106 replies to this topic

[ScarecrowES]

Lancwen, on 10 September 2016 - 10:23 AM, said:

It would'nt take too much time to set up a test for this system and there is not hurry for ED to go live, it is not a request by players.
So taking time to get the best system possible is not a waste of time and money...

Most of the work involved in converting ED to TT is adjusting a few values for numbers in a couple of documents that game uses.

Essentially swapping the values for the ED bar and the heat scale bar... what used to be the ED bar starts using the heat cap of the mech instead, which is the number of heat sinks in a mech, with a x2 modifier for DHS. To make it simple for the sake of this test, we could even use the current means of determining heat cap which is far more complicated... the result is basically the same. And what used to be the heat scale bar becomes the penalty bar with a fixed 30pts like the ED bar used to be. That's all that has to be done there. A little bit more number adjusting for dissipation rates... the ED bar dissipates at the rate the heat scale used to, and the penalty scale dissipates at the rate of the unused heat cap, which is a simple equation.

The only thing that might get into coding is making the ED bar look at heat used, instead of damage. Should be extremely simple to change though.

You wouldn't even HAVE to put penalties in for initial testing. The system provides minor limits over the current heat system anyway. However, basic mobility penalties already exist in the game under certain conditions, and these could be readily be adapted to stand in for the complete suite of penalties within a few days' work.

The base changes could be done in less than a day, though.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 September 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

A lot is not an extreme exaggeration, especially given it was plastered everywhere including reddit. Out of all the player ideas, it was the most supported.
As for being miles away, no, not really, the concept is still the same.

The concept is not even CLOSE. Homeless Bill's version had nothing to do with damage output. In fact, he made a point to avoid using damage as a basis for the system for myriad obvious reasons. Beyond that, the degree of penalties and for what they occur are fundementally different. HB's system provides a more exponential sort of penalty system than what ED provides. Moreover, HB's system cycles MUCH faster than ED, and thus focuses almost entirely on simultaneous damage output and would have little to no impact on burst damage or DoT.

There is some similarity in the mechanics, in that they're both enforced cooldown mechanics attempting to limit output over specifically short time periods, but beyond that there is no similarity. They are different in their approaches, mechanics, and implementations almost completely. They're practical results are also different - though you could argue that in both cases they are incapable of achieving their desired result on the basis of flawed premises, and actually serve to achieve the OPPOSITE of what's desired.

Remember, Homeless Bill's system was intended as a means to curb POPTARTING, which hasn't been a thing in FOREVER. In fact, every intention of HB's system has already been achieved on the live server WITHOUT his system. Ironically, under ED, the very PPFLD mechanics HB sought to curb are actually stronger than ever. His solution, essentially, was to replace one system he deemed "arbitrary" with his own arbitrary system.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 10 September 2016 - 11:38 AM, said:

Homeless Bill's version had nothing to do with damage output.

This isn't part of the concept, but part of the implementation, don't conflate the two. The concept was another resource to control alphas with some sort of penalties for going over. It had nothing to do with controlling poptarts, but was about controlling alphas like the old school Splatcat and the Boomcat.

Quote

The crux of the MechWarrior: Online’s major balance problems is being able to deal more than 20 or 30 points of damage to a single location in a single click. Separately, neither massive alpha strikes nor convergence is a bad thing.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 September 2016 - 11:48 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 September 2016 - 11:43 AM, said:

This isn't part of the concept, but part of the implementation, don't conflate the two. The concept was another resource to control alphas with some sort of penalties for going over. It had nothing to do with controlling poptarts, but was about controlling alphas like the old school Splatcat and the Boomcat.

Don't conflate? HB actually specifically argued AGAINST using damage as a method to determine draw. His argument was that not all damage is not created equal, and anyone with any sense would agree. Specifically, his determination of the value of different types of damage is much more extreme than ED allows for. In this case, part of the implementation goes SPECIFICALLY against the concept.

And yes, the entire premise of his system was based on controlling POPTARTING. From his own proposal, under the category of "why it's worth it:"

"We’re now in month 15 of the Reign of the Poptarts – 15 months of preposterous bunny-hopping absolutely dominating the game. Even with SRMs back, it’s not enough. How can you beat speed, range, minimal exposure, and extreme, concentrated damage? The answer is not to continually nerf jumpjets, jumpjet chassis, Gauss, ballistics, or PPCs at the expense of non-offenders – it’s to make the heat penalty flexible enough to deal with all alpha strikes. They can add a Gauss/PPC restriction and continue to nerf jumpjets or other weapons, but how many of these one-off mechanics do we need when a global solution would alleviate the problem entirely?"

His problem... in fact the only type of damage his system was designed to address beyond what was already in place... was PPFLD, and especially that which comes from flying mechs. Did he care about splat? Nope, he was actually trying to buff splat relative to what the game allowed at the time - his system smartly using tubes rather than launchers. Did he care about laser vomit? Nope, his system allowed a full 10 small lasers to fire, penalty-free, 6+ mediums penalty-free.

Where did he place HIS restrictions? PPFLD. And not always consistently so. He let you fire 2 gauss for 30 damage, but also only 2 AC/10s for 20 damage. He must really not like those ACs. But he only counted a double-tap on a UAC as half the draw of the first tap. Smarter than PGI's system there, at least.

And yes, the system was designed to address high alphas, and largely ONLY high alphas, and largely only specific high alphas. The system placed restrictions more in line with GH directly, and cycled faster than ED. For most players, double-taps on UACs would miss his limitations entirely, for instance.

Different intents, different concepts, different implementation, different practical results. Same largely false premises. What could be said as a positive for HB's system is that it would be largely innocuous. It would have effected the specific offending damage methodology, and pretty much nothing else. For the most part, it's a system that could be practically ignored.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 10 September 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

HB actually specifically argued AGAINST using damage as a method to determine draw.

Quote

My TCS values are based primarily on two things: damage and pinpoint capability. For instance, the TCS of four medium lasers (20 damage) is equal to the TCS of a single PPC (10 damage) because lasers take more skill and effort to keep aimed at a single component; unless you and the target are still, laser damage almost always spreads.

That was taken from his original article, damage most definitely had something to do with it, and was adjusted for weapons that shared less with PPFLD.

ScarecrowES, on 10 September 2016 - 01:33 PM, said:

And yes, the entire premise of his system was based on controlling POPTARTING.

Quote

The Problem: Most of our gameplay imbalances result from the combination of high damage and weapon convergence. Convergence is not a bad thing on its own and neither is high damage, but together, they’re killing game balance. Battletech was balanced with random hit locations, while a first person shooter needs reliable and meaningful aiming.

I don't see a single reference to anything to do with poptarting, which may because poptarting and alphas are not directly related, killing poptarting would not magically kill alphas, and HB is not stupid enough to think otherwise.

Hell, if you look at his original article, the example he gives have nothing to do with poptarts, but actually have to do with mostly the brawl meta at the time. The next article he wrote a year later after the poptart nerf and the Clans were introduced again touches on more than just the poptarts (since they were about to be nerfed to death).



Again, it is pretty much the same concept: secondary resource used to penalize high alphas. You may want to reread both articles and more familiarize yourself with them because you have a lot of wrong numbers too (like the 2 Gauss vs 2 AC10 thing).
Second Article for reference

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 September 2016 - 02:31 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 September 2016 - 02:26 PM, said:

That was taken from his original article, damage most definitely had something to do with it, and was adjusted for weapons that shared less with PPFLD.



I don't see a single reference to anything to do with poptarting, which may because poptarting and alphas are not directly related, killing poptarting would not magically kill alphas, and HB is not stupid enough to think otherwise.

Hell, if you look at his original article, the example he gives have nothing to do with poptarts, but actually have to do with mostly the brawl meta at the time. The next article he wrote a year later after the poptart nerf and the Clans were introduced again touches on more than just the poptarts (since they were about to be nerfed to death).



Again, it is pretty much the same concept: secondary resource used to penalize high alphas. You may want to reread both articles and more familiarize yourself with them because you have a lot of wrong numbers too (like the 2 Gauss vs 2 AC10 thing).
Second Article for reference

You're referencing his convergence system - which he completely abandoned - not his energy draw system. Maybe that's where your confusion comes from.

Only the second link you posted has anything to do with his energy draw system. And if you'll refer to THAT system... the one you or anyone who bring it up actually MEAN when you're talking "Homeless Bill's Energy Draw System," you'll find nothing but references to poptarting and similar related alpha issues. You'll also see he sets it up so you fire 2x gauss and 2x AC/10. You'll also see he argues against using damage as a basis for the system.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 10 September 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

You're referencing his convergence system - which he completely abandoned - not his energy draw system.

How many times must I say this, it is still energy draw. There is a secondary resource, where firing too many weapons too close together incurs some penalty. Regardless of what the actual penalty is, and how something is incurred, they are still the same in abstract sense. I will repeat myself, a secondary resource to penalize alphas in some fashion.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 10 September 2016 - 03:36 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 10 September 2016 - 03:35 PM, said:

How many times must I say this, it is still energy draw. There is a secondary resource, where firing too many weapons too close together incurs some penalty. Regardless of what the actual penalty is, and how something is incurred, they are still the same in abstract sense. I will repeat myself, a secondary resource to penalize alphas in some fashion.

That's like saying a mini-van and a tank are the same thing, because they both have motors, and they both have wheels, and they're both designed to drive around with people in them.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 10 September 2016 - 05:13 PM, said:

That's like saying a mini-van and a tank are the same thing, because they both have motors, and they both have wheels, and they're both designed to drive around with people in them.

Except your analogy fails because the tank is designed to do more than just drive people around you're being hyperbolic. Your analogy would be much better in saying that a mini-van and a normal car are similar in concept.

The only difference between the two implementations is using heat penalties instead of convergence/cone of fire because he knew the convergence/cone of fire would never happen with PGI.

[M1Combat]

Thread was great until the arguing about HB's proposal.

[ScarecrowES]

M1Combat, on 11 September 2016 - 03:41 PM, said:

Thread was great until the arguing about HB's proposal.

Sorry about that. Sometimes it's easy to get off track when you're passionate about what you're talking about. Quicksilver is a lot of fun to debate with. But you're right, it's gone off the rails.

[ScarecrowES]

Just kicking this to the front page, since there is a bit of interest in alternatives right now.

[Excalibaard]

Apparently I have already liked your idea Scarecrow Randomly came across it again (it's an old thread anyway)

ScarecrowES, on 06 September 2016 - 03:25 PM, said:

-snip-

Variable Dissipation

• Using the same base dissipation rate as the heat capacity dissipation rate
  
• Pros: Maintains TT and current MWO base heat scale balance, Rewards investment into heat cap over firepower, may encourage players to devote more tonnage and crit space to heat sinks rather than weapons as a means to mitigate the harsh heat penalties of this system (further lowering damage output overall)
  
• Cons: May inadvertently favor high-cap energy-based builds if weapon balance is well-established and unduly punish cooler-running builds.

Fixed Dissipation

• Using a standard base dissipation rate of 3pts/sec for the penalty bar (equal to dissipating the entire bar in one 10-second turn)
  
• Pros: Has a simpler synergy with the heat cap bar (both dissipate 10% per second at max rate) which makes it more intuitive, may favor low-cap builds (and especially those with under 15 DHS) while putting greater restraint (though not unmanagable) against high-cap builds like laser vomit.
  
• Cons: May inadvertently buff certain fringe builds which run fairly cool at under a 30 heat cap. Removes some incentive to focus on cooling instead of firepower.

I'd like folks to test both with various builds across all spectrums and see which they like better.

If this is still relevant; I think that the heat penalty system can be a lot less binary than this. Combine the two ideas into a base dissipation rate which increases with added heat sinks. This increase could be less than the dissipation of the standard heat cap and maybe heatsink independent as to push SHS more towards a high-capacity low-dissipation role and make them more relevant in the game. SHS are still to be inferior technology, but having a 1,5M C-Bill 'tax' on almost every mech to make them playable is a big nono.

Example values: 1pt/sec penalty cooling rate, increasing by 0.1 for each equipped heatsink. (Or: 0.05 per SHS and 0.1 per DHS)

So, while low-cap mechs still decently get rid of the penalty, high-cap mechs will still get a return for their HS investment, but not to a degree where it would nerf lights and other mechs with few heat sinks into the ground. That way having good cooling is still incentivized in player builds, but not mandating the power.

This tries to resolve all of the cons that you listed for each of the ends of the spectrum. It's almost certain that other flaws will pop up though the only one I can think of atm is that the heat penalty dissipation is going to be less intuitive.

[ScarecrowES]

Excalibaard, on 16 September 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

Apparently I have already liked your idea Scarecrow Randomly came across it again (it's an old thread anyway)



If this is still relevant; I think that the heat penalty system can be a lot less binary than this. Combine the two ideas into a base dissipation rate which increases with added heat sinks. This increase could be less than the dissipation of the standard heat cap and maybe heatsink independent as to push SHS more towards a high-capacity low-dissipation role and make them more relevant in the game. SHS are still to be inferior technology, but having a 1,5M C-Bill 'tax' on almost every mech to make them playable is a big nono.

Example values: 1pt/sec penalty cooling rate, increasing by 0.1 for each equipped heatsink. (Or: 0.05 per SHS and 0.1 per DHS)

So, while low-cap mechs still decently get rid of the penalty, high-cap mechs will still get a return for their HS investment, but not to a degree where it would nerf lights and other mechs with few heat sinks into the ground. That way having good cooling is still incentivized in player builds, but not mandating the power.

This tries to resolve all of the cons that you listed for each of the ends of the spectrum. It's almost certain that other flaws will pop up though the only one I can think of atm is that the heat penalty dissipation is going to be less intuitive.

It's tough to know what to do with the penalty rate here. What seems to work in the best interest of balance changes from mech to mech.

For instance, if you go with a 4xPPC Warhawk, due to the high-heat per weapon and low number of weapons, the high penalty dissipation rate feels fair for that mech. It's difficult to fire even single PPCs near max cap without facing penalties which the system is designed to make more difficult to get rid of. A lower penalty dissipation rate feels somewhat unfair for this mech, and I feel this one is the perfect example to use for limited-hardpoint energy mechs.

But the higher rate feels like it's too much for the energy-boating Timberwolf. This one is the counterpoint to the Warhawk - able to mount many lower-heat energy weapons... it's MUCH easier to stay out of the penalty zone, and so it feels like penaties for excess firing SHOULD be harsher.

There's not much way, via the heat system, to provide appropriate punishments to the TBR without also applying them to the WHK. The answer, likely, is not to address these sorts of discrepancies within the heat system, but to make a system that is appropriately punishing and to let mech-by-mech quirks dial those punishments back.

I had also feared that light mechs, especially heavily energy-based mechs, would suffer from their new, lower heat cap. Results here, too, have been inconsistent but not nearly as limiting as I first feared. While, yes, they're somewhat more limited than on the live servers (the usual 6xML Jenner runs a bit hotter from 0 to max cap), I expected these would face much worse results because of how MUCH they're buffed on the live servers. I hadn't accounted for how much the variable penalty scale dissipation rate can provide a boost within the slightly longer cooldowns of energy weapons. While the normal dissipation rate for the heat cap of that build is only 2.8 (as opposed to 2.92 on live), within the cycle of a ML the rate actually gets bumped up to an effective 3.32pts/sec.

In the end, I think I'd just want to start with a test of the base numbers, faithfully translated from TT, which seem to be working just fine across the board. Asking the heat system to try to correct for differences between mechs cause, in no small part, by PGI's other design deviations might be too much.

[Praslek2]

I like the idea of two "heat tanks" and implementing variable penalties similar to what is presented in the tabletop rules.

Unfortunately, for the last several years PGI staff seem to have been absolutely in love with the ghost heat system (maybe it's the enjoyment of kicking players in the crotch every time they try to fire their guns?).

Based on the notes, currently, the Energy Draw system seems to be just Ghost Heat with a different name. New graphic; same kick in the nuts everytime you try to shoot.

Edited by Praslek2, 21 September 2016 - 07:52 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Here is a question for you, how does having heat penalties at the last section of the heat bar stop things like Gauss/ERPPC alphas? 2 ERPPC/Gauss generates 31 heat, which means I won't incur any penalties until after I cooldown enough to avoid auto-shutdown. Sure I might get caught out a little longer due slow down from heat, but I've already done my damage so that isn't a huge deal, especially if I'm poptarting. Aiming penalties don't affect me because my alpha incurs more heat than the entire penalty par which means I won't care unless I want to chain fire some shots in, only further encouraging alphaing payloads and no longer running volley fire or chain fire when hot.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 September 2016 - 08:21 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Praslek2, on 21 September 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:

I like the idea of two "heat tanks" and implementing variable penalties similar to what is presented in the tabletop rules.

Unfortunately, for the last several years PGI staff seem to have been absolutely in love with the ghost heat system (maybe it's the enjoyment of kicking players in the crotch every time they try to fire their guns?).

Based on the notes, currently, the Energy Draw system seems to be just Ghost Heat with a different name. New graphic; same kick in the nuts everytime you try to shoot.

I think that the general feeling of ED was that it was just GH 2.0. The resemblance in PTS 2 became uncanny once we dropped the illusion of the strict 30-damage bar and went to different values for each weapon - which happened to neatly align with the number of weapons of a type restricted by GH.

Since that point, though, ED has kind of evolved into some grotesque unwieldy beast.

What's interesting about PGI and the TT system... the first part of the system that would need to work in order to implement the system - penalties - was something that PGI had expressed couldn't be replicated in MWO. Since then, they quietly announced that they've solve this problem and CAN put heat penalties in.

The second thing that would be needed to make the TT system work - a dual bar mechanic where the status of the first bar influences the second - was solved through coding the ED system.

There is now no reason that the system cannot be incorporated. Mechanically, every part of the proposed system can function within the existing MWO structure.

As to why PGI doesn't try... I don't know. If they're reading the forums here, they must be aware that it's possible now. Are they just overly committed to their in-house ideas over those posed by the community? This tends to fit their record. Is it pride? Is it a legal thing?

Lots of media and entertainment entities don't allow submission of ideas from private persons because it becomes a legal issue... if that company uses an idea without an agreement from the person who proposed it, they open the door to a lawsuit over IP infringement. It might mean the legally HAVE to ignore good ideas that don't come from in-house.

NOTE TO PGI HERE: I AM PERFECTLY HAPPY TO REACH A NON-MONETARY AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF THIS PROPOSAL, IF THE LEGALITY OF ITS USE IS A BARRIER TO IMPLEMENTATION.

Maybe they genuinely think they know better. I don't know.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2016 - 08:01 AM, said:

Here is a question for you, how does having heat penalties at the upper end of 30 heat stop things like Gauss/ERPPC alphas? 2 ERPPC/Gauss generates 31 heat, which means I won't incur any penalties until after I cooldown enough to avoid auto-shutdown. Sure I might get caught out a little longer due slow down from heat, but I've already done my damage so that isn't a huge deal, especially if I'm poptarting. Aiming penalties don't affect me because my alpha incurs more heat than the entire penalty par which means I won't care unless I want to chain fire some shots in, only further encouraging alphaing payloads and no longer running volley fire or chain fire when hot.

I can't say what penalties you'd incur... I don't know what the heat cap and dissipation rate of your proposed build is. You'd have to have 16 DHS to fire your dual PPC/Gauss every 10 seconds without incurring a penalty. Any faster and you'd be heavily penalized after the second shot. Any fewer sinks and you'd be penalized on the first.

Limiting a 45-point PPFLD alpha to once every 10 seconds is a pretty significant reduction over the current state of the game, but it's certainly not wholly debilitating.


Using the example build above... 16 DHS, you'd produce a pretty sizable penalty on your second shot if firing at full rate. You'll move slower and your HUD would be unreliable. This is assuming you're standing still on a cool map. If you're moving - especially jumping - it's a first shot penalty. If it's a hot map, first shot penalty.

This is based on the preliminary TT/MWO parity values. I can't say if this is too punishing or not punishing enough, because we haven't had a chance to play it. That gulf between a system being restrictive enough but not too much is all about feel.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 21 September 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

Using the example build above... 16 DHS, you'd produce a pretty sizable penalty on your second shot if firing at full rate. You'll move slower and your HUD would be unreliable.

I bolded the part that doesn't matter. Once I get the shot off and hitting penalties, I'm heat capped already so I'd have to wait to cool off anyway. The biggest penalties is the moving slower, but that also only matters if you are just poking and not poptarting (which allow you to circumvent the speed problem).

ScarecrowES, on 21 September 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

Limiting a 45-point PPFLD alpha to once every 10 seconds is a pretty significant reduction over the current state of the game, but it's certainly not wholly debilitating.

You realize the DPS of the ERPPC/Gauss Timby (which is not 45 PPFLD btw) is currently limited to around that. The heat efficiency with all the skills and extras works out to around 44% according to smurfy with 15 DHS, which means your sustained DPS is around 4.45 (if counting splash) which translates to a bit lower than 45 damage every 10 seconds. It would be even lower if ERPPCs have the 15 heat I think they still have in the PTS. So even now it can't sustain more than one alpha every 10 seconds. So really you are just trying to create some sort of harder cap on burst damage somehow (basically to penalize people enough so they won't push alphas past that point) which is something heat capacity already does. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind some penalties with regards to pushing past your heat capacity, but let's stop pretending like they will magically fix everything because they won't, especially if we start adding stupid things like ammo cook-off (which only further encourages boating or not mixing energy with non-Gauss weapons).

ScarecrowES, on 21 September 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

If you're moving - especially jumping - it's a first shot penalty. If it's a hot map, first shot penalty.

It would be a penalty, but one that dissipates quickly and one that wouldn't really matter. 10% speed reduction for even 4 seconds isn't a big deal.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 21 September 2016 - 09:40 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 21 September 2016 - 09:24 AM, said:

I bolded the part that doesn't matter. Once I get the shot off and hitting penalties, I'm heat capped already so I'd have to wait to cool off anyway. The biggest penalties is the moving slower, but that also only matters if you are just poking and not poptarting (which allow you to circumvent the speed problem).


You realize the DPS of the ERPPC/Gauss Timby (which is not 45 PPFLD btw) is currently limited to around that. The heat efficiency with all the skills and extras works out to around 44% according to smurfy with 15 DHS, which means your sustained DPS is around 4.45 (if counting splash) which translates to a bit lower than 45 damage every 10 seconds. It would be even lower if ERPPCs have the 15 heat I think they still have in the PTS. So even now it can't sustain more than one alpha every 10 seconds. So really you are just trying to create some sort of harder cap on burst damage somehow (basically to penalize people enough so they won't push alphas past that point) which is something heat capacity already does. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind some penalties with regards to pushing past your heat capacity, but let's stop pretending like they will magically fix everything because they won't, especially if we start adding stupid things like ammo cook-off (which only further encourages boating or not mixing energy with non-Gauss weapons).


It would be a penalty, but one that dissipates quickly and one that wouldn't really matter. 10% speed reduction for even 4 seconds isn't a big deal.

I concede the point about this being a soft limit on alphas. As you say, even in the current game, practical DPS is about the same as the proposed system. And that's because they're using the same weapons, and same basic formula for heat cap and dissipation. The parity to the current system (also to the base TT system) is intentional. As I've said before... cooldowns aren't what limit your output... how much heat you plug into the heat system vs how fast you can recover it is all that matters.

If you started at zero heat, and just alpha'd til you shut down, in theory it takes the same number of alphas in the same time under Live and the TT system. The difference between the two is in penalizing you for doing so. Giving you a very good reason NOT to keep firing, even though you COULD squeeze one more alpha out.

It's less about the sort of direct and heavy-handed means of curbing damage, and more about making it difficult enough to make good use of that damage that you self-limit, even when the system technically doesn't force you to.

Because of the mechanics of the penalty system, it takes much longer to shed penalties if you continue to fire. Taking on penalties that reduce your ability to engage the enemy is a risk that can seriously harm your output in the long term. You can draw from that reserve tank whenever you want, but you're not getting rid of those penalties until you pay it back.

It means using those last 30 points of heat is a more considered choice, not merely a given like the current system.