX) should have their ratings be lower than expected.
  
• Even with the exceptions above, the raw damage per hit is still a factor.

For example, even though an IS SL has 3 damage, its energy variable might only be like 1 in a crappy effort to make people actually use it for once. Or, honestly, just make it 0 energy. Most people would still avoid using it even then.

Totally agreed!

[Gas Guzzler]

Navid A1, on 09 August 2016 - 05:52 PM, said:

It was mentioned a couple months ago i think.

Also, AC5 may be equal to a ML in damage... but they are different in everything else.
with the tonnage difference one can pack 4 meds and some heatsinks and have more dps
Then there is the range and travel times and convergence, where 2 LLs or ERLLs can be more effective with the same tonnage.
AC5 has pinpoint, dps and range going for it... a fair trade for being heavy and ammo dependent.

And certainly... tweaks and considerations will be required, we'll see how it goes in the PTS.



Then I may be mistaken. I'm sure I saw it somewhere.

dps weapons like AC5s and UAC5s need multipliers.

How many AC5s should I be able to fire at once without heat penalty?

What you should be comparing is 4 AC5s with 3 LPL and 5 MLs. 20 alpha vs 58 alpha, yet somehow the AC5s remain MORE than competitive.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 09 August 2016 - 05:58 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 05:47 PM, said:

He has never once said that, and actually just said last night that it is all about damage.

actually it you look im my topic on Power Draw(From last Page)

Andi Nagasia, on 09 August 2016 - 05:26 PM, said:

what we Currently Know, and what i have Compiled is here,
(Power Draw, What We Know, How It Will Work!)

Twitter said:

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock 23h23 hours ago
aka the replacement for Heat Scale which should work much better for limiting alphas -this should give more value to mechs with more variety

i was Worried about weapons like the LBX and LRMs so i asked Russ if Just Damage is Taken into Account,

Twitter said:

AndrewPappas ‏@AndiNagasia 5h5 hours ago
@russ_bullock will the system take into account weapons that are inherently inaccurate? Such as it counting only half damage for LBX & LRMs?

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock
@AndiNagasia easily possible yes

[Gas Guzzler]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 August 2016 - 05:58 PM, said:

actually it you look im my topic on Power Draw(From last Page)




i was Worried about weapons like the LBX and LRMs so i asked Russ if Just Damage is Taken into Account,

Put the pipe down and come to terms with the fact that Russ saying possible on twitter does NOT mean it is actually going to happen!

A Kingfisher with ECM was also deemed "possible" by Russ, I don't see that anywhere in game. To me that sounds like simply damage. And even giving a bonus to LBX, LRMs will not change my predictions for the outcome of this.

Russ also said:

honestly could describe energy draw as heatscale with work arounds fixed with Hud support

To me that sounds like simply damage. And even giving a bonus to LBX, LRMs will not change my predictions for the outcome of this.

He also said that ACs would be "similar" to lasers because Energy Draw is all about damage, when I expressed concern for the DPS of the ballistics not being taken into account.

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 09 August 2016 - 06:03 PM.

[Navid A1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

How many AC5s should I be able to fire at once without heat penalty?

What you should be comparing is 4 AC5s with 3 LPL and 5 MLs. 20 alpha vs 58 alpha, yet somehow the AC5s remain MORE than competitive.

Well personal opinion says 4 is ok.

If you are packing 4 AC5s then you are in a mech with 40 tons of pod space and chances are that you are big and slow (or agile and fragile)
And you need constant face time.

3LPL and 5 MLs (or 3 or 4) is 24-26 tons and that means you can pack it in most mechs with enough E hardpoints and they are not necessarily slow mechs.
Torso twisting is an option here!

[Gas Guzzler]

Navid A1, on 09 August 2016 - 06:06 PM, said:

Well personal opinion says 4 is ok.

If you are packing 4 AC5s then you are in a mech with 40 tons of pod space and chances are that you are big and slow (or agile and fragile)
And you need constant face time.

3LPL and 5 MLs (or 3 or 4) is 24-26 tons and that means you can pack it in most mechs with enough E hardpoints and they are not necessarily slow mechs.
Torso twisting is an option here!

Why is a 4 AC5 Black Widow, with its slow speed, still standing toe to toe (and even being more favorable among competitive teams) with a Black Knight with that loadout then? The difference is 81 to 73, not the biggest difference in speed in the world.

Are 3 UAC-10s okay? That's going to be pretty disgusting on the Night Gyr with that loadout...

Edited by Gas Guzzler, 09 August 2016 - 06:09 PM.

[Navid A1]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 06:10 PM, said:

Why is a 4 AC5 Black Widow, with its slow speed, still standing toe to toe (and even being more favorable among competitive teams) with a Black Knight with that loadout then? The difference is 81 to 73, not the biggest difference in speed in the world.

Are 3 UAC-10s okay? That's going to be pretty disgusting on the Night Gyr with that loadout...

Size and hardpoint locations?

Though, dps weapons might need a multiplier... I agree.
Specially when you take UAC5s into account!

3xUAC10 is exactly the reason dps weapons need multipliers in the new system... testing is needed!

Edited by Navid A1, 09 August 2016 - 06:15 PM.

[Andi Nagasia]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 06:00 PM, said:

Put the pipe down and come to terms with the fact that Russ saying possible on twitter does NOT mean it is actually going to happen!

A Kingfisher with ECM was also deemed "possible" by Russ, I don't see that anywhere in game. To me that sounds like simply damage. And even giving a bonus to LBX, LRMs will not change my predictions for the outcome of this.

Russ also said:

honestly could describe energy draw as heatscale with work arounds fixed with Hud support

To me that sounds like simply damage. And even giving a bonus to LBX, LRMs will not change my predictions for the outcome of this.

He also said that ACs would be "similar" to lasers because Energy Draw is all about damage, when I expressed concern for the DPS of the ballistics not being taken into account.

well to Quote you Directly on some Weapons having Different Draws,

Twitter said:

Gas Guzzler ‏@GasGuzzler60 Aug 3
@russ_bullock very concerned about this system if it is implemented based on damage output alone

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock Aug 3
@GasGuzzler60 yes not just dmg alone

so their is some hope in that area,
Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 09 August 2016 - 06:21 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Andi Nagasia, on 09 August 2016 - 06:16 PM, said:

well to Quote you Directly on some Weapons having Difrent Draws,

so their is some hope in that area,
Edit- Spelling

I'm not holding my breath its anything more than making LBXs and LRMs allowed to do more damage, which doesn't really change much.

[Novakaine]

It's about time and more realistic than the GH as it stands now.
Better start chargin dem batteries!

[Mcgral18]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 05:56 PM, said:

How many AC5s should I be able to fire at once without heat penalty?

What you should be comparing is 4 AC5s with 3 LPL and 5 MLs. 20 alpha vs 58 alpha, yet somehow the AC5s remain MORE than competitive.

How many may be the wrong question.
How often?


They may go the MASC (or Flamer multiplier cooldown) route, where a bar fills, then spills after x seconds of inactivity


No need for excessive AC Malus' but it still limits them, over time.

[Gas Guzzler]

Mcgral18, on 09 August 2016 - 06:36 PM, said:

How many may be the wrong question.
How often?


They may go the MASC (or Flamer multiplier cooldown) route, where a bar fills, then spills after x seconds of inactivity


No need for excessive AC Malus' but it still limits them, over time.

They could do that. Is there any evidence that they will?

[Gas Guzzler]

Honestly, if this system goes through and laser boats actually remain viable, and the game is at least as balanced as it is now, I'll be fine. I'll think it was a waste of dev time and unnecessary, but it will be okay if its actually balanced.

[topgun505]

Too early to tell really.

If Power Draw ( P.D. ) is implemented right they could completely do away with Ghost Heat. And, frankly, at least P.D. makes some sense compared to Ghost Heat which made zero sense.

I like to take a step back for a moment. Go look at a random sample of stock mechs from Battletech ... especially early Inner Sphere models. Does anyone ... ANYONE ... think that a lot of those mechs were optimized? Like ... AT ALL? A single LRM-5 with a single SRM-2 and a single medium laser (for an example from the Assassin medium mech). Who in their right mind would take that?? There HAS to be a reason they did such a thing. And I think power draw could (potentially) do so.

Note I'm not saying we should go back to stock (though I actually wouldn't mind a stock mode of play to be added to the game) ... but it might both explain lore and help the game out a bit in the process (if done right).

Edited by topgun505, 09 August 2016 - 06:54 PM.

[Mcgral18]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 06:37 PM, said:

They could do that. Is there any evidence that they will?

This is PGI we're talking about


I'm still waiting on .XML number changes.
I expect nothing, just putting a logical idea forward.