106 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

AWOL 01, on 26 August 2016 - 11:28 AM, said:

Just FYI, in TT a turn is 10 seconds. If a heat sink gets rid of 1 heat per turn, that means a single heat sink gets rid of 0.1 heat per second, and a double heat sink gets rid of 0.2 heat per second.

Since PGI decided to fudge the numbers on weapons cooldows (and of course they'd have to, so no real harm there), we'll have to come up with some fudging of our own that feels right for what they came up with.

Of course, if PGI used a 10-second cooldown for everything, and a heat scale to match, this game would have been incredibly well-balanced from the get go.

Not sure if it would have been more fun... but balanced for sure.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

And I think that gauss being too good close-in is taking a role away from AC/20s.

DPS generally controls that, taken from MW4 you have these values:

AC20: 20 damage, 5 heat, 5 recycle
Gauss: 18 damage, 1 heat, 7-8 recycle (can't remember the exact recycle time, but it was much higher)

both had pretty high velocities rather than one being a softball.

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

In terms of what "heat" you have, your heat capacity is determined by your sinks. Minimum 10 single heat sinks puts your capacity at 10. If you're in a 4xERPPC Warhawk using 24xDHS, your capacity would be 48 (assuming 2x capacity for DHS).

Honestly, the number of heat sinks you mount should not impact this because it is part of the reason we are where we are in the first place. If the old gauss vomit whale could never expand its heat capacity to the extent it did, it never would've been as much of a threat as it was.

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 11:52 AM, said:

Do we feel as though 2 alphas to a shutdown, but NOT a more severe penalty, is acceptable? Does it need to shut down sooner and have worse consequences later?

Generally, for the largest of alphas, 2 consecutive alphas should make you heat capped (being heat capped meaning not shutdown and still functional, if not at full capacity) similar to how the old vomit BK used to work. You got 2 good alphas and then you were basically relying on half of your firepower in any extended engagement. Exact numbers to get to that would take a bit of number crunching but that's how I feel it should work.

[AWOL 01]

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 12:01 PM, said:

Since PGI decided to fudge the numbers on weapons cooldows (and of course they'd have to, so no real harm there), we'll have to come up with some fudging of our own that feels right for what they came up with.

Of course, if PGI used a 10-second cooldown for everything, and a heat scale to match, this game would have been incredibly well-balanced from the get go.

Not sure if it would have been more fun... but balanced for sure.

That could've been a way to make DPS weapons stand out. Instead of having the AC20 be a massive cannon, have it be an AC2 that fires once a second, as opposed to once every 10 seconds for an AC2. (With TT armor values this would still be devastating.) Have LRMs always fire in clusters of 5, but LRM5s only fire once every 10 seconds, while LRM20s can fire once every 2.5 seconds.

Have all lasers have the same duration, but some do more damage than others. Gauss has low heat and high damage, but it's heavy and has a very slow rate of fire, and explodes easily. PPCs do high damage, but also produce a lot of heat.

It's crazy how balanced TT rules could make this game...

[ScarecrowES]

{editted this to amend some numbers}

It should be noted, using the example Warhawk above... under my system the heat capacity of that mech with tru-dubs is 48, with a penalty scale of 30, and shut down at 20. That means heat to shutdown under my system is 68, which is the established capacity for this mech under MWO's "engine plus sinks" system (69). With skills, MWO pushes up to 86 heat capacity - 24% more.

Looks like my system is in-line with MWO's base system, produces the same results directly rather than the massive combo of engine + sinks + ghost heat + yadda yadda.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 26 August 2016 - 12:35 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

AWOL 01, on 26 August 2016 - 12:20 PM, said:

That could've been a way to make DPS weapons stand out. Instead of having the AC20 be a massive cannon, have it be an AC2 that fires once a second, as opposed to once every 10 seconds for an AC2. (With TT armor values this would still be devastating.) Have LRMs always fire in clusters of 5, but LRM5s only fire once every 10 seconds, while LRM20s can fire once every 2.5 seconds.

Have all lasers have the same duration, but some do more damage than others. Gauss has low heat and high damage, but it's heavy and has a very slow rate of fire, and explodes easily. PPCs do high damage, but also produce a lot of heat.

It's crazy how balanced TT rules could make this game...

It also pushes you toward large heavy weapons. When you understand that a medium laser is only actually doing 5 damage every 10 seconds, it stops making sense to boat a bunch of them if you can get away with mounting bigger guns.

But alas... I'm not sure if it would be fun, exactly. In real time that might get a bit brutal to play through.

[Khobai]

Quote

Capacity should be used to control what size of alpha you are limited to, dissipation should be used to control how often it can be repeated.

nope. because weapons like gauss that do a high amount of damage for a low amount of heat arnt limited by heat capacity or dissipation.

what PGI needs to do is increase the cooldown on high pinpoint damage weapons. Its high cooldowns that need to limit how often they can fire.

all pinpoint damage weapons should have very high cooldowns in the 6-10 second range.

weapons just fire too fast in MWO, thats always been one of the biggest problems.


To have a proper working heatscale the rate of fire needs to be substantially slowed down.

Edited by Khobai, 26 August 2016 - 12:54 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Khobai, on 26 August 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

nope. because weapons like gauss that do a high amount of damage for a low amount of heat arnt limited by heat capacity or dissipation.

That's why Gauss should be fixed, whether you like it or not heat has always about limiting damage, Gauss circumventing that completely is the reason it is a broken weapon and requires so many outside arbitrary rules.

I don't mind long recycle times, but they better have a bit more damage per shot to compensate if they are the only ones touched and are moved so far in the direction of 6-10 seconds (10 is too long for any long range weapon not doing 20+ damage per shot imo).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 August 2016 - 12:59 PM.

[davoodoo]

Like i siad already.

gauss weights 15 tons and requires ammo idk how much you want, i run 1.5-2.5 tons per gauss, lets say 3 tons for the sake of my laziness

so 18 tons for just 1 gauss at 15 dmg.

2 large lasers do 16 in dmg in tt at 10 tons and you got tonnage for 8 dhs., in tt enough to completely cool down 2 large lasers and you still have 10 dhs in engine to power up more weaponry.

2 large lasers also got 2 attempt at crit, nothing to sneeze at in tt, they require no ammo and cant explode.

I would take gauss only at assaults and some heavies which simply cant fit more dhs or lighter weaponry just doesnt fit but still got tonnage to spare and never as main weaponry.

Also we can always complain about uac5 and 10 dmg for 2 heat at 9 tons + ammo...

Edited by davoodoo, 26 August 2016 - 01:18 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 August 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

DPS generally controls that, taken from MW4 you have these values:

AC20: 20 damage, 5 heat, 5 recycle
Gauss: 18 damage, 1 heat, 7-8 recycle (can't remember the exact recycle time, but it was much higher)

both had pretty high velocities rather than one being a softball.


Honestly, the number of heat sinks you mount should not impact this because it is part of the reason we are where we are in the first place. If the old gauss vomit whale could never expand its heat capacity to the extent it did, it never would've been as much of a threat as it was.


Generally, for the largest of alphas, 2 consecutive alphas should make you heat capped (being heat capped meaning not shutdown and still functional, if not at full capacity) similar to how the old vomit BK used to work. You got 2 good alphas and then you were basically relying on half of your firepower in any extended engagement. Exact numbers to get to that would take a bit of number crunching but that's how I feel it should work.

I've always been undecided about the gauss. The charge mechanic stripped a lot of DPS off the weapon and killed a lot of the utility you expect from a ballistic... but no charge seems way too good, and this really subplants the AC/20. It becomes strictly better all around, which I don't think it should. Still, I don't mount gauss much any more, so I'd happily defer to people who have a more invested opinion on the weapon.

As far as tying capacity directly to sinks, I think this is outright a better system than what MWO currently uses. Remember that right now we're using engine size to define base heat capacity, and then adding external heat sinks on top of that. If you're rocking a mech with a 300xl engine and DHS, you start out with a heat capacity of 50 before you even add sinks. Under my system you'd just have 20.

This has a lot of profound effects. First, it lowers the heat cap on a LOT of mechs. That ERPPC Warhawk is mostly uneffected, but it's heavy on sinks. The cap is higher because you invested an extra 14 tons and 28 crits into cooling.

However that Kodiak-3? MWO gives it a heat cap of 53... with only 12 dubs, mine is 24. Less than half. Remember that in the current MWO, the heat scale defines your max alpha capability as well as your DoT capability. If you really wanted to, you could use every bit of that current heat scale and do one massive alpha, then wait for it to cool - no penalty other than time. My system, then, guarantees lower caps on pure alphas while having only marginal effect on DoT. It does this without needing GH or any other system on top of it at all.

On the other end of the spectrum... lights. Many people have long said that the current system is largely unfair to light mechs... especially to those with low engine caps. I think this might help. Alpha capability of light mechs will likely never push too hard against my lower capacity. 20 for the base 10 true-dubs should allow for most lighter mechs to cycle through their weapons with fewer difficulties under my system than the base system. And remember the poor Locust-1V with only one energy slot that can barely keep cool? 10 singles is 10 heat capacity, more than enough for one LPL that will likely NEVER see a heat penalty. Direct buff to that mech.

Under my system, you get nothing for free... if you want alpha capability, you have to pay for it by increasing your heat capactiy through tonnage and crits. For DPS builds, you should see some improvement in cooling that should let them compete with burst and alpha builds in a direct fight.

As for tuning, I echo your sentiments on about where the heat penalties should sit... 2 alphas to push into the red is probably acceptable for most lower-alpha builds. The Warhawk is maybe too extreme an example to use here. It pushes very hard against any system you try to put it up against, so tuning for that one might be difficult.

We might have to look at builds that are sitting right around sub-optimal. Obviously, optimal builds should probably be somewhat rewarded, as your making specific sacrifices in terms of balancing damage and cooling at absolutely specific levels... thus you'll never be able to design around these builds... they'll crop up no matter what you do. Trying to curb builds that are simply not very good just because you don't like HOW they do their damage is also not desirable. So sub-optimal should be the benchmark of the system - one where care and thought went into its creation and where it runs reasonably well with good output under the current system (but not so well that it becomes optimal).

Tweaking tweaking.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

davoodoo, on 26 August 2016 - 01:11 PM, said:

Like i siad already.

gauss weights 15 tons and requires ammo idk how much you want, i run 1.5-2.5 tons per gauss, lets say 3 tons for the sake of my laziness

so 18 tons for just 1 gauss at 15 dmg.

2 large lasers do 16 in dmg in tt at 10 tons and you got tonnage for 8 dhs., in tt enough to completely cool down 2 large lasers and you still have 10 dhs in engine to power up more weaponry.

2 LL are rarely enough, but you are somewhat correct in this, ballistics have a very high initial investment while energy does not, the thing is though, that DHS quickly gain diminishing returns as you add lasers slowly shifting in favor of ballistics, which is why ballistic heavy/assaults tend to be much better than energy oriented heavy/assaults while the opposite is true for lights/mediums.

[davoodoo]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 August 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

2 LL are rarely enough, but you are somewhat correct in this, ballistics have a very high initial investment while energy does not, the thing is though, that DHS quickly gain diminishing returns as you add lasers slowly shifting in favor of ballistics, which is why ballistic heavy/assaults tend to be much better than energy oriented heavy/assaults while the opposite is true for lights/mediums.

in mwo yes, in tt 4dhs=llas heat neutral.
If you got more slots than tonnage you take energy if you got more tonnage than slots you take ballistics.

thats the thing though, we got dhs nerfed beneath tt values despite having ppc on 5.25s(and 4s on live) cooldown so no wodner that gauss looks so appealing along with other ballistics.

I couldnt cool off banshee 3e stock weapon setup of 1 slas, 1 ac5, 1ppc despite filling space with dhs... and this mech despite 95 tons is less armed than squad of mechanized infantry...

Edited by davoodoo, 26 August 2016 - 01:28 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

Remember that right now we're using engine size to define base heat capacity, and then adding external heat sinks on top of that.

Last I knew, engine size had nothing to do with heat capacity (and this goes back to the Whale days) which would make this function exactly like MWO just with no 30 point bonus starting point but more bonus capacity from the DHS. I don't think we should increase dissipation just to make DPS builds better to compete with these alphas since that means they become a lot harder to ever get heat capped (meaning they can sustain for much longer periods, which is not something you want).

davoodoo, on 26 August 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

in mwo yes, in tt 4dhs=llas heat neutral.

We aren't talking about TT, we are talking MWO.....

[ScarecrowES]

Khobai, on 26 August 2016 - 12:49 PM, said:

nope. because weapons like gauss that do a high amount of damage for a low amount of heat arnt limited by heat capacity or dissipation.

what PGI needs to do is increase the cooldown on high pinpoint damage weapons. Its high cooldowns that need to limit how often they can fire.

all pinpoint damage weapons should have very high cooldowns in the 6-10 second range.

weapons just fire too fast in MWO, thats always been one of the biggest problems.


To have a proper working heatscale the rate of fire needs to be substantially slowed down.

And this is a problem expressed in all 3 attempts at a heat system so far... you're trying to balance what you don't like in weapons by messing with a separate system (in this case heat scale) - rather than messing with the weapon itself. If we don't like gauss, then we fix gauss. It's that simple. It's never a good idea to design a system around outliers.

The mechanic whereby gauss exploded if critted was probably quite punishing in TT. It's not really a big deal in MWO at all. Some other form of balancing mechanic is needed. Once you put that in, gauss won't be an outlier anymore.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 August 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Last I knew, engine size had nothing to do with heat capacity (and this goes back to the Whale days) which would make this function exactly like MWO just with no 30 point bonus starting point but more bonus capacity from the DHS. I don't think we should increase dissipation just to make DPS builds better to compete with these alphas since that means they become a lot harder to ever get heat capped (meaning they can sustain for much longer periods, which is not something you want). We aren't talking about TT, we are talking MWO.....

{edited}

Seeing where there could be confusion. Nevermind. You describe it way better. 30 bonus to start (for the engine), plus engine sinks times bonus. Still, MWO's system gives you a higher heat cap just for mounting an engine, which in terms increases initial alpha potential.

In terms of DPS vs Burst/Alpha... you likely don't want to "heat cap" DPS builds as much as you do burst/alpha builds. DPS builds will put out less useful damage over a long time, which makes them less ideal for the type of combat we see in MWO. They simply can't compete with burst builds in a direct fight, which relegates them largely to ranged and support roles.

In this way, having one mech that can do a little damage over a longer period of time and another that does a lot of damage in bursts might actually be a fair fight. Under the base system, even with GH and ED, burst still reigns supreme.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 26 August 2016 - 01:47 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

I'm confused. You understand that the section you quoted refers to MWO, not my system? MWO uses engine size.

Yes, I'm aware you refering to MWO, but it is wrong because MWO does not use engine size in capacity, or at least if it does they very recently added that.

AFAIK, the MWO capacity formula is this: 30 + min(engine heat sinks, 10) * engine heat sink capacity + (external heat sinks + max(engine heat sinks - 10, 0)) * external heat sink capacity

The difference between yours and MWO, is you no longer distinguish between engine and external heat sinks and you no longer get the flat 30 bonus.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 26 August 2016 - 01:46 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 01:41 PM, said:

In terms of DPS vs Burst/Alpha... you likely don't want to "heat cap" DPS builds as much as you do burst/alpha builds.

You don't have to though since they will naturally have a better Damage to Heat ratio, or at least should.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 August 2016 - 01:43 PM, said:

Yes, I'm aware you refering to MWO, but it is wrong because MWO does not use engine size in capacity, or at least if it does they very recently added that.

AFAIK, the MWO capacity formula is this: 30 + min(engine heat sinks, 10) * engine heat sink capacity + (external heat sinks + max(engine heat sinks - 10, 0)) * external heat sink capacity

The difference between yours and MWO, is you no longer distinguish between engine and external heat sinks and you no longer get the flat 30 bonus.

Yeah, you described in better than I did... my verbage wasn't specific enough. Editted the post in question.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 August 2016 - 01:47 PM, said:

You don't have to though since they will naturally have a better Damage to Heat ratio, or at least should.

If we get the dissipation rate correct, we shouldn't have to make any mechanical distinction in the system for different kinds of damage. The system will do it all by itself based on how you build the mech. If a player wants to sacrifice a lot of damage so he NEVER risks pushing the heat system, that's up to him. He'll never shut down, but he'll be putting out a lot less damage, even in a DPS build. Likewise, if a guy wants to throw enough weapons on to stay just below the shutdown cap, more power to him. He'll spend a lot of time cooling down. If players can make those extremes work, awesome. I don't think they'll be very desirable. You'll likely want to stay somewhere in between.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 26 August 2016 - 01:52 PM, said:

If we get the dissipation rate correct, we shouldn't have to make any mechanical distinction in the system for different kinds of damage.

No, heat HAS to take this into account because otherwise there is no distinction between how a weapon applies damage, or range, or etc. Heat values for weapons take all of that into account because it makes the most since because it both allows short range clustered weapons to have higher DPS than something like a PPFLD long range mech.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 26 August 2016 - 02:02 PM, said:

No, heat HAS to take this into account because otherwise there is no distinction between how a weapon applies damage, or range, or etc. Heat values for weapons take all of that into account because it makes the most since because it both allows short range clustered weapons to have higher DPS than something like a PPFLD long range mech.

Short range clustered weapons already have higher DPS than PPFLD. SRMs have the best ratios between damage output, heat, critical slots, and weight. There's no reason that this would change under the proposed system. What makes those weapons better is inherent to the weapon's stats, which were created to be balanced under the system I'm proposing.

The high heat caps under MWO's current system allow PPFLD to be more effective than it might otherwise be. Dual gauss is 30 tons, 35 tons if you support it with decent ammo. Not to mention 7 slots each. Not a lot of mechs can support that, and there's not much reason to with the low output gauss has. There aren't a lot of mechs that can do gauss and PPC to begin with, and it's rarely ever desirable. Not a lot of resources to keep those weapons cool. With the lowered heat cap in my system, the ceiling is a lot lower.

Adding a little heat to gauss is all you'd need to balance that weapon directly. I doubt anyone would find that offensive.