376 replies to this topic

[NUSQUAM]

Logically it should be based on engine size(reactor size) for the energy pool(alpha limit) and tonnage for heat dissipation. The larger the reactor, the larger the pool to draw from. Then the larger the mech, the easier heat is spread out and dissipate. Cramming a big XL into something will give you a higher pool, sure, but the downside is you're easier to kill.

This means big beefy Atlas can have a high alpha and decent dissipation, but is obviously slow, and an XL on it is a terrible idea.

Then heavies with big XLs like a Dragon will have high alpha, but run very hot. Very fitting for it's role. While inversely a Marauder 3R with a mid range standard will have probably to chainfire those triple AC/5s and arm lasers but will cool down a bit better.

Then large XL mediums like the PXH will have high alpha but worse cooling. Again, fitting for their role. Then PNTs will have to stand off and chainfire it's weapons for the sake of heat and alpha limit. A pattern emerges...

Then you have lights. I think we can draw further inferences from here.

[MauttyKoray]

You guys and your alpha boats lol...this system is actually fluff friendly from the books and articles I've read on battletech.

1) A power plant only generates SO MUCH power, if the mech uses enough of it at one time two things happen:
a) The mech has to cycle power and wait for function to be restored to things (i.e. gauss firing required a power cycle and other weapons such as the lasers couldn't be fired immediately)
With safeties bypassed, the mech's power plant worked above specifications causing a heat spike from the higher power output, which if not checked could lead to horrible mech failure and even pilot death from basically being cooked alive (we don't have sub-100% heat penalties though, so be happy?) (also, if you've ever touched something electronic like a phone charger halfway through charging, you'll notice its hot. Generating electricity/power creates heat.)

2) Be happy its this instead of a power cycle method, because it would mean some weapons would disable instead of just causing a penalty if you fire them. Or if you disabled the safety (like the shutdown override but for weapon safety) you could be exposed to mech actuator failures, ammo cookoff, and even pilot death.

3) This will help balance mechs out and prevent the 'hardpoint power creep' from happening. Mechs with limited hardpoints can be as effective as mechs with more, so no more hardpoint inflation will be needed to 'balance' mechs or limit/boost their firepower (i.e. 12 SPL Nova - couldn't fire them all at once, probably not even 6 at once.)

4) Will promote loadouts with varied weapons, no more will you drop in a team that has almost entirely specialized mechs that may or may not be useful. Having short range, long range, indirect fire, etc, will all be advantageous in different combinations.

5) Light pilots, no more worrying about your mech exploding in one shot (I think?)

6) Assaults, no more worrying about your rear CT exploding in one to two shots! (pretty sure)

7) Will (in my personal opinion) create more interesting and varied fights, as well as tactical maneuvers. No more constant games of hill humping, lining up across the map from each other, and attempting to circle around each other as a single group. Flankers and Lance warfare can be significantly more prominent with single mechs no longer near-instantly exploding against a solo or small number of enemies.

[Karl Streiger]

Fusion rating and power draw well.... lets make it clear with one word Thorn

Maybe you don't know much about lore...so lets try Annihilator

Spoiler

100 rated engine and a PPC
200 rated engine and 4 - FOUR - PPCS

Why should we despise a power draw system that is based on arbitrary numbers? Well if the word arbitrary is not enough (and PGI likes arbitrary ....Heat Scale, Quirks)

What is producing the energy - the fusion engine right?
So when energy is produced what happens? Exactly waste heat
Don't forget the fusion engine may use heat to produce electricity (the tokamak seem to work this way, but BattleMechs have mini suns in their bellies)

What is produced when you turn heat into energy - more waste heat
What happens when you charge a capacitor - waste heat
What happens when you discharge a capacitor - waste heat
What happens when you move a muscle - waste heat

Every freaking system has waste heat - so why should we go "Power Draw" when heat is already including everything?
Oh don't get me wrong i would like to controll the power grid of my Mechs. Also want to configure the ammunition and coolant cycle to prevent limbs from overheating. But this is not what we get - we don't get a simulation aspect - its just a
IF you do this and WE think you shouldn't DO this - then you get Heat penalty.... oh wait there is it again heat


SAY NO TO POWER DRAW
SAY GET YOUR STUFF TOGETHER AND REMODEL THE HEAT SYSTEM

Edited by Karl Streiger, 30 June 2016 - 10:55 PM.

[adamts01]

Where did they say they're going with power draw? All I heard is they're replacing Ghost heat and you're going to have to chip away at your target more.

[Wintersdark]

Mechsniper, on 30 June 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

I will point out that from closed beta forward there were those of us who pointed out that unlimited hardpoint sizes would lead to problems. Ghost heat will never fix anything as long as you can mount an LBX 20 where a MG goes. The problem was identified when the Gauss cat first reared its ugly head. PGI has tried everything to fix it EXCEPT limiting hard point sizes. only a few head weapons slots really do this, but all hardpoints could be limited so that an ERPPC can't replace every small laser.

I agree that hard point sizes would have been better, but don't fool yourself.

Hard point sizes don't prevent this sort of thing, they just restrict which mechs can do it. Much like how locked internal upgrades on ClanOmnimechs doesn't work as a balancing factor, it just arbitrarily determines which mech is good or bad based on whether or not it has a good set up upgrades.

But there's plenty of stock mechs that would have to have appropriate hard points to have those builds anyways.

The Gausscat for example, as you brought it up. Sure, it couldn't run dual Gauss, but a Jagermech could.

Don't get me wrong, im totally in favour of sized hard points because it'd make building more fun (less LegoMech) but it doesn't help with the problem Ghost Heat is trying to solve.

[Karl Streiger]

Wintersdark, on 01 July 2016 - 12:02 AM, said:

Don't get me wrong, im totally in favour of sized hard points because it'd make building more fun (less LegoMech) but it doesn't help with the problem Ghost Heat is trying to solve.

No Lego Mech is gain enough - shudder when thinking about the AP Gauss on the PHX

adamts01, on 30 June 2016 - 11:06 PM, said:

Where did they say they're going with power draw? All I heard is they're replacing Ghost heat and you're going to have to chip away at your target more.

In one of the first statements he mentioned power draw - but If i had to guess he was just asked what he will do against the AlphaWarrior and maybe he remembered something about power needs or was twittered or whatever... .and so he had thrown the word in the room without even thinking about it.And now we

Edited by Karl Streiger, 01 July 2016 - 12:26 AM.

[NUSQUAM]

Mechsniper, on 30 June 2016 - 08:11 PM, said:

I will point out that from closed beta forward there were those of us who pointed out that unlimited hardpoint sizes would lead to problems. Ghost heat will never fix anything as long as you can mount an LBX 20 where a MG goes. The problem was identified when the Gauss cat first reared its ugly head. PGI has tried everything to fix it EXCEPT limiting hard point sizes. only a few head weapons slots really do this, but all hardpoints could be limited so that an ERPPC can't replace every small laser.

Ah yes I was thinking about this yesterday when I was fitting my PXHs. On the PXH-1 I could mount a gauss rifle instead of a MG. Or mechs like the Dragon that have an obvious weapon mount arm and a grappler arm for secondary weapons but it's only aesthetics.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Guys... it's not related to Power Draw from the reactor. It's a misleading term.

At first I was excited that we would get a system that was based on reactor output and treated weapons based on how much electrical demand they incurr. However, this system is actually just based on damage output and is unrelated to "electrical draw."

We can pipedream all day about a simulator system that was based on actual Mech mechanics, but this PGI power draw needs to be renamed in order to prevent further confusion.

What PGI calls "Power Draw" can be more correctly called "Damage Cap" because wattage, voltage,and amperage are not in any way involved with the new system.



-----------

On another note, I prefer size-unlimited hardpoints because I like being able to make my Mechs what I want them to be instead of being forced to buy specific chassis based on the current weapon balance and what weapons work well/poorly (a la dartboard mechanics).

Edited by Prosperity Park, 01 July 2016 - 08:42 AM.

[Andi Nagasia]

we may see the Power Draw PTS Soon,

Twitter said:

AndrewPappas ‏@AndiNagasia 9h9 hours ago
@russ_bullock getting asked to ask again, many would like to know, is there any new updates on (PTS3InfoWarfare) or (HeatScale2(PowerDraw)?

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock 4h4 hours ago
@AndiNagasia PTS for energy draw fairly soon

Russ Bullock ‏@russ_bullock 3h3 hours ago
But we will not do so until we are quite confident in it's readiness. Stay tuned.

[cazidin]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 August 2016 - 06:07 PM, said:

we may see the Power Draw PTS Soon,

Hmm... maybe this is why the August Roadmap was delayed? More possible details on Ghost Heat MK II:Electric Boogaloo.

[AnTi90d]

I'm interested to see how much player numbers dip when they shove this new system down everyone's throats and ruin existing builds.

[Andi Nagasia]

AnTi90d, on 03 August 2016 - 06:31 PM, said:

I'm interested to see how much player numbers dip when they shove this new system down everyone's throats and ruin existing builds.

Well they are Testing it First on the PTS so if you want to Participate i Suggest you Download the PTS,
theirs no knowing how it will be until we test it, then we can help PGI refine it if their are any Problems with it,
Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 03 August 2016 - 07:07 PM.

[AnTi90d]

Yeah, I will download and participate in the test.. but it's going to be a futile effort.

PGI has proven, multiple times, that they do not care about feedback. They actively ignore it. When the power draw system hits the PTS, they'll consider it a finalized product.

The only thing the PTS will do for us is give us a preview of what they're turning the game into, whether we like it or not.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Prosperity Park, on 14 June 2016 - 08:41 AM, said:

I have been hoping for a long time to fire 3 PPCs again without a penalty... would like to get that 30 damage confirmed +although it is exactly what I expected).

3ppc 1 gauss?

AnTi90d, on 03 August 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Yeah, I will download and participate in the test.. but it's going to be a futile effort.

PGI has proven, multiple times, that they do not care about feedback. They actively ignore it. When the power draw system hits the PTS, they'll consider it a finalized product.

The only thing the PTS will do for us is give us a preview of what they're turning the game into, whether we like it or not.

ANYTHING that hits the pts is final. See UI 2.0 where they actively stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed until the testers stopped screaming themselves

[Andi Nagasia]

AnTi90d, on 03 August 2016 - 07:35 PM, said:

Yeah, I will download and participate in the test.. but it's going to be a futile effort.

PGI has proven, multiple times, that they do not care about feedback. They actively ignore it. When the power draw system hits the PTS, they'll consider it a finalized product.

The only thing the PTS will do for us is give us a preview of what they're turning the game into, whether we like it or not.

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 03 August 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

ANYTHING that hits the pts is final. See UI 2.0 where they actively stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed until the testers stopped screaming themselves

Right Just like PTS3 with info Warfare? O right that didnt hit Live Servers,
the LaserTargeting was Wonky and no one liked it, and it was Discarded and Scraped,
the Problem is it slowed the rest of the InfoWarfare PTS which many of us liked,
They do Listen, and make changes,

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 03 August 2016 - 07:45 PM, said:

3ppc 1 gauss?

wouldnt work as that would be 45Damage 15 over 30,
Edit- Spelling

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 03 August 2016 - 07:59 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Andi Nagasia, on 03 August 2016 - 07:58 PM, said:

Right Just like PTS3 with info Warfare? O right that didnt hit Live Servers,
the LaserTargeting was Wonky and no one liked it, and it was Discarded and Scraped,
the Problem is it slowed the rest of the InfoWarfare PTS which many of us liked,
They do Listen, and make changes,


wouldnt work as that would be 45Damage 15 over 30,

do you remember when the default thing was 2 ppc 1 gauss and it was wrecking? Thats what I was referencing lol

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 03 August 2016 - 07:59 PM, said:

do you remember when the default thing was 2 ppc 1 gauss and it was wrecking? Thats what I was referencing lol

The double Pepsi Gauss combo is so pre-Clan, don't you know? When Clans hit it was more about the double LPL penta Med Timber C with it's 61 damage, hit-scan laser barf alpha.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Saint Scarlett Johan, on 03 August 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

The double Pepsi Gauss combo is so pre-Clan, don't you know? When Clans hit it was more about the double LPL penta Med Timber C with it's 61 damage, hit-scan laser barf alpha.

yeah but if you can fire 3 ppc with no penalty, then you should be able to pull off 3 ppc 1 (or 2) gauss with the same lol

and thats at least 60 right there, accomplished by hitting at most two buttons

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 03 August 2016 - 08:09 PM.

[MadcatX]

Andi Nagasia, on 14 June 2016 - 08:23 AM, said:

=Assumption Examples=
its sounding like Most weapons will have Different Draws not a Full Damage to Damage,
-
its Likely MGs and Flamers will have a Draw of 0 because how those weapons work already,
an AC5 does 5 Damage, but may have a Draw of 7 to Balance the weapons and Lesson Boating,
an IS-LPL does 10 Damage, but may have a Draw of 10 so you can Fire 3 at a time much as it is now,
an SRM6 does 12 Damage, but may have a Draw of 10 so you can Fire 3 at a time,
an SRM6 does 8 Damage, but may have a Draw of 7 so you can Fire 4 at a time,
LBX20/LRM20s do 20 Damage, but may have a Draw of 15, so you can fire 2,

This... this is confusing. With the current Ghost Heat, at least we have very specific details on how many you can have of what before triggering it. Yes it can be easily bypassed, but at least when I make a loadout I know how many of a specific weapon I can put on before triggering Ghost Heat.

But I run all sorts of mixed builds and this "each weapon would get a different draw value" would make it really annoying.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Marack Drock the Unicorn Wizard, on 03 August 2016 - 08:10 PM, said:

You son of a *****. Why da fuq did you resurrect this?

lol As if PGI actually listens... remember: FW, voting system complaints, Ghost Heat, Map design complaints, mech paks, the round table, UI2.0, Paul in general? They never do listen to us.

And apparently from what I see laser barf TBR-C is still a thing.

Thats cause PTS means Preview Theater Server not Test