20 replies to this topic

[Andi Nagasia]

there has been talk about Assaults no longer being favored in MWO with ED,
such talks mostly revolve around perhaps increasing the Energy Pool for Assaults,
right now a Light and Assault both have 30Energy pool and 20Energy Regen/Sec,
because im against Increasing the Energy Pool why dont we increase the Regen?
(Idea is Only in the instance where Assaults need a boost not that they do)

Giving each Mech Class their own Energy Regen,
this could help Assaults stand out, and id prefer this to increasing Energy Pool,

=Concept=
Light= 15Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 2Seconds)

Medium= 20Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 1.5Seconds)

Heavy= 20Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 1.5Seconds)

Assault= 30Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 1Second)
=0=


setting these values would allow Assaults to Fire more often,
but still be limited to the ED 30Damage Alpha, keeping in ED,

Lights may see a slight Nerf here,
but as most Lights dont do more than 30damage alphas,
i dont think it will hurt much for small IS lights(may hurt the ACH though )


Special Thanks to @TheCharlatan,
who gave me the idea and premise for this topic,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Edit- Fixed some Spelling and Problems,
Edit2- Added the Problem(Thanks Wintersdark)

Edited by Andi Nagasia, 05 September 2016 - 06:30 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

Lol good luck when I said this the hate started flowing

[Wintersdark]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 September 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

right now a Light and Assault both have 30Energy pool and 20Energy Regen/Sec,
because im against Increasing the Energy Pool why dont we increase the Regen?


Giving each Mech Class their own Energy Regen,

Light= 15Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 2Seconds)

Medium= 20Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 1.5Seconds)

Heavy= 20Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 1.5Seconds)

Assault= 30Energy Regen/Sec,
(Time to full Energy = 1Second)



setting these values would allow Assaults to Fire more often,
but still be limited to the ED 30Damage Alpha, keeping in ED,

Lights may see a slight Nerf here,
but as most Lights dont do more than 30damage alphas,
i dont think it will hurt much for small IS lights(may hurt the ACH though )


Special Thanks to @TheCharlatan,
who gave me the idea and premise for this topic,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Sir, what specific cases do you think this will improve? What sort of builds do you feel are unfairly penalized under ED as it stands?

I'm concerned that this post (and other similar ones before it) are prompted by people feeling "This is how it should be" but not actually thinking about how this plays out in practical gameplay.

For example, on the PTS now, ED as it stands allows a quad ERPPC Warhawk to fire it's cERPPC pairs 1.5s offset. You'd reduce that to 1s. Is that extra speed actually necessary?

For light mechs, there's no change: if they regenerated energy at 10/s, they'd have a 2s wait between 30pt strikes. How many lights can you name can fire 30pt strikes faster than 1.5s? An Arctic Cheetah has a 3.3 second wait between SPL strikes on Live, and that's the hittiest light. So your reduction hasn't reduced light damage output or even done anything at all. So, obviously you're not concerned about light damage output. Why bother reducing it?

For medium mechs, none would be impacted in any meaningful way.

However, ED regen limits as they currently are set a hard cap on DPS output.

Heavier mechs would still have to spread their fire, but have very, very slighly shorter waits between bursts. This, if anything, would increase staring issues, but that's an L2P issue and I'm not concerned about it.

This becomes relevant when you're looking at the very highest end mechs, KDK-3 for example.

Are you arguing that the KDK-3 is too weak as it stands? ED does put a hard cap on how hard it can dakka; I'd argue that is a good thing for the game. Faster energy regen on Assaults and Heavies is going to allow harder dps, but not impact other gameplay. Are you concerned that dakka is too weak on the PTS?

If anything, good sir, I'm concerned that dakka may end up being too strong on the PTS, not too weak.

So, please, provide specific builds you feel are hampered by ED at a flat 20/s regen that would be improved by this, for the benefit of gameplay as a whole.

Basically: Provide logic for the suggestion beyond "I feel this makes sense given the fluff" which is a terrible balancing mechanic.

And please, understand, I mean this completely respectfully - no hate, etc. I just don't see any rationale behind this (with actual builds!) that support why it would be beneficial.

[Andi Nagasia]

not sure but just this little amount could help Assaults stand out,
and not just Overachievers like the KDK-3,

another idea could be to decrease the Energy Regen across the Board,
its an idea id prefer over increasing the Energy pool for Assaults,

[Wintersdark]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 September 2016 - 12:05 PM, said:

not sure but just this little amount could help Assaults stand out,
and not just Overachievers like the KDK-3,

another idea could be to decrease the Energy Regen across the Board,
its an idea id prefer over increasing the Energy pool for Assaults,

Assaults do stand out. They've got way more firepower, and can use it fine.

See, my concern here is that you're proposing a change without defining a problem, nor how it addresses that problem.

Understand where I'm coming from?

Increase energy regen on assaults, and you increase dakka DPS. That's the ONLY thing energy regen caps on assaults, and it's only capping builds with massive DPS output (KDK-3, dakka Direwolf, maybe Dakkamauler), or very heavy burst builds (multiple UAC10+LPL); in both these cases that's kind of exactly what ED is there to reign in.

So, by saying you want to increase energy regen on assaults, you're saying you want to buff the very strongest assaults, while leaving the weaker ones in largely the same place they already are. (whether that is your intent or not).

Decrease energy regen on everyone is kind of ugly, and creates a situation where the majority of builds suddenly are ED capped. Normal builds shouldn't be ED capped, and in most cases (unless you're looking for big alphas) the bulk of builds are essentially unrestricted by ED at all. That's a good thing. Heat is what caps damage output normally, and ED is stepping in to hold low-heat/high-DPS and heavy alphas in (by increasing heat, so heat is ultimately still what's capping things).

Decreasing energy regen puts us in a situation where new players need to learn more about ED and be better at it. As I already addressed, you could substantially reduce light energy regen without impacting any lights at all, not even the ACH. 3.33s between alphas for the ACH, after all



So, again, I request: When proposing an idea like this, please be sure to have a problem you're trying to solve. You don't appear to have one, and these ideas will make balance worse (increasing assault energy regen buffing the already strongest assaults, decreasing energy regen makes timing more difficult as there's a longer recoup period)

Besides, how can one evaluate an idea without a context? What is the purpose of this idea, and how does this idea achieve that purpose? Not in vague generalities, but actual examples?

I don't mean to be a {Richard} here, but we need feedback for ED that is useful (whether I agree or not), that specifies specific problems and (ideally) offers solutions. This neither specifies a problem nor explains how the changes will actually fix that problem or improve gameplay.

[Mystere]

Can PGI please just remove all Mechs other than assaults? It seems that that is exactly what a majority of players want anyway, especially given their "Bigger is always better!" mindset.

And while they're at it, please remove that damned "A BatteTech Game" canard, everywhere.

Edited by Mystere, 05 September 2016 - 12:33 PM.

[Ultimax]

Andi Nagasia, on 05 September 2016 - 08:27 AM, said:

setting these values would allow Assaults to Fire more often,
but still be limited to the ED 30Damage Alpha, keeping in ED,


Thoughts, Comments, Concerns?
Thanks,

Not needed.


Heavies and Assaults use their greater tonnage to invest in larger/heavier weapons which translates almost universally into more range.

They also tend to have a greater number of heatsinks for energy focused builds, which grants a higher heat cap, and faster dissipation.


The concept that a Light has a 30 point alpha and an Assault has a 30 point alpha and therefore they both do "the same damage" is complete nonsense.

It's nonsense because the Light's alpha will be based on Small/Medium type lasers and the Assault mech's alpha will be based on things like triple PPCs, Dual Gauss, Quad UAC loads, 4 to 5 LPLs, etc.

Edited by Ultimax, 05 September 2016 - 03:57 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Just to show a picture of two assaults whose balance is handled perfectly well in TT but is completely BORKED in every version of MWO's heat system...

Warhawk Prime

Typical build features 4x cERPPC and as many double heat sinks you dare carry. 28 sinks is what I usually run, for a total TT heat capacity of 56 + 30 heat penalty scale = 86. In MWO that capacity is 30 (base) + 20 (2x 10 engine sinks) + 27 (1.4x 18 external sinks) = 75.2 - this number jumps to 90.25 with skills. TT alpha damage of 60pts, MWO alpha damage of 40pts plus 20pts spread. Cycle rate, 4 seconds. TT dissipation of 5.6pts per second (heat capacity scale) and variable for penalty scale. MWO dissipation of 4.52 - this jumps to 5.2 with skills - and the entire bar dissipates at the same rate. No penalties for the 30pts of heat scale in MWO, vs severe penalties in TT.

In MWO, without GH, the Warhawk could alpha once without shutting down. An immediate alpha again when PPCs cycle produces a shutdown with 8.95 heat exceeded. Under GH, it is not possible to alpha even once without shutting down. GH enforces a single 40pt direct damage output for the Warhawk. In TT, the Warhawk could alpha once. A second alpha would guarantee shutdown and then some... more or less the end of combat for this mech. Using the TT system in MWO, the Warhawk can alpha once. A second immediate alpha results in shutdown with 7.6 points exceeded on the penalty scale. TT values would have 60pts of direct damage.

Kodiak-3
4x cUAC/10, 15 total DHS. TT capacity of 30 (2x 15 DHS) = 30 (penalty scale) = 60. MWO capacity of 30 (base) + 20 (2x 10 engine) + 7 (1.4x 5 DHS) = 57, or 68.4 with skills. Dissipation rate in TT of 3pts/sec, variable for penalty scale. MWO dissipation rate of 2.7pts/sec - 3.1pts/sec with skills. Weapons produce 80pts of damage and 24 heat per double-tap.

In TT, you could fire indefinitely with this config, as you'd dissipate the entire 24pts of heat per turn (capacity of 30). This mech could never overheat, and thus is heat neutral. In fact, you could argue this mech is severely undergunned for TT - it has too many sinks for the mounted weapons. Moreover, once a UAC jams in TT, it can't unjam. Building a mech around UACs is a risk you simply wouldn't take in TT. Double-tapping a UAC in TT is not something you'd want to do often, so expect in TT you'd have an effective rate of damage of only 40pts per turn.

While you can't fire indefinitely with this config in MWO, you can fire the full 80 damage, even with GH, quite often. Roughly 5-6 full-rate cycles as far as I can calculate before shutdown. That's between 400 and 480 damage. at full rate.

With a TT system with MWO cycle rate, you get about 3-4 double-taps max. A significant reduction in damage from the base MWO heat system, even with GH applied (240-320 vs 400-480)

Results

Ultimately, MWO allows for both higher heat capacity and higher effective dissipation rates than in TT thanks to skill buffs. Effective dissipation rates would still be higher without the skill buffs, but the capacity would be lower.

Still, for extreme cases of both heat output and capacity, both the pure TT system and a version with MWO cycle values AND the pure MWO heat system would all produce the same results. For the Warhawk Prime, you get one alpha at a shutdown at full rate fire. ED PTS1 actually allowed the Warhawk Prime to do this as well.

Ghost heat prevents even a single volley of more than 2 PPCs without significant penalties. 4 is an automatic shutdown with lots of damage applied to your own mech. GH seems to apply an unnecessary nerf to this build... performance is in-line with both TT and an adapted TT system.

For cases of lower-heat and higher-damage builds, the practical and sustainable damage output is MUCH higher than in TT. You simply couldn't build a mech like the Kodiak-3 around UACs in TT, meaning that any similar weapon you'd mount would have a lower damage output for the weight. While such builds would run absolutely cool and have no possibility of shutting down, you'd be extremely undergunned. You'd HAVE to mix in higher-heat weapons like lasers to supplement. However, even if we adapted the TT system to MWO, keeping weapon values the same, you'd automatically see a 40% reduction in output for this mech's build.

Realistically, in MWO, the Kodiak already has an "energy pool" that's too large. It didn't earn it. And because of how MWO handles UACs, it's output is ridiculously large compared to what it should be.

However, the Warhawk only gets treated fairly under the BASE MWO heat system. Neither GH or ED does that build justice, and places restrictions on that build that are very unnecessary.

These two mechs show that a one-size-fits-all approach to alphas or heat or damage or capacity or whatever simply doesn't work for a game based on Battletech.

They also show that if you just put the damn TT heat system in the game, it already gives you the results you want WITHOUT dumb band-aids like GH or ED.

[Wintersdark]

Ultimax, on 05 September 2016 - 12:38 PM, said:

Not needed.

Heavies and Assaults use their greater tonnage to invest in larger/heavier weapons which translates almost universally into more range.

They also tend to have a greater number of heatsinks for energy focused builds, which grants a higher heat cap, and faster dissipation.


The concept that a Light has a 30 point alpha and an Assault has a 30 point alpha and therefore they both do "the same damage" is complete nonsense.

Because the Light's alpha will be based on Small/Medium type lasers and the Assault mech's alpha will be based on things like triple PPCs, Dual Gauss, Quad UAC loads, 4 to 5 LPLs, etc.

This, exactly.

And the heavy/assault is able to fire multiple 30pt strikes, while the light gets one and... Oh, heat.

People keep bringing this "oh assaults are limited to the same firepower as mediums" claptrap and it's disingenuous at best.

(Some) lights may have 30pt alphas, but a 30pt SPL or ML alpha on a mech with, what, 12 DHS? Is nothing whatsoever compared to a quad ERPPC Warhawk, even if both mechs are hitting for 30 points at a time.

[Wintersdark]

ScarecrowES, on 05 September 2016 - 01:55 PM, said:

Just to show a picture of two assaults whose balance is handled perfectly well in TT but is completely BORKED in every version of MWO's heat system...

Warhawk Prime

Typical build features 4x cERPPC and as many double heat sinks you dare carry. 28 sinks is what I usually run, for a total TT heat capacity of 56 + 30 heat penalty scale = 86. In MWO that capacity is 30 (base) + 20 (2x 10 engine sinks) + 27 (1.4x 18 external sinks) = 75.2 - this number jumps to 90.25 with skills. TT alpha damage of 60pts, MWO alpha damage of 40pts plus 20pts spread. Cycle rate, 4 seconds. TT dissipation of 5.6pts per second (heat capacity scale) and variable for penalty scale. MWO dissipation of 4.52 - this jumps to 5.2 with skills - and the entire bar dissipates at the same rate. No penalties for the 30pts of heat scale in MWO, vs severe penalties in TT.

In MWO, without GH, the Warhawk could alpha once without shutting down. An immediate alpha again when PPCs cycle produces a shutdown with 8.95 heat exceeded. Under GH, it is not possible to alpha even once without shutting down. GH enforces a single 40pt direct damage output for the Warhawk. In TT, the Warhawk could alpha once. A second alpha would guarantee shutdown and then some... more or less the end of combat for this mech. Using the TT system in MWO, the Warhawk can alpha once. A second immediate alpha results in shutdown with 7.6 points exceeded on the penalty scale. TT values would have 60pts of direct damage.

Kodiak-3
4x cUAC/10, 15 total DHS. TT capacity of 30 (2x 15 DHS) = 30 (penalty scale) = 60. MWO capacity of 30 (base) + 20 (2x 10 engine) + 7 (1.4x 5 DHS) = 57, or 68.4 with skills. Dissipation rate in TT of 3pts/sec, variable for penalty scale. MWO dissipation rate of 2.7pts/sec - 3.1pts/sec with skills. Weapons produce 80pts of damage and 24 heat per double-tap.

In TT, you could fire indefinitely with this config, as you'd dissipate the entire 24pts of heat per turn (capacity of 30). This mech could never overheat, and thus is heat neutral. In fact, you could argue this mech is severely undergunned for TT - it has too many sinks for the mounted weapons. Moreover, once a UAC jams in TT, it can't unjam. Building a mech around UACs is a risk you simply wouldn't take in TT. Double-tapping a UAC in TT is not something you'd want to do often, so expect in TT you'd have an effective rate of damage of only 40pts per turn.

While you can't fire indefinitely with this config in MWO, you can fire the full 80 damage, even with GH, quite often. Roughly 5-6 full-rate cycles as far as I can calculate before shutdown. That's between 400 and 480 damage. at full rate.

With a TT system with MWO cycle rate, you get about 3-4 double-taps max. A significant reduction in damage from the base MWO heat system, even with GH applied (240-320 vs 400-480)

Results

Ultimately, MWO allows for both higher heat capacity and higher effective dissipation rates than in TT thanks to skill buffs. Effective dissipation rates would still be higher without the skill buffs, but the capacity would be lower.

Still, for extreme cases of both heat output and capacity, both the pure TT system and a version with MWO cycle values AND the pure MWO heat system would all produce the same results. For the Warhawk Prime, you get one alpha at a shutdown at full rate fire. ED PTS1 actually allowed the Warhawk Prime to do this as well.

Ghost heat prevents even a single volley of more than 2 PPCs without significant penalties. 4 is an automatic shutdown with lots of damage applied to your own mech. GH seems to apply an unnecessary nerf to this build... performance is in-line with both TT and an adapted TT system.

For cases of lower-heat and higher-damage builds, the practical and sustainable damage output is MUCH higher than in TT. You simply couldn't build a mech like the Kodiak-3 around UACs in TT, meaning that any similar weapon you'd mount would have a lower damage output for the weight. While such builds would run absolutely cool and have no possibility of shutting down, you'd be extremely undergunned. You'd HAVE to mix in higher-heat weapons like lasers to supplement. However, even if we adapted the TT system to MWO, keeping weapon values the same, you'd automatically see a 40% reduction in output for this mech's build.

Realistically, in MWO, the Kodiak already has an "energy pool" that's too large. It didn't earn it. And because of how MWO handles UACs, it's output is ridiculously large compared to what it should be.

However, the Warhawk only gets treated fairly under the BASE MWO heat system. Neither GH or ED does that build justice, and places restrictions on that build that are very unnecessary.

These two mechs show that a one-size-fits-all approach to alphas or heat or damage or capacity or whatever simply doesn't work for a game based on Battletech.

They also show that if you just put the damn TT heat system in the game, it already gives you the results you want WITHOUT dumb band-aids like GH or ED.

I've been arguing for a 30-cap heat system for ages. Literally since the very start of Open Beta in 2012. PGI isn't going to do it, because "it's too easy to build heat neutral mechs". I don't know what that's a problem, but there you have it.

*shrugs*

ED is functionally identical to Ghost Heat for a mech like a quad-ERPPC warhawk, tuning variables notwithstanding. *shrugs* I'm happy, though, that it tends to spread fire more and thus spread damage more overall vs. live. I really enjoy the gameplay on PTS (and no, not because 4v4; I'm not a moron who's unable to grasp how that impacts things).

I still like ED way, way more than GH. I'd like a low-cap/high-dissipation stock system more, though we'd absolutely have to go back to Gauss Charge and likely more. I just don't think that'll ever happen. Lost any hope of that literally years ago - when they first implemented Ghost Heat, in fact. I took the line against Ghost Heat then like you are with ED now, basically.

But, as much as I hated it then (and hate it today) everyone got used to it and things rolled on as normal.

[ScarecrowES]

Wintersdark, on 05 September 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

This, exactly.

And the heavy/assault is able to fire multiple 30pt strikes, while the light gets one and... Oh, heat.

People keep bringing this "oh assaults are limited to the same firepower as mediums" claptrap and it's disingenuous at best.

(Some) lights may have 30pt alphas, but a 30pt SPL or ML alpha on a mech with, what, 12 DHS? Is nothing whatsoever compared to a quad ERPPC Warhawk, even if both mechs are hitting for 30 points at a time.

In fairness... the light in this case has much higher damage output over time than the Warhawk in MWO, thanks to the modified heat system. The Warhawk has chosen to invest its limited tonnage and crits to expand its limited damage to longer ranges, rather than to increase damage outright or make it run cooler.

BT has a concept of investment which is thrown a bit out of whack in MWO. The Warhawk is actually treated about the same in the base heat system of MWO as it is in TT. However, many mechs with lower heat-to-damage ratios benefit greatly under MWO's systems, and this includes lighter mechs. Those lighter mechs, though, didn't pay for the range that the Warhawk did.

[ScarecrowES]

Wintersdark, on 05 September 2016 - 04:07 PM, said:

I've been arguing for a 30-cap heat system for ages. Literally since the very start of Open Beta in 2012. PGI isn't going to do it, because "it's too easy to build heat neutral mechs". I don't know what that's a problem, but there you have it.

*shrugs*

ED is functionally identical to Ghost Heat for a mech like a quad-ERPPC warhawk, tuning variables notwithstanding. *shrugs* I'm happy, though, that it tends to spread fire more and thus spread damage more overall vs. live. I really enjoy the gameplay on PTS (and no, not because 4v4; I'm not a moron who's unable to grasp how that impacts things).

I still like ED way, way more than GH. I'd like a low-cap/high-dissipation stock system more, though we'd absolutely have to go back to Gauss Charge and likely more. I just don't think that'll ever happen. Lost any hope of that literally years ago - when they first implemented Ghost Heat, in fact. I took the line against Ghost Heat then like you are with ED now, basically.

But, as much as I hated it then (and hate it today) everyone got used to it and things rolled on as normal.

It absolutely WOULD be easy to build heat-neutral mechs under a TT system. However, not surprisingly, you'd have lower damage output than would be expected for that mech.

The Kodiak-3, as I described, would absolutely be heat neutral in TT - in theory. But with the risk of having your UACs completely knocked out at the beginning of a match, it's not practical to use that build in real combat. That heat neutral mech would get its *** handed to it every time. MWO UACs are WAY OP compared to TT ones.

Plus, the cooldown rates of MWO weapons make heat neutrality next to impossible in MWO, even using the TT system. If you're pushing your mech at all, you're stressing the heat system. There's no mech I've found yet that outputs a reasonable amount of damage under TT heat mechanics with MWO weapon stats AND manages to stay cool enough to do it for long.

I'm still trying to balance dissipation rates, but so far with a nearly direct 1-for-1 translation of the TT heat system you've got a WAY better level of balance than the current system, GH, or ED.

Check the example of the Warhawk and Kodiak from above.

And the thing is... before ED, we never had the coding and mechanics necessary to do a TT heat system. It was never possible to even TRY before. We CAN do it now. I'd really like to give that a try.

I mean, if such a system can let the Warhawk Prime actually be viable, AND put a leash on the Kodiak-3 with a minimum 40% reduction on output off the top... and not actually interfere with the play or function of these mechs in ANY way... THAT system is the one we ought to be trying.

[Wintersdark]

ScarecrowES, on 05 September 2016 - 04:08 PM, said:

In fairness... the light in this case has much higher damage output over time than the Warhawk in MWO, thanks to the modified heat system. The Warhawk has chosen to invest its limited tonnage and crits to expand its limited damage to longer ranges, rather than to increase damage outright or make it run cooler.

BT has a concept of investment which is thrown a bit out of whack in MWO. The Warhawk is actually treated about the same in the base heat system of MWO as it is in TT. However, many mechs with lower heat-to-damage ratios benefit greatly under MWO's systems, and this includes lighter mechs. Those lighter mechs, though, didn't pay for the range that the Warhawk did.

Yeah, the quad ERPPC warhawk has long been kinda mistreated in MWO relative to many. Convergence is at fault there; really, but that will definitely never change because there are way too many people who are way, way over-invested in having all their shots going exactly where their crosshairs are no matter what, despite how unusual that is in PvP games.

While the Warhawk may be comparable to TT in heat system treatment, it's much less dangerous in MWO because of the increased armor/structure making that long range heavy hit way, way less devastating, and attempts to "fix" the system for mechs that benefit more from MWO's system than the traditional system just make the Warhawk and it's irk more of problems.

But really, it's all moot. It doesn't matter. That stuff isn't going to change. We're not going to see variable convergence, at least not with the current engine. We're not going to see a low-cap/high-dissipation heat system.

*shrugs*

We just aren't. It's a waste of time.

[Wintersdark]

To be clear, I get it would be easier to build heat neutral mechs in a TT heat system. What I said above was I didn't see why that was a problem.

But, Russ and Paul feel it's a huge problem, and have never gone into why that is.

This isn't new.

LOTS of people have carried this torch since Closed Beta. Many still do today. PGI's stance has always been, flatly, "No."

PGI's already put a lot of time into this, they're not going to scrap it and try a totally different system, no matter how much you or I may wish they would.

Edited by Wintersdark, 05 September 2016 - 04:26 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Wintersdark, on 05 September 2016 - 04:25 PM, said:

To be clear, I get it would be easier to build heat neutral mechs in a TT heat system. What I said above was I didn't see why that was a problem.

But, Russ and Paul feel it's a huge problem, and have never gone into why that is.

This isn't new.

LOTS of people have carried this torch since Closed Beta. Many still do today. PGI's stance has always been, flatly, "No."

PGI's already put a lot of time into this, they're not going to scrap it and try a totally different system, no matter how much you or I may wish they would.

The great thing is, it's NOT a totally new system... not anymore. All the groundwork has already been done.

All you're doing is swapping values around - and that amounts to little more than changing some numbers on an XML document.

The "draw bar" of ED looks at the damage output of a weapon... you just need to make it look at heat instead. That's just changing ONE little line of code - maybe not even code. 5 minutes or less. And instead of having the "draw" bar have a 30pt limit and the heat scale be variable based on the heat capacity of the mech, you just swap them. Now your "draw" bar is heat capacity, and your heat scale is the penalty bar. Boom, you just re-produced the TT heat system mechanics using the ED system.

Now, you've already set what sinks count for what capacity. You just the value for DHS to 2 instead of 1.4. At least at first. You can change this value for the sake of balance later. Simple. And your dissipation rate? Stays the same - 1/10th the mech's heat capacity/second - just like it is now. The only change you need to make is for the penalty bar, where your dissipation rate is equal to (heat capacity - current heat value) x 0.1. That's a very easy change to make. And even these numbers can be tweaked for the sake of balance. Dissipation rates have the most profound effect on this heat system.

It's not even a day of work for one person to implement.

I bet you PGI could probably do this within a few hours and have it on the PTS to test.

It's not even a significant change to the existing ED system. Most of the base functional mechanics of the TT system are the same as the base MWO system with ED on top. You're just using the mechanics themselves to their original intended purpose.

And you can't argue with the results. That 40+% reduction in output on the Kodiak is no joke... and we didn't have to put one restriction on that mech to get it.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 05 September 2016 - 04:45 PM.

[Wintersdark]

ScarecrowES, on 05 September 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

The great thing is, it's NOT a totally new system... not anymore. All the groundwork has already been done.

All you're doing is swapping values around - and that amounts to little more than changing some numbers on an XML document.

The "draw bar" of ED looks at the damage output of a weapon... you just need to make it look at heat instead. That's just changing ONE little line of code - maybe not even code. 5 minutes or less. And instead of having the "draw" bar have a 30pt limit and the heat scale be variable based on the heat capacity of the mech, you just swap them. Now your "draw" bar is heat capacity, and your heat scale is the penalty bar. Boom, you just re-produced the TT heat system mechanics using the ED system.

Now, you've already set what sinks count for what capacity. You just the value for DHS to 2 instead of 1.4. At least at first. You can change this value for the sake of balance later. Simple. And your dissipation rate? Stays the same - 1/10th the mech's heat capacity/second - just like it is now. The only change you need to make is for the penalty bar, where your dissipation rate is equal to (heat capacity - current heat value) x 0.1. That's a very easy change to make. And even these numbers can be tweaked for the sake of balance. Dissipation rates have the most profound effect on this heat system.

It's not even a day of work for one person to implement.

I bet you PGI could probably do this within a few hours and have it on the PTS to test.

It's not even a significant change to the existing ED system. Most of the base functional mechanics of the TT system are the same as the base MWO system with ED on top. You're just using the mechanics themselves to their original intended purpose.

And you can't argue with the results. That 40+% reduction in output on the Kodiak is no joke... and we didn't have to put one restriction on that mech to get it.

No argument.

*shrugs* But I lost hope years ago that PGI will ever do that.

I've never even seen them run a PTS for simple XML changes to fix long-mangled weapons, I doubt they'll do it now.

Good luck.

[ScarecrowES]

Wintersdark, on 05 September 2016 - 04:48 PM, said:

No argument.

*shrugs* But I lost hope years ago that PGI will ever do that.

I've never even seen them run a PTS for simple XML changes to fix long-mangled weapons, I doubt they'll do it now.

Good luck.

I have to hold out hope that reason still exists somewhere within PGI, and that if they're crunching the same numbers I am, and looking at the same opinions I am, that they'll see another dead end.

BUT, it doesn't have to be. They laid the groundwork for a new path... well... the ORIGINAL path anyway. We're SO close right now. And the more I crunch the numbers, the more promising it is.

I've even found a way to make single heat sinks actually USEFUL under the modified TT system. Since we're back to the normal capacities and standard dissipation for the system, and we've built a paradigm and weapon balance around DHS, we can do something interesting with SHS. Double dissipation. Half the capacity of DHS, but dissipating twice as fast. I'd like to experiment with that.

I have to think... they did ALL this work for a band-aid that doesn't really work... For a few minutes more, we could use that work to replace the whole damn heat system outright. No more band-aids.

Edited by ScarecrowES, 05 September 2016 - 04:59 PM.

[Wintersdark]

ScarecrowES, on 05 September 2016 - 04:58 PM, said:

I have to hold out hope that reason still exists somewhere within PGI, and that if they're crunching the same numbers I am, and looking at the same opinions I am, that they'll see another dead end.

BUT, it doesn't have to be. They laid the groundwork for a new path... well... the ORIGINAL path anyway. We're SO close right now. And the more I crunch the numbers, the more promising it is.

I've even found a way to make single heat sinks actually USEFUL under the modified TT system. Since we're back to the normal capacities and standard dissipation for the system, and we've built a paradigm and weapon balance around DHS, we can do something interesting with SHS. Double dissipation. Half the capacity of DHS, but dissipating twice as fast. I'd like to experiment with that.

I have to think... they did ALL this work for a band-aid that doesn't really work... For a few minutes more, we could use that work to replace the whole damn heat system outright. No more band-aids.

Yeah, again, none of this is new. This has all been posted over and over for the last 4 years. Ask Koniving, he could give you links to basically everything you've written above in whatever year you choose

PGI always says no.

*shrugs*

In all seriousness, good luck. I wouldn't bet on it though.

Edited by Wintersdark, 05 September 2016 - 05:03 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Wintersdark, on 05 September 2016 - 05:02 PM, said:

Yeah, again, none of this is new. This has all been posted over and over for the last 4 years. Ask Koniving, he could give you links to basically everything you've written above in whatever year you choose

PGI always says no.

*shrugs*

In all seriousness, good luck. I wouldn't bet on it though.

*shrug* Before it would have been months of work to move forward with a TT heat system.

They've put in 99% of the necessary work already.

Here's the thing though... the ED system, even from where we're at now, will STILL take a lot of work. And it means changing the fundamental balance of all weapons, as we're seeing through the PTS right now. And if we're ever done trying to get a base level of balance at least, now you're looking at having to RE-QUIRK every single mech to match the new paradigm.

The amount of work necessary to make ED WORK on the live server is far and away larger than it would be to make the TT system work on the live server. The base TT system would work with the existing weapon stats and functionality - no rehashing stats, no "requirkening."

Now... almost all of the tepid support for ED is based on the idea that some day it can be made better than what we have now. Better than GH. It's not much of a measure of superiority. Most people hate GH. But regardless, we're just chasing after the level of balance and restriction that the ORIGINAL heat system provides... the TT heat system provides. ED is a band-aid. With a little more work it can become a full replacement system that already does everything that these band-aids are designed to do... and with a LOT less work.

And THAT is how you convince PGI to move forward with TT. It's a financial decision. You've already spent 99% of the investment required for a fully-functional system you know will work, vs having to spend a lot more to make a band-aid functional on a system that doesn't.

If we put it this way to PGI, how can they NOT move forward with the TT system?

[Andi Nagasia]

@Wintersdark,
your Right Sorry for not Initially stating the Problem this hopes to fix,
Fixed OP to State Problem(assuming there is one)

personally i feel Energy Pool and regen is Fine for all Mechs,
this Topic assumes if there is a problem and Assaults need a Boost,
Offering An alternative to a just increasing the Energy Pool for Assaults,
which im against(i feel all mechs should have the same Energy Pool)

this Topic is a, Just incase they Do need a little Boost,
offering such an alternative Regen vs Pool-Increase,