78 replies to this topic

[Mcgral18]

Kaptain, on 14 September 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Does anyone remember in the open beta days when one had to manually un-jam the ultra5 by adding it to all weapon groups, removing it from all groups and then reassigning it to the group you wanted? People hated that but I had a buddy who could do it in just a couple seconds. Not suggesting it as a fix just curious if any of you were around for that?

I enjoyed it, but it's one of those things which a Macro completely trivialized, something PGI has been good about (also the 1.1 cooldown UAC5s VS 1.5s AC5s...oh, the DakkaGeddon was so neat)

[Deathlike]

Mcgral18, on 14 September 2016 - 05:04 PM, said:

I enjoyed it, but it's one of those things which a Macro completely trivialized, something PGI has been good about (also the 1.1 cooldown UAC5s VS 1.5s AC5s...oh, the DakkaGeddon was so neat)

Fun debates with AC5s vs UAC5s.

Too bad the AC10 always got the shaft in these discussions.

[SpiralFace]

With the Ed system the AC 10 looks to occupy the "sweat spot" when it comes to ACs. Good dps and good burst that can be spammed 3 times and still be perfectly fine in ED.

If anything the AC 10 looks like it gets the most out of this system.

[Deathlike]

SpiralFace, on 14 September 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:

With the Ed system the AC 10 looks to occupy the "sweat spot" when it comes to ACs. Good dps and good burst that can be spammed 3 times and still be perfectly fine in ED.

If anything the AC 10 looks like it gets the most out of this system.

Ironically, AC5s are still a thing, and are not even an issue with ED.

I forgot to mention that AC2s were always shafted too, but in someone's world have to stay nerfed even when it wasn't ever good.

[BLOOD WOLF]

SpiralFace, on 14 September 2016 - 05:37 PM, said:

With the Ed system the AC 10 looks to occupy the "sweat spot" when it comes to ACs. Good dps and good burst that can be spammed 3 times and still be perfectly fine in ED.

If anything the AC 10 looks like it gets the most out of this system.

yea, the UAC's also feel pretty nice and the damage is still good when coupled with energy or missiles.

[burning wisky]

hello pilots,
sorry for my bad english, this is my second language.

First THX PGI for the PTS.
The main problem is, they change the weapon, heatsinks ( double from 2- 1.5 - 1 ??? ) up and down.

push the button PGI, start at 0 ( after the fix comes a hot fix and fix from the hotfix and a nerf, a buff and a nerf and a hot fix )
start a test at a basic-level
Heatsinks ( single to 1 and double to 2 ) and mathematics cooldowntime about 8 sec.
example
1 PPC 10 heat = 10 single heatsings = shoot 1 time 100% on the heatscala = cooldown time around 8 sec.

https://youtu.be/EYQmmsMp5Q0

best bad example is the grasshopper in the video, you can play with the PGI heatmathematics 117 % over you heatsinklimit,

If you have the ground mathematics, you can change weapon heat/range/cooldowntime.

Edited by burning wisky, 14 September 2016 - 11:23 PM.

[Greyhart]

interestingly I started a thread http://mwomercs.com/...balance-theory/

which led me to a calculation on the relative values of Heat, slots and tons.

a slot is worth 0.5 tons

heat is worth 3 slots.

A SHS is 1 ton 1 slot.

A DHS is 1ton 3 slots which is 0.5 ton advantage over SHS. So should really be 1.5t & 3 slots to balance or have a reduced dissipation rate.

Now of course this is not directly related to the issue of where the heat dissipation rate of DHS should be, but it appears to me that unless you have a fundamental formula for balancing slots, tons and heat you are going to end up with problems of certain weapon systems being better from a tonnage, slot & heat point of view.

Not sure my formula for damage calculations is right as it doesn't cope with cooldown times.

[burning wisky]

Quote

Greyhart

interestingly I started a thread http://mwomercs.com/...balance-theory/

which led me to a calculation on the relative values of Heat, slots and tons.

a slot is worth 0.5 tons

heat is worth 3 slots.

A SHS is 1 ton 1 slot.

A DHS is 1ton 3 slots which is 0.5 ton advantage over SHS. So should really be 1.5t & 3 slots to balance or have a reduced dissipation rate.

Now of course this is not directly related to the issue of where the heat dissipation rate of DHS should be, but it appears to me that unless you have a fundamental formula for balancing slots, tons and heat you are going to end up with problems of certain weapon systems being better from a tonnage, slot & heat point of view.

Not sure my formula for damage calculations is right as it doesn't cope with cooldown times.

I work with the Basic- technical -rules of the Mechwarrior/ Battletech universe. I play this game 23 years now, Tabletop and pc games.



https://www.google.d...QEBNLNQgqmJAt_A

Page 39 and 40

SHS 1 ton / 1 slot / 1 Heatsinkpoint
DHS 1 ton / 3 slots / 2 Heatsinkpoint

I think nobody has to change that, because you have to use more slots for a better heatsink. You can't look for a balance tons to slot to dissipation rate. DHS is made of a diffrent material, then SHS. DHS are better, but you need more volume. There is the balance.

First step PGI have to fix the heatproblem in the game ( if you have 10 heat for using weapons, movements and you have 10 SHS heatsinks = 100% on the heatscala / on MWO/ PGI you have 20% ( that means that you can fire too often or to many weapons befor you at 100% heat )

http://youtu.be/EYQmmsMp5Q0

second step bring a OVERHEATAREA on the scala with penalty ( shutdownchance, slower movment, aim- and screenproblems,)( if you override the system you get damage on you mech )

third step then they can balance the weapon with cooldowntime, weaponjam,

to make a roadmap is not that hart , but it looks like, they have no idea where they want to go .

[davoodoo]

burning wisky, on 15 September 2016 - 10:00 AM, said:

First step PGI have to fix the heatproblem in the game ( if you have 10 heat for using weapons, movements and you have 10 SHS heatsinks = 100% on the heatscala / on MWO/ PGI you have 20% ( that means that you can fire too often or to many weapons befor you at 100% heat )

If you mean that mechs got 50 heat capacity with 10 engine shs, yea idk why it should always be 30+heat sinks and it works like that for dhs.

But then you speak about firing too often...
In battletech you have things like
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hellstar
30 dhs, 4 erppc which should put heat at 60/90 and then go to 0/90 by the time you can fire erppc again.

Lets simulate how long this thing could fire in mwo.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...10095892542bace
8s(without), 10s(with skills), 2-3 alphas... and it deals less dmg...

[burning wisky]

that is what i am talking about.

Hellstar (works....hot, but it works)
30 DHS = 60 heatsinkpoints capacity
4x ERPPC = 4x15 Heatpoints = 60 heatpoints
60 heat will absourbed from 60 heatsinkpoints = 100% heat on the scala
and now if you moving ( moving,running and jumping bring heat to ), you are a little bit in the Overheatarea ( 30 extra points, but with Penalties )
normal mathematics 1 Alphastrike.....and maybe after 4 sec. to get 30 heatsinkpoints capacity and 8 sec. to get your full capacity of 60 heatsinkpoints back

on MWO you have 2-3 Alphas befor Overheat ????

my best testbuild in MWO is a grasshopper
47 firepower = 37 heatpoints and 17 SHS
1 ALpha 55 % heat on the scala , normal mathematics is 217 % on the heatscale

oh I forgot " I want " nooooooo ghostheat,no EDS ( this is all a nerf the TTK rate ).
i want the ground base mathematiks...( SHS 1 heat capacity and DHS 2 heat capacity, both the same dissipation rate) ownly the heatsink you use counts... than we see how it works on the PTS...and than we can start to buff and nerf and change weapon cooldowntimes,dualrationtime etc..

I am sorry for my bad english.

[ScarecrowES]

burning wisky, on 15 September 2016 - 02:28 PM, said:

that is what i am talking about.

Hellstar (works....hot, but it works)
30 DHS = 60 heatsinkpoints capacity
4x ERPPC = 4x15 Heatpoints = 60 heatpoints
60 heat will absourbed from 60 heatsinkpoints = 100% heat on the scala
and now if you moving ( moving,running and jumping bring heat to ), you are a little bit in the Overheatarea ( 30 extra points, but with Penalties )
normal mathematics 1 Alphastrike.....and maybe after 4 sec. to get 30 heatsinkpoints capacity and 8 sec. to get your full capacity of 60 heatsinkpoints back

on MWO you have 2-3 Alphas befor Overheat ????

my best testbuild in MWO is a grasshopper
47 firepower = 37 heatpoints and 17 SHS
1 ALpha 55 % heat on the scala , normal mathematics is 217 % on the heatscale

oh I forgot " I want " nooooooo ghostheat,no EDS ( this is all a nerf the TTK rate ).
i want the ground base mathematiks...( SHS 1 heat capacity and DHS 2 heat capacity, both the same dissipation rate) ownly the heatsink you use counts... than we see how it works on the PTS...and than we can start to buff and nerf and change weapon cooldowntimes,dualrationtime etc..

I am sorry for my bad english.

In the end, yes... the very system that was DESIGNED to do the job DOES do it better. That shouldn't be surprising, though, since everything MWO is designed around comes right from TT. PGI has made very few deviations, and you can generally point right at these deviations as the cause of most of MWO's balance ills.

Obviously, some things always need to be changed in the transition from turn-based to real time, but the heat system really wasn't one of those. I always figured the heat system was made the way it was for the sake of simplicity, but obviously we've gone well beyond simplicity at this point. And since PGI has done all the work necessary to finally put the TT system into the game (minus the UI and art stuff for some of the penalties), I really think it's time to try it.

[burning wisky]

Pgi want to break the TTK rate and use a ground heatsink capacity of 50 points on every mech. The Heatsystem is broken. You can change all weapons up and down, but you can't balance the system with the 50 capacity in the background ( 50 extra points for fire weapons is a lot )
THX davoodoo for the Info .

Edited by burning wisky, 16 September 2016 - 01:24 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

burning wisky, on 16 September 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

Pgi want to break the TTK rate and use a ground heatsink capacity of 50 points on every mech. The Heatsystem is broken. You can change all weapons up and down, but you can't balance the system with the 50 capacity in the background ( 50 extra points for fire weapons is a lot )
THX davoodoo for the Info .

If you REALLY wanted to emulate TT heatscale in MWO, heres how you do it:

1) All weapons are changed to apply heat not instantly, but spread over a 10 second time period. i.e. firing an ERPPC generates 1.5 heat per second for the next 10 seconds, firing two generates 3.0 for 10s, etc.

2) All additional heat capacity is removed from heatsinks. Heat scale is now a flat 30 point scale.

3) Penalties for overheating are added at various points on this scale, right from the beginning.

4) DHS dissipate 0.2 h/s, SHS dissipate 0.1 h/s. No difference between engine and external heatsinks.

example: A Hellstar has 4xC-ERPPC and 30 DHS. It fires all 4 ERPPCs and is generating 6.0 h/s for the next 10 seconds, but since it has 30 DHS it dissipates 6.0 h/s, and the heatbar doesnt move, at all. If it fires another ERPPC after the cooldown (5s) then for the next 5 seconds it will be generating 7.5 h/s and the heat bar will start moving up (since gain is now exceeding dissipation) and penalties will occur.

You could argue that since our RoF is higher, we should have more dissipation.. but you could argue back that no one is forcing you to fire earlier, just you have the ability.

You can also argue that moving should add a certain amount of h/s.

THAT is the TT heat system. Its actually much, much more lenient than our current system (with GH).

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 16 September 2016 - 02:22 AM.

[davoodoo]

Or you can do this

1)establish a baseline for cooldowns, safe to say its 4s on live, 10/4=2.5
2)buff dhs to 0.5heat/s, 2 capacity.
3)change shs to 0.25heat/s, 1 capacity
4)remove skill bonuses to heat
5)add penatlies starting at max capacity-25.

And you got ideal representation of tt with 4s turns in mwo...

Edited by davoodoo, 16 September 2016 - 05:45 AM.

[burning wisky]

davoodoo, on 16 September 2016 - 05:43 AM, said:

Or you can do this

1)establish a baseline for cooldowns, safe to say its 4s on live, 10/4=2.5
2)buff dhs to 0.5heat/s, 2 capacity.
3)change shs to 0.25heat/s, 1 capacity
4)remove skill bonuses to heat
5)add penatlies starting at max capacity-25.

And you got ideal representation of tt with 4s turns in mwo...

I have calculated a baseline/ timeline for cooldown 100% heat is 8,63 s
( same time if you have a capacity of 17 or 28 ( more capacity = more heatsinks = same cooldown time. )

Overheadcapacity of 30 with penaty start at 5 (slower movment/ torsotwist, chance of a shutdown, screen trouble, chance of ammo explosion )

push the override button = bridge over all shutdown and get a 100% chance of damage

Why shs have lower heat/s, 1 capacity, and make them more unusable
and not with the same heat/s, 1 Capacity. They have ownly a lower capacity.

Quote

Alternate Materials
Standard heat sink radiators have been using graphite tubing
and fins since the dawn of the BattleMech. The graphite’s struc-
ture is carefully arranged for best heat flow, and oriented graph-
ite can have a thermal conductivity about five times that of the
reigning metallic champions, silver and copper. Some Periphery
nations have resorted to using copper for heat sink radiators. But
while these do lose some percentage of performance, such ra-
diators work better than one might expect, because they make
up for their lower conductivity with thinner construction, as the
metals are tougher than the graphite.
The wonder plastics of the Star League also revolutionized
BattleMech heat sinks. These semi-crystalline polymers, which
are also found in XL engine shielding, don’t quite have graphite’s
thermal conductivity, but they are dramatically lighter. They allow
larger radiators to be constructed for the same mass as standard
heat sinks and give us the famous “double strength freezers.” Unlike
many recovered pieces of technology, it’s fun to note that this did
not come from the Helm Memory Core. The New Avalon Institute
of Science was experimenting with this technology prior to the
Core’s discovery. The Clans, meanwhile, never lost the technology
behind this material and even improved on it by using more crys-
talline, which creates a more thermally conductive—but also more
brittle—freezer. The required reinforcements keep the Clan double
strength heat sinks at about the same mass, but more compact.

from tech manuel BT http://haveno.info/B...0TechManual.pdf

[davoodoo]

burning wisky, on 18 September 2016 - 06:42 AM, said:

I have calculated a baseline/ timeline for cooldown 100% heat is 8,63 s
( same time if you have a capacity of 17 or 28 ( more capacity = more heatsinks = same cooldown time. )

Overheadcapacity of 30 with penaty start at 5 (slower movment/ torsotwist, chance of a shutdown, screen trouble, chance of ammo explosion )

push the override button = bridge over all shutdown and get a 100% chance of damage

How did you calculate baseline for cooldown which is higher than outlier, gauss with 6.75s on pts or 6.5s clrm20 on live...

Ive looked at value close to where majority of energy weapons sit but hell you can use median and youll land in about same spot.

Or maybe i just dont understand what are you even talking about...

[burning wisky]

sorry, davoodoo

example1
if you have 28 heatsinkpoints = 100%
you cooldown all your 28 heatsinkpoints in 8,64 s
every 1 sec. = 3,24 points

example2
if you have 19 heatsinkpoint = 100%
you cooldown all your 19 heatsinkpoints in 8,64 s
every 1 sec. = 2,20 points

[davoodoo]

burning wisky, on 18 September 2016 - 10:33 AM, said:

sorry, davoodoo

example1
if you have 28 heatsinkpoints = 100%
you cooldown all your 28 heatsinkpoints in 8,64 s
every 1 sec. = 3,24 points

example2
if you have 19 heatsinkpoint = 100%
you cooldown all your 19 heatsinkpoints in 8,64 s
every 1 sec. = 2,20 points

number of dhs x 0.19 x 1.15 / s= n0.2185/s
or
number of shs x 0.11 x 1.15 /s =n0.1265/s for n=19 its 2.4.

But what does have that to do with weapon cooldowns??

[burning wisky]

Weapon cooldown ..........nothing , I don't speak about weapon cooldown.
I sad cooldown and i mean / cooldown = cooldown your heat = time to go from 100% to 0% on the scale / sink your heat...

example1
if you have 28 heatsinkpoints = 100%
you sink all your 28 heatsinkpoints in 8,64 s
every 1 sec. = 3,24 points

example2
if you have 19 heatsinkpoint = 100%
you sink all your 19 heatsinkpoints in 8,64 s
every 1 sec. = 2,20 points

t ( 8,64s ) : hsp ( heatsinkpoints ) = x ( sink rate per second )


is it now better ?

davoodoo, on 19 September 2016 - 10:36 AM, said:

number of dhs x 0.19 x 1.15 / s= n0.2185/s
or
number of shs x 0.11 x 1.15 /s =n0.1265/s for n=19 its 2.4.

But what does have that to do with weapon cooldowns??

Why are dhs 0.19 and shs 0.11 ?

DHS have ownly the double capacity of a single heatsink...... nothing else.DHS are not fast to sink the heat. Normally the dhs are a littlebit slower to sink the heat, but have the double capacity.

Quote

Alternate Materials

Standard heat sink radiators have been using graphite tubing

and fi

ns since the dawn of the BattleMech. The graphite’s struc-

ture is carefully arranged for best heat fl

ow, and oriented graph-

ite can have a thermal conductivity about fi

ve times that of the

reigning metallic champions, silver and copper. Some Periphery

nations have resorted to using copper for heat sink radiators. But

while these do lose some percentage of performance, such ra-

diators work better than one might expect, because they make

up for their lower conductivity with thinner construction, as the

metals are tougher than the graphite.

The wonder plastics of the Star League also revolutionized

BattleMech heat sinks. These semi-crystalline polymers, which

are also found in XL engine shielding, don’t quite have graphite’s

thermal conductivity, but they are dramatically lighter. They allow

larger radiators to be constructed for the same mass as standard

heat sinks and give us the famous “double strength freezers.” Unlike

many recovered pieces of technology, it’s fun to note that this did

not

come from the Helm Memory Core. The New Avalon Institute

of Science was experimenting with this technology prior to the

Core’s discovery. The Clans, meanwhile, never lost the technology

behind this material and even improved on it by using more crys-

talline, which creates a more thermally conductive—but also more

brittle—freezer. The required reinforcements keep the Clan double
strength heat sinks at about the same mass, but more compact