3 replies to this topic

[Supersmacky]

First, I know that with the amount of work PGI is putting into Energy Draw it is ultimately going to be part of the game (in some form). But, I feel like there are much simpler ways to accomplish this without adding a complicated system. Working in software I understand and value the concept of K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stupid). With that in mind, here are some of the ideas I like:

- Put a limit on the heat capacity of each mech based on the tonnage/chassis. It makes sense that larger mechs and certain chassis would have a greater capacity and smaller would have less. Alternatively, set the heat capacity to be the same across the board for all mechs (not as much flavor, but still doable).

- Remove the additional heat capacity gained from double/additional heat sinks and just have them handle heat dissipation. The capacity should either be a flat rating or vary with the tonnage/chassis. Setting this at reasonable levels could be the mechanism to prevent abuse and excessive boating.

- Greatly increase the cool down times of weapons. One of the expressed purposes of the Energy Draw system is to increase the TTK (Time to kill). So, why not just increase the cool down time of weapons (particularly the hard hitting weapons) that adding some other mechanic that in turns ties into another mechanic (ie, heat). Again, this is based on the premise that PGI wants to increase the TTK. That being the case, simply increase the cool down timer for the big guns and viola: mission accomplished.

- Increase the heat generation of the heavy hitting weapons so they cannot be fired in mass groups without risking a shut down. Simple and straightforward. You don't want a mech firing off any more than 2 ER PPCs in one volley? Increase the heat generation so that a mech that is able to carry more that two of them would not have the ability to contain that much heat in one burst.

- Go simpler, not more complex. I understand the need to have something that prevents ridiculous, nightmarish boating of certain weapons. But, as pointed out above, can't that be done in different ways? Of course it can and with far less man hours involved. Heat scale is artificial and has ended up requiring huge amounts of man hours to perfect and it still is problematic, has loop holes, and requires continued tweaking and quirks to keep balanced. Energy Draw is not going to do away with this. If anything, it is yet another layer of complexity to address a problem that could be otherwise corrected through simpler methods. And if someone says they don't want to have to wait 10 seconds to fire a Gauss rifle, then you are in principle at odds with PGI who wants to increase TTK.

Example:
Take the old 6 PPC Stalker. Suppose you set a 30 heat cap on it (or all mechs or whatever), then set the heat generation of the PPC to 15 (or 12 or some high number). In addition, set the cool down time to something like 10 seconds (more or less). So, the Stalker could boat those PPCs and with enough heat sinks dissipate enough heat to be able to fire another volley of 2 (or just 1) within that 10 second cooldown period. Of course, what it they weren't? Well, mission accomplished, right? Because we don't want to see 6 PPC Stalkers all over the place, right? But lets say that they had enough cool shots and heat syncs to be able to dissipate all the heat fast and fire all 6 PPCs (in 2 PPC volleys) within the 10 second cooldown:

1) I don't believe they could do that without fitting an incredibly small engine (and even then, that is a lot of heat to dissipate)

2) I don't think they would be able to do that and be very combat effective (similar to the above, with them moving at 40 KPH or less and the terrible torso twist rate they would be easy pickings for a maneuverable mech that was built more heat savvy).

3) With the limit on cool shots, they might pull that off once, but that would be it

4) A hot map is going to make this even less likely to happen.

5) A cold map is not going to suddenly make this build viable.

6) We're talking around 3 seconds between each volley which, so unless you are standing out in a wide open space, this means they might hit you with 1 volley, much less likely 2 and unless you are a glutton for punishment, never 3.

The Stalker in the above example would have to change up its weapon load out in order to remain viable in combat. Sure, it could go ahead and roll the dice and fire a 3 PPC volley, but it would shut down, take internal damage (as well as likely getting shot repeatedly) and by the time it came back from the shut down (assuming it was still alive) the cool down would be reset making carrying 6 PPCs stupid to start with. And, yes, it could fire all 6. It would pretty much be assured of blowing up when it did so. If it hit the target, its a wash at best because it cost 1 mech to take down 1 enemy mech. If it missed then it would just be a tremendous waste for which their own team would be right to deride them.

Same principle applies can apply to any weapon system (increase base heat generation, reduce/normalize heat capacity, make heat syncs about dissipation and not capacity, increase cool down timers as appropriate per weapon).

So, you want to increase TTK, fine. You want to prevent mega-death-boats, fine. Use the base game mechanics to do so instead of adding yet another layer of complexity and learning curve. I know these ideas might have their own flaws and need some work to hammer out, but in the end it would be better to go simpler. If you see a problem with the idea, feel free to comment.

NOTE: I am not bashing PGI or their attempts to make a better game. Just suggesting a step back so that instead of getting Ghost Heat 2.0 we end up with something simpler, straightforward and conceptually easier to understand.

[Tiantara]

- Well that brings some memories.

Quote

Greatly increase the cool down times of weapons.

When all stay in front of each other and wait - which weapon would be ready faster to shoot.

[Supersmacky]

Tiantara, on 31 August 2016 - 09:43 AM, said:

- Well that brings some memories.

When all stay in front of each other and wait - which weapon would be ready faster to shoot.

Which is essentially what PGI wants to do by introducing ED. They states so clearly (ie, 'increase ttk'). Additionally, we already have some nice little indicators to let us know the progress on the cool down or if it has completed cool down. If a player just stands there waiting for a weapon to cool down (no maneuvering, switching to alternative weapons, whatever), they weren't much help to start with.

[Wibbledtodeath]

I have read this solution/alternative being proposed so so so many times. Its proponents ARE correct that it will have an effect similar to ED- just using the current battletech lore mechanics. A set heat cap will constrain the power of attacks to around a given value- as does energy draw (and if energy weapons alone were in the game- would balance mechs of differing size classes as well)

However, it will also have the inherent issues that existed with TT battletech and many of the MW titles that use it (without under the hood "ghost" solutions and workarounds).

The biggie is that ballistic weapons bypass the heat restriction, sacrificing instead tonnage and structure and having limited ammo. This seems OK at first blush- but this sacrifice is MUCH harder on smaller mechs than it is on larger ones. PPFLD ballistics are out of the range of the very smallest mechs, and even 35t lights which can fit them have to sacrifice so much that it is not competitive (but can be fun). On the other hand,100t clan mechs can happily have almost heat free ballistics with lots of ammo added to energy systems and alpha them freely, while still having better heat dissipation than lights. They get to bypass the DPS/Alpha limits of heat. In TT play- unless very specific tactics were used, a 100t mech is almost always superior to two 50t mechs with similar technologies. Even in other MW titles, larger often=better (indeed, even MWO in live suffers this problem to a degree). That's OK in a single player game or TT game where tonnage is the game currency, but MWO is designed to give more significance to the player rather than the tonnage.

You could just boost ballistic heat up- try to balance the weapons more that way- its not cannon but seems more immersive than ED applied to ballistics right? And doesn't introduce a new "system". Well, yes. But again, it doesn't balance well with tonnage as now medium mechs which used to be able to afford some ballistics are better off just going with lighter energy weapons, they are now no longer viable in any sense for lights. We see this in the PTS2 with ballistic and PPC nerfs to base stats. It stops boating, but it also stops effective use at the singe weapon level also. ED on the other hand allows a ballistic weapon to be very effective in limited numbers via base stats (not a property exploited by the current PTSv2) - but limits alpha damage output when boated- and reduces DPS somewhat in heavily armed builds while still giving them a function (DPS or alternate range). Its a balance that applies across all sizes, chassis, number of hardpoints etc

You could also quirk the lights to be as good as assaults and meds and heavies etc etc. However now you are using an ad hock non cannon system that again complicates things, is hard to balance with so many mechs and is prone to power creep (and which was tried, and failed to get the necessary balance without backlash over mechs with3xROF and heat avoidance on certain weapons). Not saying its a bad addition- but it didn't prove the magic bullet.

Is ED perfect-hell no. But it will create play similar to intended effects of ghost heat, and the intended effects of a set heat cap, it allows the canon style system to exist without torturous manipulations underneath. Also kinda seems to be what PGI want (I just want to get on and play a game with more actual content/variation in missions, but will be happy to see Ghost heat gone as it makes recruitment harder- its just poor game design and comes across as such to many new players)

Edited by Wibbledtodeath, 01 September 2016 - 10:39 AM.