Jump to content

Energy Draw - Very Nice But Improvements Can Be Made


8 replies to this topic

#1 Old-dirty B

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 03:48 AM

I really like the whole energy draw system. From my first single player test sessions it seems much more flexible then initially thought off. It also doesn't seem to interfere that much either, sometimes its barely noticeable its even there.

Some improvements could be made, my first feedback:

Indicator readability: The energy pool scale indicator needs to be much more precise to be able to determine when you can fire the next volley. Now it has 4 sections of each 7.5 energy on the scale, i suggest to break that up into 15 sections of 2. And on the scale for each 10 energy points make a bold / big line to enhance the readability further.

Weapon group indicator: On the weapon group panel there should be some form of indication what weapon group can "safely" be fired with the available energy. Much like the indication for flamers.

Energy draw regeneration: With the current energy draw threshold and heat penalty big alpha strikes are still possible, some alpha strike builds were actually buffed compared to the previous ghost heat system (double ac20, triple erppc or quad ppc). Although i believe big alpha strikes should still be possible, it should come at a big prize..
The current heat penalty is not enough to discourage that, however a bigger heat penalty would plainly destroy that possibility. I suggest a dynamic energy regeneration to take care of that. The more you exceed the threshold the slower the energy pool regenerates. That way big alphas are still possible, but it will make the striker ineffective for a while without the extreme heat or possible shutdown.
If you fire a weapon group and stay within the max energy draw the regeneration should be faster. This could help builds that struggle to come up with a balanced group of weapons that get close to that 30 damage. For example the Atlas AS7-S, the AC20 always draws to less while the quad SRM6's always draw too much. Faster regeneration when the AC20 is fired solo would help!

Although i like the changes that come with this new energy draw system, i think it will be good for gameplay i still have some concerns. Especially the fixed thresholds for the energy pool, even when that is customised for different classes. In the end it forces the user to create builds that best makes use of the available pool for that class but will run into effectiveness issues when a certain chassis is not able to get close to that max energy draw which could have multiple reasons (hardpoints, weight or space). A system that gives a bit more room for chassis where its not possible to get close to the ideal energy draw would be appreciated.

In the end i much rather see a low but custom threshold per tonnage (something like lights:10, medium:15, heavy:20 and assaults:25) and let the energy draw system regenerate according to how its being used. Big draw means slower regeneration, small draw means faster regeneration.

Edited by B3R3ND, 19 August 2016 - 03:57 AM.


#2 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 03:54 AM

I think I would rather see the max energy cap be different for each weight class rather than the energy regeneration rates.

Common sense says an assault mech should be able to fire more weapons simultaneously than a light mech. And assaults have zero advantages over other weight classes if you take away their superior firepower.

id like to see the max energy cap get changed to:
light = 30
medium = 35
heavy = 40
assault = 45

#3 Father Bill

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The Aggressor
  • The Aggressor
  • 37 posts
  • LocationWherever the Fox needs me

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:00 AM

View PostB3R3ND, on 19 August 2016 - 03:48 AM, said:

I suggest a dynamic energy regeneration to take care of that. The more you exceed the threshold the slower the energy pool regenerates. That way big alphas are still possible, but it will make the striker ineffective for a while without the extreme heat or possible shutdown.




I Think this is a good idea!

View PostKhobai, on 19 August 2016 - 03:54 AM, said:

I think I would rather see the max energy cap be different for each weight class rather than the energy regeneration rates.

Common sense says an assault mech should be able to fire more weapons simultaneously than a light mech. And assaults have zero advantages over other weight classes if you take away their superior firepower.

id like to see the max energy cap get changed to:
light = 30
medium = 35
heavy = 40
assault = 45


I also like this, seems like a good idea to tie Energy Threshold to Weight Class rather than a 30 global cap.

Peace,
Father Bill

#4 Old-dirty B

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 380 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:07 AM

View PostKhobai, on 19 August 2016 - 03:54 AM, said:

I think I would rather see the max energy cap be different for each weight class rather than the energy regeneration rates.

Common sense says an assault mech should be able to fire more weapons simultaneously than a light mech. And assaults have zero advantages over other weight classes if you take away their superior firepower.

id like to see the max energy cap get changed to:
light = 30
medium = 35
heavy = 40
assault = 45



Yes thats what i also have suggested, albeit lower then your suggestion (something like lights:10, medium:15, heavy:20 and assaults:25) but in exchange with a higher and dynamic regeneration. That would mean that assaults compared to the other extreme lights can "safely" output a lot more damage, also big alpha's are still possible be it with a big penalty in the form of a very slow regeneration and big heat penalty.

Edited by B3R3ND, 19 August 2016 - 04:08 AM.


#5 Midgie

    Swaybacked

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 192 posts
  • LocationThe unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy.

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:13 AM

I wish people would realize that this is in no way a finished system. The reason for this public test is to get feedback on the initial design and collect numbers to help in balancing. PGI was completely upfront with what we should expect.

#6 Fox the Apprentice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:17 AM

View PostMidgie, on 19 August 2016 - 04:13 AM, said:

I wish people would realize that this is in no way a finished system. The reason for this public test is to get feedback on the initial design and collect numbers to help in balancing. PGI was completely upfront with what we should expect.


Isn't that exactly what this thread is about? Providing feedback?

#7 Midgie

    Swaybacked

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 192 posts
  • LocationThe unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the galaxy.

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:17 AM

I should add that the above statement is directed at this forum in general not this thread.

#8 PJohann

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 52 posts
  • LocationSoviet Union

Posted 19 August 2016 - 04:39 AM

Like energy draw system so far, but currently it is very biased towards long range builds. 30pts alpha at 1km cost same amount "energy" as 30pts alpha at 100m. Range should be accounted to power cost.
And second is that all classes has same energy cap. I beleive, this should be changed a bit.
Like:
Lights: 25pts
Mediums and Heavies: 30pts
Assaults: 35pts

#9 Fox the Apprentice

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 595 posts

Posted 19 August 2016 - 02:42 PM

View PostMidgie, on 19 August 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

I should add that the above statement is directed at this forum in general not this thread.


Ah, I misunderstood Posted Image





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users