20 replies to this topic

[Greyhart]

The endless question in relation to ED and GH is the heat cap. It is always brought up and I think a lot of people don't think additional systems solve the problem.

I assume PGI has tested the lower heat cap idea and it doesn't work.

However I think they should put it on the PTS so we can see whether it does or not.

To keep it simple;

Heat cap at 30
Dissipation for double Heat sinks at 2 (no increase in heat cap)


This no doubt would be broken in some way but would give people an idea of whether it works.

Vote if you want to try this on the PTS as an alternative to ED.

Arguments over numbers may follow but I really, really want to see how this simple idea actually works.

EDIT

To be clear this is a test of the idea that a lower heat cap and higher dissipation would help.

The test is simple and not intended to be comprehensive. It's rough and ready and likely not perfect but if heat cap is the problem should show that it is or not as the case may be.

DO you want to find out if it helps Yes or No that is really it.

Edited by Greyhart, 05 September 2016 - 08:20 AM.

[Gentleman Reaper]

Greyhart, on 05 September 2016 - 07:02 AM, said:

The endless question in relation to ED and GH is the heat cap. It is always brought up and I think a lot of people don't think additional systems solve the problem.

I assume PGI has tested the lower heat cap idea and it doesn't work.

However I think they should put it on the PTS so we can see whether it does or not.

To keep it simple;

Heat cap at 30
Dissipation for double Heat sinks at 2 (no increase in heat cap)


This no doubt would be broken in some way but would give people an idea of whether it works.

Vote if you want to try this on the PTS as an alternative to ED.

Arguments over numbers may follow but I really, really want to see how this simple idea actually works.

I want them to try this WITH ED. Simply going with an unrestricted 30 heat cap would make ACs and Gauss rifles woefully overpowered, and managing low-heat weapons is ED's specialty. ED will still punish people trying to cut it close with the heat scale, but it's effects will be barely noticeable because a 30 heat scale normally avoid that size an alpha, aside from short range weapons.

Can you please add an option for 30 heat cap and ED?

Edited by Gentleman Reaper, 05 September 2016 - 07:20 AM.

[Greyhart]

Gentleman Reaper, on 05 September 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

I want them to try this WITH ED. Simply going with an unrestricted 30 heat cap would make ACs and Gauss rifles woefully overpowered, and managing low-heat weapons is ED's specialty. ED will still punish people trying to cut it close with the heat scale, but it's effects will be barely noticeable because a 30 heat scale normally avoid that size an alpha, aside from short range weapons.

Can you please add an option for 30 heat cap and ED?

I want to keep it simple; as simple as can be.

I agree that a combination of the 2 might be the best of both worlds and then varying heat cap by weight might be a good idea too.

I would envision a simple test with no adjustments to weapons and no ED or GH. But I would expect there it be glaring problems as you identified. Only once you have identified the true problem can you fix it.

Many people think the true problem is the high heat cap. If that is the case then lowing the heat cap should deal with a good amount of the issues leaving some outliers to be dealt with perhaps with ED.

If the heat cap is not the problem then testing the lower heat cap should show this and eliminate it as a possible solution.

So if you want lower heat cap plus ED vote Yes as then the discussion is better defined.

Hopefully if enough people vote for a simple test of this theory (which should require little effort to code) then PGI might give it a go.

At the very least it would be good for community relations.

[kapusta11]

You know what, that's a great idea! 30 heat cap sounds about right. That OP Ice Ferret was getting on my nerves for a while now.

[Gentleman Reaper]

kapusta11, on 05 September 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

You know what, that's a great idea! 30 heat cap sounds about right. That OP Ice Ferret was getting on my nerves for a while now.

Lighter mechs will be hit by less at once, so the Ice ferret would benefit more from this than heavy and assault mechs will.

[Tarl Cabot]

The heat cap is really the secondary issue. PGI has shown they can modify aspects of the HS independently, and part of that should be reduced in value so that the heat cap cannot be doubled or almost tripled.

The real issue is that there are no consequences prior to hitting the heat cap. I am not advocating ALL the heat scale penalties, but there should be 2-3 heat thresholds that reduces a mech's movement and agility as the heat increases that hampers a mech's ability to keeping their guns on a target and opens it up for return fire. Basically, a player's mech should FEEL the effects of riding with a heat load, that heat which reduces the efficiency of the myomer bundles, slowing the response times.

[Greyhart]

kapusta11, on 05 September 2016 - 07:47 AM, said:

You know what, that's a great idea! 30 heat cap sounds about right. That OP Ice Ferret was getting on my nerves for a while now.

The idea of a PTS is to put to rest the idea.

If you think it won't work then you should be in favour of a PTS on this as it will show that it won't work.

Also as I point out the cap and dissipation are deliberately simple in this proposal as it is all about simplicity. clearly the figures are not correct, but they are the ones most often used.

Tarl Cabot, on 05 September 2016 - 08:12 AM, said:

The heat cap is really the secondary issue. PGI has shown they can modify aspects of the HS independently, and part of that should be reduced in value so that the heat cap cannot be doubled or almost tripled.

The real issue is that there are no consequences prior to hitting the heat cap. I am not advocating ALL the heat scale penalties, but there should be 2-3 heat thresholds that reduces a mech's movement and agility as the heat increases that hampers a mech's ability to keeping their guns on a target and opens it up for return fire. Basically, a player's mech should FEEL the effects of riding with a heat load, that heat which reduces the efficiency of the myomer bundles, slowing the response times.

absolutely correct on that assessment. But this is a simple straight forward test of the proposition that the heat cap is too high and that a lower cap with better dissipation will solve the problems.

A test will prove it right or wrong or inconclusive. But will give hard data to work with.

[vocifer]

Yes.

And that's how you should test ideas: step-by-step one little change at a time.

[ScarecrowES]

You don't need to put ridiculous ideas like this on the PTS to test it. Not if you have a calculator handy. BT's (and MWO's by extension) combat is all math. You can figure out exactly what a 30pt heat scale does for MWO doing just a few calculations per mech. Short answer, it's not good.

Moreover... the further you deviate from the TT heat system, the harder it is to balance a BT game. MWO at least makes an attempt to follow basic TT build rules, and makes only minor modifications to weapon stats. But it largely abandons the TT heat system for something similar but fundementally flawed. GH and ED are attempts to make this huge departure from TT work. Neither actually does.

Going to a base 30 heat scale is about as far a departure as you can get from TT. It's simply not a good idea, and doesn't need to be tested.

[Matthew Ace]

I would like to see base heat cap reduced from 30 to 15 to test out for a start; leave additional heat cap from heat sinks as-is.

While keeping ED.

Edited by Matthew Ace, 05 September 2016 - 03:09 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Matthew Ace, on 05 September 2016 - 02:47 PM, said:

I would like to see base heat cap reduced from 30 to 15 to test out for a start; leave additional heat cap from heat sinks as-is.

While keeping ED.

Doesn't matter what you set this to... it doesn't treat all mechs equally. Some mechs are built for a high heat cap, and need every bit of that to be viable. Meanwhile, a lot of mechs can get by just fine without a high heat cap, and aren't designed to have one anyway.

Merely arbitrarily raising or lowering heat cap always has the same result... it will treat different builds differently, and thus will merely just shift the point of viability around and not actually address the problem.

ED has already proved that such universally-applied caps simply don't work. And that shouldn't be surprising since TT doesn't work that way.

[Matthew Ace]

ScarecrowES, on 05 September 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

Doesn't matter what you set this to... it doesn't treat all mechs equally. Some mechs are built for a high heat cap, and need every bit of that to be viable. Meanwhile, a lot of mechs can get by just fine without a high heat cap, and aren't designed to have one anyway.

Merely arbitrarily raising or lowering heat cap always has the same result... it will treat different builds differently, and thus will merely just shift the point of viability around and not actually address the problem.

ED has already proved that such universally-applied caps simply don't work. And that shouldn't be surprising since TT doesn't work that way.

I don't really agree with this at first thought, as heat sinks will count for a larger percentage of the cap, putting an increased emphasis on loading on heat sinks if larger alpha is needed. I need some time to reflect on this.

What would you propose then, assuming ED will go live in some form?

Edited by Matthew Ace, 05 September 2016 - 03:54 PM.

[Moonlight Grimoire]

We should start with removing capacity from heat sinks and just test that, everyone would have 50/55/60 heat depending on skills. From there PGI could try lowering it a bit, adjusting it per mech mass, or in engine heat sinks (heat sink slots in engine).

[ScarecrowES]

Matthew Ace, on 05 September 2016 - 03:51 PM, said:

What would you propose then, assuming ED will go live in some incantation?

ED absolutely should never go live. There isn't nearly enough support for the system to even consider that, and most people still don't believe the system currently does (and many argue never will do) what it's supposed to.

However, with the coding and engineering PGI did on the system, we now actually have the mechanics necessary to replicate the TT heat system in MWO. The dual-bar setup was necessary to make this work.

And in a way, the TT heat system is similar in function to ED anyway, except we're using heat output instead of damage output - and instead of the "draw" bar being capped at 30 and the heat scale being vaguely related to the heat capacity of the mech, these concepts are reversed. The "draw" bar is the heat capacity of the mech, and the heat scale is the penalty bar.

Any heat you use, through moving, firing, etc, goes against your "draw" bar, which dissipates like the heat scale currently does (ie, fairly slowly). Any amount you "draw" over this amount gets added to the penalty bar, which dissipates at a slower rate (1/10th amount left over in your "draw" bar). You shut down at 30 points on the penalty bar, and experience actual penalties to movement, etc on the way up.

The mechanics of this system don't require weapon stat adjustments to work. The base MWO heat system we currently have is based vaguely on the TT system, though it is a bastardization of it. Dissipation rates and max heat caps are similar though, so the current live weapon stats will work with the TT system.

And there really are not a lot of variables to work with in the TT system. Dissipation rates are really the only thing that requires adjustment to set TTK, though current dissipation rates still lower damage output under TT.

[Greyhart]

Some times I wonder about people.

There are any number of variation on how to deal with the problem. If you don't think they should be tested because it isn't your prefered idea there is going to be no progress at all.

I don't think anywhere I said that this is the solution whole and complete in and of its self. Clearly it isn't and varying a heat cap for mech, weight or whatever would be an obvious adjustment. Heat scale penalties would be helpful.

However if anyone has spent time on these forums or anywhere else you must have heard this suggestion a dozen if not more times. Time the principle was put to the test. Seems little work to tweak some figures and put it on the PTS.

as for "do the math" well that really doesn't translate well into human behaviour. And it is after all human behaviour we are looking at here as well as the math. The TT rules are of course useful but slavishly sticking to them can't work in a real time game with pinpoint fire.

I say we should be pressing PGI to test simple adjustments like I proposed so that they can either fall flat on their face or work. At least the topics bringing it up will then be able to point to the PTS forum where the idea was tested and they won't go on for so long.

The community appears reasonably good at evaluating the ideas put on the PTS. That should be used.

[ScarecrowES]

We don't need to put it on the PTS to know it won't work. Why waste time and energy on something merely to prove something you already know? The many reasons it won't work have been demonstrated ad nauseum for years.

And as far as the TT system not working in real time, that's silly. The base heat system in MWO is a bastardization of the TT system already. When you account for how skills modify the numbers, the MWO system uses the same base heat capacity for most mechs, and the same dissipation rates as in TT, most often within 5%.

It's how the MWO deviates from TT that causes all the problems with the system. It tacks the 30pts of the penalty scale on top of the base heat capacity of a mech and treats it exactly the same... same dissipation, no penalties.

Correct that deviation, and you fix all of the problems of the system.

The most noticeable result, immediately, will be a reduction in total damage output across the board. And you'll achieve that without needing to put arbitrary restrictions in there to get it. People will not only HAVE to curb their fire, but the system will make them want to.

We don't need to try all these goofy changes and mechanics to try to overcome problems inherent to how PGI set up the MWO heat system. All we need to do is use the system that was actually designed to do the job.

And frankly, you could adapt ED to reproduce the TT heat system and have it on the PTS in a day. All it takes is shifting a few numbers around.

[Reno Blade]

Is this with change of dissipation or with the current (nearly) 2.0 DHS ?

Can someone provide the performance of a list of about 8-12 mechs (current meta or similar) with performance over a minute if considering a 30 point heat cap with 2.0DHS (and maybe higher dissipation) ?

I think there were some extreme edge cases with the 30cap+increased dissipation (e.g. pumping 30 dmg per second or something) which made the idea very risky.

As far as I see with current speed of dissipation, a 30cap would reduce the gameplay by a lot more for hot weapons while cooler ones are nearly unaffected.
Basically giving low-heat daka the ability to keep firing, but any Energy build would shoot once every 10 seconds (e.g. like in TT).
This kind of imbalance is one of the reasons why we have a higher energy cap, isn't it?

If we had TT-like heat side-effects the whole heat cap could even be increased, as the side-effects could already start at 30% or 50%.

[Greyhart]

Reno Blade, on 06 September 2016 - 07:58 AM, said:

Is this with change of dissipation or with the current (nearly) 2.0 DHS ?

Can someone provide the performance of a list of about 8-12 mechs (current meta or similar) with performance over a minute if considering a 30 point heat cap with 2.0DHS (and maybe higher dissipation) ?

I think there were some extreme edge cases with the 30cap+increased dissipation (e.g. pumping 30 dmg per second or something) which made the idea very risky.

As far as I see with current speed of dissipation, a 30cap would reduce the gameplay by a lot more for hot weapons while cooler ones are nearly unaffected.
Basically giving low-heat daka the ability to keep firing, but any Energy build would shoot once every 10 seconds (e.g. like in TT).
This kind of imbalance is one of the reasons why we have a higher energy cap, isn't it?

If we had TT-like heat side-effects the whole heat cap could even be increased, as the side-effects could already start at 30% or 50%.

Logically that is the case. And I agree heat side effects would likely be a better way.

However the point of the ED is to reduce alphas and for the most part that is lasers. It might be said that ballistics are balanced by weight, crits and ammo.

I picked a reasonably popular low heat cap for the proposed test for a couple of reasons:

1. it is often brought up so why not test it.
2. best to start with something you think should be wrong in certain ways to avoid confirmation bias. (if the results are not what you expect then you need to reconsider your assumption)
3. test something dramatic so the effects are clear

but if there is a heat cap that everyone can agree on then that should be tested instead. however I don't think you will get that consensus.

EDIT

I think there is a faulty assumption that lasers and ballistics should be capped at the same level or close to it.

Lasers are light, small and have unlimited ammo but are hot. They are hitscan
Ballistics are heavy, large and have limited ammo, but are cool and are not hitscan (miss easier).

If a damage cap of 30 is the point then why ever bring ballistics. If the purpose of ED is to work (limiting apha to 30) then it would need to make ballistics as hot as lasers if they go over 30.

Edited by Greyhart, 06 September 2016 - 08:18 AM.

[ScarecrowES]

TT heat penalty scale is a fixed 30pts, but heat capacity is the rating of your sinks. So you have a minimum total scale of 40pts in TT - 10 SHS plus 30 penalty. Dissipation rate for your heat capacity in TT is full amount per turn (10 seconds), thus 1/10 of heat scale per second. Minimum rate of heat capacity dissipation, then, is 1pt/sec.

But... the dissipation rate for the heat penalty scale is different. It is 1/10 of (total heat capacity - current used heat). So the actual amount can be anywhere from zero to the normal dissipation rate.

MWO, if you account for skills modifiers, more or less uses the same Max heat scale and dissipation rate as TT.

But of course you have the same dissipation rate for the whole bar in MWO instead of 2 different rates in TT.

It wouldn't be correct to say we have higher heat cap in MWO because of various imbalances. We have the higher cap because PGI slapped the 30pts of the penalty scale on top of the normal scale. They kept the numbers but not mechanics.

Having a dissipation rate for that penalty scale that drops to zero if you keep maxxing your capacity is a big deal. As are the penalties that come with it.

You'd be right to say that a universal low cap would absolutely harm builds with high heat requirements.

A 4x cUAC/10 Kodiak only needs a heat cap of 24 to cover it's weapons. A TBR with 2x cLPL and 5x cERML can only mount a heat cap of 48 and still runs hotter for less damage output(needs 50min). The TBR would need an ungodly level of buff to dissipation rate to catch up to its base level of output. It would still be basically impossible to keep up with the output of the Kodiak.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

TT heat penalty scale is a fixed 30pts, but heat capacity is the rating of your sinks. So you have a minimum total scale of 40pts in TT - 10 SHS plus 30 penalty. Dissipation rate for your heat capacity in TT is full amount per turn (10 seconds), thus 1/10 of heat scale per second. Minimum rate of heat capacity dissipation, then, is 1pt/sec.

The problem there is using TT, as it accounts for everything that is being done in a 10second time frame with weapons being fired only once. Solaris though had it broken down into 2.5sec rounds, weapon delays (cooldowns) and the heat capacity was a rating of 25% of the sinks, if broken into BT scaling.

So if using the 30 Heatscale, 10DHS = 20, 20/4=5. So a mech capacity above the 30 was 5.

The actual Solaris heatscale, FASA had 4x heatscale/heat effects but the HS capacity/cooling were not quadrupled.
120 heat scale with 20 DHS (engine) brought the Solaris HScale w/20 so 140max

Standing still and equipped w/1ERPPC
ERPPC 15x4=60heat, with a delay of 3 rounds. Fire Rd1 (60ht-20=40ht/-2MP), wait, wait, wait, fire Rd5.
10DHS provided an additional 20 heat capacity.

Standing still and equipped w/2ERPPC
2x ERPPC 15x4=60heat each. 2x60=120. Fire Rd1 (120ht-20=100ht/-5MP, roll+8 avoid shutdown, roll+6 to avoid ammo explosions), wait, wait, wait, fire Rd5.

Simply showing the extremes between the two, and PGI should set it in between them. Don't ignore them, allow sinks to add capacity but not for their full value. And if not reduce the capacity for all sinks, both engine and external, then at least for the external one, to set the capacity within a more practical threshold.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 06 September 2016 - 04:51 PM.