233 replies to this topic

[dervishx5]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 09 August 2016 - 10:56 AM, said:

It has nothing to do with ego

I don't find realistic gameplay in a PvP game all that entertaining. Games don't have to be realistic to be fun, and often those two are at odds with each other. Unless we are talking about survival games, but I prefer those to be single player.

Yeah, imagine if in World of Warships you had to, in a Battleship, individually aim every weapon, fire, wait for the splash, then make adjustments based off that.

Instead they removed the tedious aspects of early 20th century naval warfare and made it more accessible without making it too arcadey. It still has the feel of WW1-2 without the need for super realism. And because of that it's enjoyable.

I mean, yeah, there's going to be the people that complain about the lack of accuracy. But those are the hardcore fans that need to learn what compromise means.

[Johnny Z]

Revis Volek, on 09 August 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

If i wanted REAL i would go outside and try to build my own battlemech...

Real and FUN are often not the same thing you are correct. Which IMO is why we turn away from the REAL WORLD to find adventure in another WORLD in our video games.

Plenty of adventure in the real world with enough money. But then you know that. For us poor people these video games are easily the best money that can be spent. Doesn't burn gas either.

Playing sports wasnt really a cheap thing even before video games came along anyway. Nothing else either really. I played a lot of expensive sports and went skiing and boating and everything else, so I know for a fact. So leave us poor people our hobbies.

Before a working man could make a good wage. Now not so much. Luckily things changed a bit to make it not so bad.

Edited by Johnny Z, 09 August 2016 - 11:15 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

dervishx5, on 09 August 2016 - 11:00 AM, said:

But those are the hardcore fans that need to learn what compromise means.

LOL. It is always the "other guys" that need to learn what compromise means! It does not matter which side of any debate that you* are on.

*and by "you" I do not mean dervishx5. I mean debaters in general.

[Gas Guzzler]

Johnny Z, on 09 August 2016 - 11:05 AM, said:

Doesn't burn gas either.

Thanks for that.

[dervishx5]

Rampage, on 09 August 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

LOL. It is always the "other guys" that need to learn what compromise means! It does not matter which side of any debate that you* are on.

*and by "you" I do not mean dervishx5. I mean debaters in general.

Well considering I'm a super hardcore ultra Battletech nerd with as much time playing competitive megamek as I do mechwarrior, I think I can say I have an impartial view here. I understand that translating pen and paper to FPS means some things have to get left out for the sake of the masses.

[WarHippy]

Agreed, this is a poor name for a system that doesn't actually involve power draw. If they instead increased cool downs on weapons when fired in larger groups it would make more sense to call it power draw(and might actually make for better game play) than what we look to be getting.

[Felicitatem Parco]

WarHippy, on 09 August 2016 - 11:17 AM, said:

Agreed, this is a poor name for a system that doesn't actually involve power draw. If they instead increased cool downs on weapons when fired in larger groups it would make more sense to call it power draw(and might actually make for better game play) than what we look to be getting.

Why would firing some PPCs cause your AC/5 to cycle more slowly?

[Mystere]

Prosperity Park, on 09 August 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

"Ghost Heat" is an accurate term because it describes phantom heat that comes from nowhere and should not exist.

Actually "Ghost Heat" is the excess heat generated by a temporary runaway nuclear reaction induced by firing too many weapons. So it's not really "phantom" heat that comes from nowhere.

As for "power draw", yeah, I got nothing ... at least not until I see the implementation.

[WarHippy]

Prosperity Park, on 09 August 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

Why would firing some PPCs cause your AC/5 to cycle more slowly?

It wouldn't necessarily, but you could at least assume with extra power draw on the system the electronic ammo feed system might not work optimally. It also wouldn't have to be a uniform increase in cool down across all weapon types. ACs could have minimal interference compared to lasers for example. That being said I think messing with cool downs would be a better mechanic than any form of ghost heat that has the potential of removing alpha strikes from the game. Fire too many weapons you get a nice burst of damage but your overall DPS goes down etc..

[DrxAbstract]

Mufasa...

[Felicitatem Parco]

Mystere, on 09 August 2016 - 11:25 AM, said:

Actually "Ghost Heat" is the excess heat generated by a temporary runaway nuclear reaction induced by firing too many weapons. So it's not really "phantom" heat that comes from nowhere.

No. There is no runaway reaction. Firing 6 SL causes no penalty, and firing 6 SL and 2 LPL cause no penalty... but firing 7 SL does cause a penalty, even though adding 1 extra SL causes far less reactor-demand than adding two large pulse lasers. If it was based on runaway reactions, then 6SL and 2 LPL would trigger much more ghist heat than 7 SL alone.

However, firing 6 ML and a AC5 should generate just about the same reactor demand as firing 6ML and an AC/10 so there should be little to no power draw penalty for either of those scenarios if power was an actual concern. Firing twin AC/20 requires minimal electricity and has no way of generating "extra" heat.

They need a new name for the system, and just openly admit that it has no "sim" backing behind it. It would help us all move forward.

[Deathlike]

Gas Guzzler, on 09 August 2016 - 10:27 AM, said:

You may not have noticed that I am not a competitive player anymore as the unit I am a part of is not currently competing in MWO.

Damnit Gas. I apologize. Damn guilt trips.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Prosperity Park, on 09 August 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

Please stop calling the new, upcoming heat penalty "Energy Draw" because it has nothing to do with drawing energy from a reactor. Operating the reloading mechanism of an AC/20 does not consume anywhere close to the amount of electrical power needed to fire two PPCs at once and accelerate those hydrogen nuclei to relativistic speeds.

Call it "Damage Cap"
Call it "Alpha Limit"

But, please, don't use the term Energy Draw anymore. It's not correct.

"Ghost Heat" is an accurate term because it describes phantom heat that comes from nowhere and should not exist.

Damage Cap or Alpha Limit are accurate terms that describe the function of this mechanic. There is no relationship between weapon damage and electrical consumption.

I made this thread so people stop fruitlessly speculating that this is a step toward adding more sim features such as electrical management.

all of this

[Zolaz]

Should just call it Ghost Heat 2.0 to go along with the Ghost Support we get from PGI. Real Stuff on the Roadmap in 90 days!!

[Escef]

Prosperity Park, on 09 August 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

But, please, don't use the term Energy Draw anymore. It's not correct.

And heat sinks are technically heat pumps, so calling them heat sinks isn't correct.

F***ing somatic nonsense.

[Y E O N N E]

Escef, on 09 August 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

And heat sinks are technically heat pumps, so calling them heat sinks isn't correct.

F***ing somatic nonsense.

In this game, they are both sink and pump.

Besides, calling it energy draw is not just eye-roll-inducing, it's flat-out wrong unless a second resource is added to the management pool.

[Gas Guzzler]

Escef, on 09 August 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

And heat sinks are technically heat pumps, so calling them heat sinks isn't correct.

F***ing somatic nonsense.

That is actually false.

All it takes to have a heat sink is a piece of metal with blades on it sitting in air, dissipating heat into the air. You can have pumps to support the heat sinks by moving a more conductive fluid through the blades, but a heat sink is not a pump.

[Felicitatem Parco]

Escef, on 09 August 2016 - 12:39 PM, said:

And heat sinks are technically heat pumps, so calling them heat sinks isn't correct.

F***ing somatic nonsense.

WTF are you talking about? Calling them heat sinks is fine because they sink heat from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration.

Calling the system "Energy Draw" is cometely nonsensical because it has nothing at all to do with electrical consumption or draws from the reactor.

[JC Daxion]

Don't care what is is called.. I just hope the "purple leprechaun rainbow machine" works...

[Gas Guzzler]

Technically, heat sinks are made better by having pumps to circulate fluid from hot components to the heat sinks themselves, but to say that "heat sinks" are actually "heat pumps" isn't correct, despite sarna.net saying so.