106 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Kuaron, on 24 September 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

Now to the previous post, the one from here:

1) Ah, the 15% by skills? Or, counted down, 13% reduced heat cap if one counts the skills as you suggest? I gives your DHS an effective 1,74 cap spoken in today's MWO numbers. And we are comparing with 1,2 DHS cap on PTS and 2,0 in your suggestion. Even if you take life server, IIRC we have 1,4 external and 2,0 internal DHS cap bonus there. Yours are not really below.

3) Are you explaining the system again on assumption I didn't understand it yet?
Maybe I shouldn't call it redlining, it's more like: 5-10 points into the red, and then down into the white. And repeat. But still an optimal behaviour.
Or let me put it like this (with randomly guessed numbers):
You fire 3 PPCs and are cooling down. When you are cold enough to fire again, you notice: If you had fired all 4 PPCs, gone into the red, and waited the same sime, you'd be equally cold due to the parallel cooling of the penalty bar, but wouldn't have waisted the dmg.

Let's look at the actual numbers, shall we?

10 DHS... MWO Cap 30 (+30), dissipation 2.3pts/sec. Proposed TT Cap 20 (+30), dissipation 2.0pts/sec. Heat cap at minimum reduced outright by 1/3 (10pts). Base dissipation reduced 0.3pts/sec. 30pts of heat separated and penalized.

20 DHS... MWO Cap 46.8 (+30), dissipation 3.91pts/sec. Proposed TT Cap 40 (+30), dissipation 4.0pts/sec. Heat cap reduced 6.8pts (14.5%). Base dissipation increased 0.09pts/sec. 30pts of heat separated and penalized.

30 DHS... MWO Cap 63.6 (+30), dissipation 5.52pts/sec. Proposed TT Cap 60 (+30), dissipation 6.0/pts/sec. Heat cap reduced 3.6pts (5.6%). Base dissipation increased 0.48pts/sec. 30pts of heat separated and penalized.

By the numbers, heat cap and dissipation are normalized to heat sinks. High cap mechs, which will exclusively feature large, energy-based platforms, receive a minor reduction in heat cap overall, but a significant boost to dissipation. Mid-cap mechs receive moderate reductions in cap and minor boosts to dissipation. Low cap mechs, which are either extremely weak light mechs or, as often, large ballistic-based platforms, receive a major heat cap reduction and moderate dissipation reduction.

The proposed changes actually impact low-cap, cool-running mechs harder than they impact hot running mechs. No more free heat cap. And even with full 2.0 DHS, the overall cap is still lower across the board than on Live. Moreover, with my skill system working in reverse of the existing one, the results from 2.0 DHS (already noted as lower than Live) are the maximum results you can achieve. Both max and practical heat caps lowered for all mechs.

And don't randomly guess the numbers. The maths are pretty simple overall, so it shouldn't be much trouble to pick a build and see how it runs.

Let's say you have a 40-point heat cap (20 DHS), and you've just fired a combination of weapons which maxxed out your heat cap and accumulated a 10-point penalty. You let your heat cap drop 10 points (25%) to 30pts. Averaged from 0 to 25% over the duration is 12.5%. Since we're using a percentage of the unused cap times a base 3pts/sec dissipation for the penalty meter, this results in a (0.125x3) = 0.375pts/sec dissipation rate for your penalty - times 2.5 seconds is 0.9375pts. So your penalty, which WAS at 10 points when you started, is now at about 9.1 points.

If you accumulate penalties, and proceed to redline it by continuing to fire as soon as you free up a little cap space, your penalties are going to take a LONG time to clear. A lot longer than it would take if you just stopped firing altogether. In fact, almost 30 seconds to clear 10 points of penalty using the above example. If it was 30 points of penalty, you'd be stuck under those penalties for somewhere around a minute and a half when redlining. It would have only taken you 15 total seconds to wash away your full 40-point heat cap and 30 points of penalties if you stop firing altogether.

[ScarecrowES]

Kuaron, on 24 September 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

First this one, it should address point 2 sufficiently.



Imagine you are a laser. A large laser. And then, some incomprehensible outer force passes your perceptual horizon, and suddenly your effective heat cap becomes lower. It does not at all matter to you whether it happens by taking away some points gifted somewhen in history. It doesn't matter to west Ukrainians whether Crimea was gifted to the then-republic by Khrushchev somewhen in the 60s. You feel nerfed and that matters!

The AC5 in the Mech's other arm is much less so, and this is what upsets you.

More seriously: The effective heat cap is the one a player will reasonably use. In your system it becomes 30 points lower plus some adjustments for extreme situations (where taking the penalties is worth the effect) and then taking the average over all the situations possible. Since it was at shutdown boundary before, it necessarily is lower now. And there is nothing wrong here, I welcome a n (effective) heat cap reduction, even a larger one.

A hot weapon, on the other hand, is more worth if the effective heat cap is high than when it is low, because in the former case you can use it more often. A cold weapon is much less dependant, it's dmg/heat ratio is much higher and it has different limiting parameters (weight, mostly).

Conclusion:

Both types of weapons are not at all treated equally.

Implication:
To maintain balance (assumed it was given before) equality should be reestablished by other means.

Just to counterpoint here using your own argument... the effective heat cap you mention is dependent entirely on the build under this system. That means you get what you pay for. You will only pay for whatever heat cap your weapons require, and you get nothing extra for free. If you mount energy weapons, you will also mount the heat sinks it needs to stay cool. If you mount ballistics, you won't need those sinks.

Your cap will reflect your requirement. Thus weapons are, indeed, treated equally and balance is already allowed unhindered. This lets the build and weapon balance systems do their jobs of balancing output and investment.

[Kuaron]

@ 1:

ScarecrowES, on 24 September 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

10 DHS... MWO Cap 30 (+30), dissipation 2.3pts/sec. Proposed TT Cap 20 (+30), dissipation 2.0pts/sec. Heat cap at minimum reduced outright by 1/3 (10pts). Base dissipation reduced 0.3pts/sec. 30pts of heat separated and penalized.

I am probably missing out sth., where do your 30 heat cap from 10 HS come from?
20 by engine DHS + 15 % by skills + ???

One can discuss if increasing TTK is a desirable design goal, but if it is, ...

@ 2:

Quote

Your cap will reflect your requirement. Thus weapons are, indeed, treated equally and balance is already allowed unhindered. This lets the build and weapon balance systems do their jobs of balancing output and investment.

Of course in a hot build you buy HS instead of ammo.
But this does change nothing in the problem. I have the feeling you are using all the mist and smoke arguments, pointing to HS there or meeting some definitions of here because for some reason you refuse to acknowledge the obvious here, but I have no idea why.

In this case you are probably pointing here:

Quote

By the numbers, heat cap and dissipation are normalized to heat sinks. High cap mechs, which will exclusively feature large, energy-based platforms, receive a minor reduction in heat cap overall, but a significant boost to dissipation. Mid-cap mechs receive moderate reductions in cap and minor boosts to dissipation. Low cap mechs, which are either extremely weak light mechs or, as often, large ballistic-based platforms, receive a major heat cap reduction and moderate dissipation reduction.

But even if the numbers are true, PGI are going this route anyway by unifying engine and external HS (we'll have to see if they will actually nerf them or just redistribute the parameters). But moving the understanding of "low heat build" a couple HS up doesn't change the balance in the favour of hot weapons. It only nerfs very light Mechs.

3)

Quote

Let's say you have a 40-point heat cap (20 DHS), and you've just fired a combination of weapons which maxxed out your heat cap and accumulated a 10-point penalty. You let your heat cap drop 10 points (25%) to 30pts. Averaged from 0 to 25% over the duration is 12.5%. Since we're using a percentage of the unused cap times a base 3pts/sec dissipation for the penalty meter, this results in a (0.125x3) = 0.375pts/sec dissipation rate for your penalty - times 2.5 seconds is 0.9375pts. So your penalty, which WAS at 10 points when you started, is now at about 9.1 points.

I guess numbers because depending on them there is a different optimal interval between the volleys.
Your chosen example is valid, but the proposed behaviour far from optimal. It's not "back into the white", as I wrote, also.
Calculate it for dissipating ~30 = 75% heat (optimal should be something above 25, I guess) before firing again. You don't lose anything by choosing this longer time interval, you are stuffed with lasers anyway and can use up as much heat in one alpha as you want to. But you win lots of dissipation compared to, e.g., chainfiring when hot or avoiding the penalty bar from the start.

[ScarecrowES]

Kuaron, on 26 September 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

@ 1:

I am probably missing out sth., where do your 30 heat cap from 10 HS come from?
20 by engine DHS + 15 % by skills + ???

Thanks to the skill system, yes, in MWO 10 DHS with elited skills gets a free 10 heat cap, or 5 extra heat sinks.

Kuaron, on 26 September 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

@ 2:

Of course in a hot build you buy HS instead of ammo.
But this does change nothing in the problem. I have the feeling you are using all the mist and smoke arguments, pointing to HS there or meeting some definitions of here because for some reason you refuse to acknowledge the obvious here, but I have no idea why.

As stated, I've removed all inherent bias from the system. It doesn't matter what weapons you mount or how many heat sinks, it treats every sink exactly the same way, and no type of weapon is rewarded more than another under my system. This is a marked change from the existing MWO heat system where low cap mechs are buffed and high cap mechs are nerfed.

By removing the intrinsic 30 points of heat from every mech, separating that as it's own bar, and locking it behind a penalty wall, we've set up a soft cap for heat that is 100% related to your build. You get exactly the heat cap you pay for and not one ounce more. Moreover, we've pulled the bias out of how heat cap from sinks is calculated. No matter how many sinks you mount, they're all worth the same. We've even gone so far as to deviate from TT and provide a universal dissipation rate for the penalty bar for all mechs to go with the fixed size of the bar, so all mechs will dissipate it the same. The heat system performs the same completely independent of build - it doesn't care what kinds of weapons you mount or what your cap is.

Kuaron, on 26 September 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

But even if the numbers are true, PGI are going this route anyway by unifying engine and external HS (we'll have to see if they will actually nerf them or just redistribute the parameters). But moving the understanding of "low heat build" a couple HS up doesn't change the balance in the favour of hot weapons. It only nerfs very light Mechs.

No. What PGI has done is to nerf the portion of the energy bar that mechs earn through their builds, and kept the intrinsic heat intact. This makes their system even LESS balance than it was to start with. This is a simple enough problem to explain. Say you have two mechs... one has 15 heat sinks for a heat cap of 30. The other has 30 heat sinks with a heat cap of 60. Both get the intrinsic 30 extra points of heat thanks to MWO's base heat scale. We'll use simple numbers here and ignore skills just to illustrate the point.

For the first mech, that extra 30 points is a 100% boost to its heat cap. You've doubled the amount of heat that mech has to work with. For the second mech, it's only a 50% boost to its heat cap. You've given it a LOT less heat to work with than you gave the first mech. This is a HUGE buff for the lower cap mech.

So now you say we've given these mechs too much heat and want to dial it back. The first portion of heat is the part that mechs earn through their builds. This is the part that is balanced as a part of the build and weapon balance systems to ensure that weapon output (range, damage) will be balanced against investment (weight, crits, additional equipment) and heat. PGI chose to lessen THIS part of the heat bar, and left the 30 free points intact.

If you lessen the value of the earned part, it throws balance off. Mechs that paid for heat cap by mounting extra heat sinks now don't have the cap they earned. So hotter mechs suffer more than cooler mechs when we do this. Moreover... thanks to that free 30 heat, the effect will be even more disproportionate because this buff was always more meaningful to the cooler mech anyway. It's a double nerf for the hotter mech.

PGI did this exactly the wrong way. It took a system that was already partial to cool builds, and made it even moreso.

The build and balance system establish a mechanic where heat offsets investment for a given output. If your investment for a given output is high - such as with ballistics where you have high weight and crit space requirements - your heat will be low, and thus you don't need to mount a lot of heat sinks to deal with the smaller amount of heat you'd produce. If your investment for a given output is low - such as with energy weapons where you have low weight and crit space requirements - your heat will be high, and thus you will need to mount more heat sinks to deal with the larger amount of heat you'd produce. My proposed system doesn't interfere with this balance mechanic by fudging the value of heat sinks and dissipation, or adding free unearned heat like the current system does. It is thus inherently fair.

Kuaron, on 26 September 2016 - 09:03 AM, said:

I guess numbers because depending on them there is a different optimal interval between the volleys.
Your chosen example is valid, but the proposed behaviour far from optimal. It's not "back into the white", as I wrote, also.
Calculate it for dissipating ~30 = 75% heat (optimal should be something above 25, I guess) before firing again. You don't lose anything by choosing this longer time interval, you are stuffed with lasers anyway and can use up as much heat in one alpha as you want to. But you win lots of dissipation compared to, e.g., chainfiring when hot or avoiding the penalty bar from the start.

I think this represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the system. Choosing to take on a heat penalty will be a choice players will have to carefully consider. Penalties have the potential to saddle you with an extended period of lower-than-optimal performance - you trade long-term performance for a short term gain. One way or another, you're going to pay back what you gained. In many cases, putting out that extra burst of damage means your damage soon after will be reduced, likely by a similar amount.

How you want to pay that down is up to you. It's a bit like running up a credit card. If you only make the minimum payments thereafter, it takes a LOOONG time to pay off. If you settle in and pay it down all in one burst, you'll pay it off a lot sooner.

Certainly, there will be an "optimum," where players can find a perfect balance between that short term gain and a strategy of paying it back that will provide the highest level of output. I suspect this optimum will actually be different for every mech, as it will depend heavily on the heat requirements of the mech, its cap, and how quickly its weapons cycle.

For instance, a 4xcER-PPC Warhawk takes on a 4-point penalty if it fires all 4 PPCs at once. If it fired them all again as soon as they came off cooldown, the mech would shut down. If it waited the full 10 seconds to dissipate its whole cap, it might lose out on a bit of time where it could have fired a bit sooner. So perhaps there will be an optimum in there of 8.5-9 seconds between shots where it can reach a balance between the penalties in incurs with each shot and its ability to dissipate all of those penalties before the next one.

Players should absolutely be encourage to find this optimum for every one of their mechs. This will truly separate the novice players from those who master the heat system. The best players who squeeze every last drop of output out of the heat system will be the ones who know just how hard they can push their mechs. This is actually a GOOD thing, as it adds a skill component to heat management that is currently lacking.

[Leopardo]

I like the idea but I don't understand how it helps small mechs with no ext hs or with 1-2. It looks like nerf to them

[ScarecrowES]

Leopardo, on 29 September 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

I like the idea but I don't understand how it helps small mechs with no ext hs or with 1-2. It looks like nerf to them

It normalizes them, yes, which is a "nerf" from Live. And of course Live is a significant buff from baseline. In the end it's merely undoing their natural buff.

However, yes, Lights do get impacted through the loss of a bit of cap space... 10 heat points if running the minimum 10 DHS. They also lose a bit of base dissipation. However, currently the penalty dissipation rate is higher than baseline (3pts/sec instead of 2pts/sec) and can stack with normal dissipation.

From Max heat to zero heat, a mech with the min 10 DHS will lose all heat in only 15 seconds under my system if the mech doesn't fire again. Much shorter than on live (26 seconds).

From a practical perspective ... a Jenner-F with 6xML can get 4 alphas without shutting down, and will shut down on the 5th. The loss of 10 total cap means you can't do 4 alphas at full rate under my system without shutting down, but delaying between alphas by a quarter second let's you get the 4th out with shut down on the 5th, same as live.

It certainly impacts low-cap lights, but it's not terrible, and this new baseline could be mitigated for the most unjustly harmed mechs in a number of ways.

Bare minimum, this is a perfect opportunity to use the quirk system to reduce the heat output on certain mechs. This targeted approach to buffs means we don't also accidentally buff a 100-ton ballistic boat while applying an intentional buff to a 20-ton light mech.

We'll also be able to normalize many of those quirks that already exist, and may be able to get rid of many energy weapon heat gun quirks.