376 replies to this topic

[kapusta11]

Ultimax, on 15 June 2016 - 08:56 AM, said:

1) I admire your optimism, but here's what Russ has to say.





2) What you've described above, takes us right back to Ghost Heat, where it is not intuitive or quickly asses-able just how much extra heat you will generate for breaking penalty on weapon X, weapon Y and weapon Z - and what if you aren't boating and use Weapon X & Y together?

Guess what, PGI is going to penalize that too.


The threshold is 30, that's it. It doesn't care if you are boating MLAS, it doesn't care if you are firing Gauss + PPCs.


It's 30, with a modifier for spread weapons like LBX - that's all we have to go on.

Weapon load can be specified in weapon description along with damage, heat and cooldown values. Like LPL: 11 damage, 7 heat, 33% weapons load. Or cER PPC 12.5 damage, 2000mps speed, 50% weapon load.

And if weapon range and mechanic are accounted for then there is no need for different heat penalties based on weapon types as weapon load gauge would represent effective damage, well effective damage output at least, how much of it one could land is a different story.

As I said, I'm not expecting much from PGI but IF whatever they've came up with seems promising I'd like to see reasonable folks not to bash PGI too hard and provide feedback on where they went wrong and how to improve it.

[SmoothCriminal]

JUST LOWER THE HEAT CAP AND INCREASE DISSIPATION.

[Steve Pryde]

SmoothCriminal, on 15 June 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

JUST LOWER THE HEAT CAP AND INCREASE DISSIPATION.

Was it Mechwarrior 3 there u explode then u fired 4 clan er-ppcs?

[kapusta11]

SmoothCriminal, on 15 June 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

JUST LOWER THE HEAT CAP AND INCREASE DISSIPATION.

Looking for simple solutions to a complex problem is a sign of cognitive bias, did you know that?

[MadcatX]

kapusta11, on 15 June 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Looking for simple solutions to a complex problem is a sign of cognitive bias, did you know that?

Maybe for once they should try something simple and then expand on it as necessary unlike other attempts of trying a complex, convoluted solution that ends up not being the that good at what it's meant to do and can be circumvented/mitigated as well.

[Dagorlad13]

Good, so since Clan SRMs have a wider spread than IS SRMs and are therefore less accurate than IS SRMs (does not make sense, but this is MWO), then the new system should make Oxides overheat after a couple volleys which will even the playing field a bit since Jenner IICs would theoretically not overheat as quickly.

[Andi Nagasia]

kapusta11, on 15 June 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

Weapon load can be specified in weapon description along with damage, heat and cooldown values. Like LPL: 11 damage, 7 heat, 33% weapons load. Or cER PPC 12.5 damage, 2000mps speed, 50% weapon load.

And if weapon range and mechanic are accounted for then there is no need for different heat penalties based on weapon types as weapon load gauge would represent effective damage, well effective damage output at least, how much of it one could land is a different story.

As I said, I'm not expecting much from PGI but IF whatever they've came up with seems promising I'd like to see reasonable folks not to bash PGI too hard and provide feedback on where they went wrong and how to improve it.

Just this if its a Bar that Fills then Depletes if weapons arnt Fired, will solve the 0.5 Boating Problem,
also if Each weapons load can be Refined allowing for less Draw on IS-LPL, LRM, LBX, and other Weapons,
also perhaps increased Load for weapons that end up over Preforming, such as AC5 Class Weapons,
it sounds like all this will be able to be Changed and Balanced in the New Weapon-Draw System,

SmoothCriminal, on 15 June 2016 - 10:03 AM, said:

JUST LOWER THE HEAT CAP AND INCREASE DISSIPATION.

and how will that Stop Extreme ballistic Boating? Lowering the Heat cap wont Stop AC5/10 Boating,
and remember this Weapon-Draw System is Designed to Replace Ghost Heat, not Work with it,
you would still need Ghost Heat as a Balance tool if you Lowered the Heat Cap,

IronClaws, on 15 June 2016 - 12:57 PM, said:

Good, so since Clan SRMs have a wider spread than IS SRMs and are therefore less accurate than IS SRMs (does not make sense, but this is MWO), then the new system should make Oxides overheat after a couple volleys which will even the playing field a bit since Jenner IICs would theoretically not overheat as quickly.

its sounding like Most weapons will have Different Draws not a Full Damage to Damage,
Examples(Assumptions not Facts)
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,

[Gattsus]

I thought they were going to keep it simple withouth 'alpha' sizes, namely heat scale and power draw.

[Wintersdark]

MadcatX, on 15 June 2016 - 11:23 AM, said:

Maybe for once they should try something simple and then expand on it as necessary unlike other attempts of trying a complex, convoluted solution that ends up not being the that good at what it's meant to do and can be circumvented/mitigated as well.

While I'm a fan of decreased cap/increased dissipation, that doesn't address the issues being complained about here (how small/medium-bore autocannons benefit, etc); nor does it encompass Gauss.

And, as well: Ghost heat was initially intended to be simple and expanded on as necessary. And it was. Expanded on, again and again, to try to chase problems until they gave up as it just kept getting more and more complicated.

The proposed system is much simpler than Ghost Heat was initially, and encompasses everything rather than specific weapons.

And, while again I'm a fan of "simply" changing the heat system, understand that will have much deeper and more complex results. It's not a simple change, and it's one (as sad as I am to admit it) PGI is unlikely to do given just how deeply and fundamentally it'll change the whole game.

[TheLuc]

I just realized that new system will give my builds a better overall performance, while I didn't want the change at first, in the end I might like it.

lots of players will have to revise their builds

Edited by TheLuc, 15 June 2016 - 10:16 PM.

[Johnny Z]

kapusta11, on 15 June 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Looking for simple solutions to a complex problem is a sign of cognitive bias, did you know that?

Looking for complex solutions to simple problems is a sign of idiocy, did you know that?

[Inyc]

Why always heat? Why not converge?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have convergence broaden the more damage output in a single multi-weapon shot?

Meaning over a certain damage cap (say 20) any multi-weapon shot has more and more convergence spread instead of being all pin-point.

That way you keep the skill of good aim in the game, you even increase it by requiring you to keep your aim on target. You give a reason to have chain fire (especially if you let players set the chain fire interval).

And you fix the high alpha pin point issue of the game.

I swear I've seen posts about this years ago.

[RebJohhny]

Another weird mechanic we will need to learn to play the game.

Edited by RebJohhny, 16 June 2016 - 04:59 AM.

[Mole]

Inyc, on 15 June 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

Why always heat? Why not converge?

Wouldn't it make a lot more sense to have convergence broaden the more damage output in a single multi-weapon shot?

Meaning over a certain damage cap (say 20) any multi-weapon shot has more and more convergence spread instead of being all pin-point.

That way you keep the skill of good aim in the game, you even increase it by requiring you to keep your aim on target. You give a reason to have chain fire (especially if you let players set the chain fire interval).

And you fix the high alpha pin point issue of the game.

I swear I've seen posts about this years ago.

I'm pretty sure they tried convergence in the past and it had horrendous results. Not so much because the mechanic was a bad idea, but because the engine has some sort of limitation that can't handle convergence.

[Lily from animove]

kapusta11, on 15 June 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Looking for simple solutions to a complex problem is a sign of cognitive bias, did you know that?

Looking for a complex solution to a simple problem that actually doesn't even solve anything about the problem is a waste of ressources.

Edited by Lily from animove, 16 June 2016 - 07:32 AM.

[Bud Crue]

Lily from animove, on 16 June 2016 - 07:32 AM, said:

Looking for a complex solution to a simple problem that actually doesn't even solve anything about the problem is a waste of ressources.

I think PGI is just a big fan of Rube Goldberg and seek to reflect his design aesthetic in every game mechanism they can. It's the only thing that makes sense.

[Inyc]

Mole, on 16 June 2016 - 07:27 AM, said:

I'm pretty sure they tried convergence in the past and it had horrendous results. Not so much because the mechanic was a bad idea, but because the engine has some sort of limitation that can't handle convergence.

They have convergence in the game already... Hell they have skills to speed up convergence, so obviously they have some control over it.

I remember their argument against it being that it would remove some skill from the game by making damage allocation random, which is true... but why not give it a threshold like I suggested. Hell make it exactly as they suggest doing for heat, but make it for convergence instead. That way you still get skill based pin point damage, but only up to a certain damage value. If you want to vomit out a ton of damage at once, it spreads out.

Makes sense right?

[Alistair Winter]

Thanks for compiling this info!

[WarZ]

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

What we Know About Power-Draw and How it will Work!

OP

Wait so why is it even called power draw if its just a tweak to the existing ghost heat system (which based on what you described, thats all it is) ?

It is just another example of how PGI can no longer even develop / effectively write new code for their own game. They lost that ability with the people who have left. This isn't power draw, there is no new system. It's just ghost heat with reworked #'s.

Edited by WarZ, 16 June 2016 - 01:28 PM.

[AssaultPig]

if range/spread/etc isn't taken into account along with firepower this'll just push the game farther toward long-range sniping than it already is

you'd think this would be an obvious point but with PGI at this point I'm making no assumptions