Jump to content

Heat System Preference Survey


54 replies to this topic

Poll: Heat System Preference Survey (262 member(s) have cast votes)

My opinion of the current PTS2 version of Energy Draw, compared to the base heat system with Ghost Heat, is that...

  1. It is significantly superior to the current heat system in every way, and should be implemented as-is. (17 votes [6.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.49%

  2. It is somewhat superior to the current heat system, but needs work (113 votes [43.13%])

    Percentage of vote: 43.13%

  3. It is no better or worse than the current heat system, or I have no opinion. (21 votes [8.02%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.02%

  4. It is somewhat worse that the current heat system, and needs work before implementation can be considered. (44 votes [16.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.79%

  5. It is significanlty worse than the current heat system and should not be implemented. (67 votes [25.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.57%

I believe build variety and viability under the PTS2 Energy Draw system, compared to the current MWO heat system with Ghost Heat is...

  1. Significantly better than the current system. (31 votes [11.83%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.83%

  2. Somewhat better than the current system. (63 votes [24.05%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.05%

  3. About the same as the current system, or I have no opinion. (48 votes [18.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.32%

  4. Somewhat worse than the current system. (51 votes [19.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.47%

  5. Significantly worse than the current system. (69 votes [26.34%])

    Percentage of vote: 26.34%

The heat system in MWO should encourage varied and mixed builds over boating whenever a chassis allows for it.

  1. Strongly agree. (87 votes [33.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.21%

  2. Somewhat agree. (59 votes [22.52%])

    Percentage of vote: 22.52%

  3. Neither agree or disagree, or have no opinion. (47 votes [17.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.94%

  4. Somewhat disagree. (36 votes [13.74%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.74%

  5. Strongly disagree. (33 votes [12.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.60%

I believe the level of complexity/ease of understanding for the PTS2 version of Energy Draw, as compared to the current MWO heat system with Ghost Heat, is...

  1. Significantly lower complexity/easier to understand than GH. (66 votes [25.19%])

    Percentage of vote: 25.19%

  2. Somewhat lower complexity/easier to understand than GH. (55 votes [20.99%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.99%

  3. About equal, or I have no opinion. (51 votes [19.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.47%

  4. Somewhat higher complexity/harder to understand than GH. (52 votes [19.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.85%

  5. Significantly higher complexity/harder to understand than GH. (38 votes [14.50%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.50%

I believe that replacing the current MWO heat system (GH) with Energy Draw is likely to improve the quality of matches on the live server.

  1. Strongly agree. (54 votes [20.61%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.61%

  2. Somewhat agree. (53 votes [20.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 20.23%

  3. Neither agree or disagree, or have no opinion. (33 votes [12.60%])

    Percentage of vote: 12.60%

  4. Somewhat disagree. (43 votes [16.41%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.41%

  5. Strongly disagree. (79 votes [30.15%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.15%

If Energy Draw is implemented into the Live servers and becomes the standard heat system for the game, I am likely to...

  1. Significantly increase my play time (and possibly spending) into MWO. (20 votes [7.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.63%

  2. Somewhat increase my play time (and possibly spending) into MWO. (51 votes [19.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.47%

  3. Not change my play and spending habits, or I have no opinion. (90 votes [34.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.35%

  4. Somewhat decrease my play time (and possibly spending) into MWO. (37 votes [14.12%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.12%

  5. Significantly decrease my play time (and possibly spending) into MWO. (64 votes [24.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.43%

If the Energy Draw system is abandoned, and the current MWO heat system with Ghost Heat remains the standard system for the Live game, I am likely to...

  1. Continue my play time and spending habits at their current levels. (191 votes [72.90%])

    Percentage of vote: 72.90%

  2. Somewhat decrease the level of my play time and spending habits. (47 votes [17.94%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.94%

  3. Significantly decrease the level of my play time and spending habits. (24 votes [9.16%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.16%

I believe PGI's resources for developing and balancing the MWO heat system would be best spent...

  1. Further developing and balancing the Energy Draw system. (90 votes [34.35%])

    Percentage of vote: 34.35%

  2. Further developing and balancing the Ghost Heat system. (15 votes [5.73%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.73%

  3. Abandoning both Ghost Heat and Energy Draw to further develop and balance the base heat system. (49 votes [18.70%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.70%

  4. Developing a completely different heat system (a TT-style system, or other). (52 votes [19.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.85%

  5. On other matters. The current system works fine-as is. (45 votes [17.18%])

    Percentage of vote: 17.18%

  6. I have no opinion. (11 votes [4.20%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.20%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Stone Wall

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 1,863 posts
  • LocationSouth Carolina, USA

Posted 30 August 2016 - 03:03 AM

View PostGreenHell, on 29 August 2016 - 07:08 PM, said:

Seriously, this is so easy...

Change total Heat Capacity to 30 for all mechs. (remove capacity from heatsinks)
Change dissipation for DHS to 0.25 heat per second.
DONE!

You alpha a big damage hit? Enjoy being at high heat for the next 12 seconds.
You group fire / chain fire? Enjoy the higher DPS, but lose out on the alpha damage.
But at least the system lets you have the choice - aka - You have the option to do either!!!

Remove "Ghost Heat - aka- Heat Scaling"
Remove "Erectile Disfunction - aka - Energy Draw"

The best solutions are often the simplest ones!!!!!!!!!!!


Good idea but those who don't like ED won't support it bc they want big Call of Duty burst damage.

With the first question: ED is leading 51% to 40%

I appreciate a 2nd poll almost mirroring the first PTU's poll results

#42 Quicksilver Aberration

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nightmare
  • The Nightmare
  • 11,496 posts
  • LocationKansas City, MO

Posted 30 August 2016 - 08:19 AM

View PostStone Wall, on 30 August 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:

Good idea but those who don't like ED won't support it bc they want burst damage to actually be viable.

FTFY, because the CoD reference makes no sense and corrected the actual goal of those who oppose ED.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 30 August 2016 - 08:20 AM.


#43 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 30 August 2016 - 01:29 PM

Let's keep this one classy guys... stay on point, please. This particular topic is for information gathering, not debating insane ideas or trying to perpetuate the goofy notion that CoD is a "high burst damage" shooter.

As to the poll at hand:

View PostStone Wall, on 30 August 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:

With the first question: ED is leading 51% to 40%

I appreciate a 2nd poll almost mirroring the first PTU's poll results


The results of this particular poll are overwhelmingly negative for ED. This can be seen quite easily in the first question alone if you know anything about politics/marketing/polling. But for those who don't, keep scrolling through the rest of the questions and it should be pretty clear.

#44 Gentleman Reaper

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wrench
  • The Wrench
  • 733 posts
  • LocationWinnipeg, the land of slurpees and potholes

Posted 30 August 2016 - 01:54 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 30 August 2016 - 01:29 PM, said:

Let's keep this one classy guys... stay on point, please. This particular topic is for information gathering, not debating insane ideas or trying to perpetuate the goofy notion that CoD is a "high burst damage" shooter.

As to the poll at hand:



The results of this particular poll are overwhelmingly negative for ED. This can be seen quite easily in the first question alone if you know anything about politics/marketing/polling. But for those who don't, keep scrolling through the rest of the questions and it should be pretty clear.


In no facet of reality is that considered overwhelmingly negative, this is mixed, showing slight favor for ED. It surely isn't a positive reception, but we'll need to see if things change with the next builds.

#45 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 30 August 2016 - 02:04 PM

View PostGentleman Reaper, on 30 August 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:


In no facet of reality is that considered overwhelmingly negative, this is mixed, showing slight favor for ED. It surely isn't a positive reception, but we'll need to see if things change with the next builds.


No sorry. The poll shows that not only is ED not meeting it's design goals, but it's not meeting player goals. It also shows that all favor for ED is tepid, meaning in this case that favor is not strong and based on the notion that the system can be made better.

Moreover, the poll shows that more people are less likely to respond favorably if ED went live than if it didn't.

AND, even amongst supporters of the system, there is not a strong corresponding support to further develop the system. To say that reception was even "lukewarm" would be amazingly generous.

Further, as you can see from the results, further development of the system us unlikely to gain further support except from the strongest existing supporters of the system.

And one must note that demographics for the PTS would be expected to swing heavily to people likely to favor an alternative to GH. Conversion rates are unusually low in this regard.

#46 Alteran

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 298 posts

Posted 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM

View PostGentleman Reaper, on 30 August 2016 - 01:54 PM, said:


In no facet of reality is that considered overwhelmingly negative, this is mixed, showing slight favor for ED. It surely isn't a positive reception, but we'll need to see if things change with the next builds.


I believe the problem that 'some' have with developing ED (another heat system that does the same thing as all other heat systems), is that they believe PGI should be using that development time and energy to develop and release real features for MWO that engages the existing player base and draws in new players, like: New maps, game modes and a fully immersive FP system. Perhaps even a fully destructible landscape?

Spending time and energy on a mechanic we already have, that if tweaked even by 15% would give us the same effects that ED is trying to bring to the table, is incredibly wasteful.

#47 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 30 August 2016 - 02:28 PM

View PostAlteran, on 30 August 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:


I believe the problem that 'some' have with developing ED (another heat system that does the same thing as all other heat systems), is that they believe PGI should be using that development time and energy to develop and release real features for MWO that engages the existing player base and draws in new players, like: New maps, game modes and a fully immersive FP system. Perhaps even a fully destructible landscape?

Spending time and energy on a mechanic we already have, that if tweaked even by 15% would give us the same effects that ED is trying to bring to the table, is incredibly wasteful.


And this is reflected in the poll - given that, while there is a roughly 51% level of tepid favorability for ED, and while at least 76% seem at least open to the idea of improvement of the system (only 23% are strictly opposed to implementation outright), only 37% actually want more time spent on it.

#48 Zibmo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Stone Cold
  • 488 posts

Posted 30 August 2016 - 02:52 PM

View PostStone Wall, on 30 August 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:

Good idea but those who don't like ED won't support it bc they want big Call of Duty burst damage.

With the first question: ED is leading 51% to 40%

I appreciate a 2nd poll almost mirroring the first PTU's poll results


I don't like ED because I don't like being forced down a path via manipulation. I don't boat much. But I believe that if someone wants to boat they should not be penalized by a completely artificial manipulation of the system.

I'm against ED. Not that it matters.

#49 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 30 August 2016 - 03:28 PM

View PostStone Wall, on 30 August 2016 - 03:03 AM, said:

Good idea but those who don't like ED won't support it bc they want big Call of Duty burst damage.

With the first question: ED is leading 51% to 40%

I appreciate a 2nd poll almost mirroring the first PTU's poll results

Wrong completely wrong..

When it came out I was all in favour of it, the thing needed tweaking here and there but it was a pretty good system.

Then Phase 2 came out where P.G.I nerfed every weapon in the game, rather than a few little ones plus some adjustment to the base system, they crippled ballistic's they increased the spread on SRM's they did nothing to address the fact that large launcher LRM's are useless compared to the small ones,making the only viable builds 30 point Large laser alpha's, completely ruining the game, if something came out anything like Phase 2 it will be even more dull than it currently is now.

ED hasn't even been tested in any numbers but 4v4 which is a completely different play style.

#50 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 30 August 2016 - 03:39 PM

Ok... I'm kinda guilty of doing this too against my own wishes, but I must really insist that we try to get back to the specific scope of the feedback in the poll.

While I am all for debating the various concepts people want to talk about, I intend for this thread to remain a "safe space" for feedback without debate.

#51 Znail

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 313 posts

Posted 31 August 2016 - 03:30 AM

View PostScarecrowES, on 30 August 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:


And this is reflected in the poll - given that, while there is a roughly 51% level of tepid favorability for ED, and while at least 76% seem at least open to the idea of improvement of the system (only 23% are strictly opposed to implementation outright), only 37% actually want more time spent on it.

You seem to fail at polling a bit here. 68% thinks ED should be developed further while only 32% thinks the current GH system is fine instead. The rest either abstained or voted for options not under consideration. Why you put those in I have no idea, but they aren't serious options and any votes for them are wasted. Well, I guess the bad options do work in weeding out the less serious votes.

Edited by Znail, 31 August 2016 - 03:34 AM.


#52 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 31 August 2016 - 05:11 AM

View PostZnail, on 31 August 2016 - 03:30 AM, said:

You seem to fail at polling a bit here. 68% thinks ED should be developed further while only 32% thinks the current GH system is fine instead. The rest either abstained or voted for options not under consideration. Why you put those in I have no idea, but they aren't serious options and any votes for them are wasted. Well, I guess the bad options do work in weeding out the less serious votes.


Unsure to which question you're referring. Regardless, the questions are set up with multiple options, most often with degrees of inclination because rarely is anything black and white. The strength of one's preference is often as important, and sometimes moreso, than the preference itself.

In speaking about where PGI development resources should be spent, it's important to consider all options. It is not an analog choice between ED and GH. Neither, other, and none are valid here too.

If you spend even a day looking through posts on these forums, you'd note that views on where PGI should be focusing their efforts vary widely. Polling needs to accommodate those different views.

Analog choices serve noone's interest. If you ask, "do you want GH or ED" where does that account for those who don't care either way? Or what about those that don't particularly like ED, but outright hate GH - or vice versa. In an analog choice, those votes don't reflect how people really feel.

Most legitimate polling you'll encounter in the real world... and fancy companies spend decades developing surveys like these - Gallop, Towers Watson, etc... will be set up just like you see above.

#53 BearFlag

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Mercenary
  • 374 posts

Posted 01 September 2016 - 06:55 PM

In the last question, the poll divides into three groups those opposed to both GH1 and ED. Summed 54%.

Further, options 3 and 4 in that question could be combined into a "do something, but not GH1 or GH2". These add to 34%. This number might be higher but the poll limits "other options" to heat systems when other base parms (like armor values) could be used.

Edited by BearFlag, 01 September 2016 - 06:56 PM.


#54 tokumboh

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 320 posts
  • LocationBristol UK

Posted 02 September 2016 - 10:41 AM

First I am confused I am not sure what we are try to achieve here:

1. Are we trying to make high damage alpha striking more difficult to achieve?
2. Are we trying to make people not boat weapons?
3. Are we trying to increase TTK?

I ask this because they are three separate questions and we are trying to combine them and to my mind no system really answer solves all three and in some ways I am not sure that it make sense to solve all three

So my view is that we should not stop weapons boating. If someone want to fire three ER PPC then so what make we already have enough mechanics to help us we have heat, damage range and cooldown (and for Ulta cannon misfire/jams)

I feel there is no problem with ERPPC having 15 damage give it enough heat and you'll apha it less, give it slower cooldown use it until another weapons mechanics suits.

The reason I don't use ERPPC or gauss is that I prefer ML for brawling and LL for sniping at ranges out to 500m. If I liked snipin at 700m I would probably go for ER PPC.

The reality is everyone is looking for the meta and there is no fool proof way of some not finding a meta and being good enough to exploit it. It is why KDK-3 with quad UAC10 becaome meta and even with higher heat penalty it is still good and if you are happy with dual UAC5 dual UAC10 it is still great and I as a weekend player can get games of 700+dmg with it

but I also play my Phoenix hawk with ECM and I try to snip with ERLL and I love my MAD-BH2 with 5ML an AC20 and CTF-0XP with AC20 and 4ML they are all different and I just play them it is because it becomes so competitive that people end up trying to create the most meta of metas and we move from buff to nerf to buff to nerf and sometimes we are buffing and nerfing just to stay the same. the reality is that the game play so depends on damage and kills that this is the only objective and most of our whining is because of this.

No if we can have more imaginative game play that depended on differences of fire power and manouver I think that the absolute detail of the power of the weapons would be less important but as it is the weakness/strength of the game is that you get in chose the coldest smallest map and blast opposition to oblivion as fast as possible and repeat. I have watched sean lang and whilst it is clear he is very skilled that is all that he does we need a better game first and I'd be happy with whatever system there is if we can stop f**king with it for year and give us more objectives to aim for rather than just kill the opposition





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users