Jump to content

Pts 4 Thoughts And Ideas


5 replies to this topic

#1 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,057 posts

Posted 13 September 2016 - 10:51 PM

I'm beginning to see why people felt that lowering the cap would achieve the same effect as ED. Except of course they buffed dubs, but nerfed the engine internal dubs. Fupdup made a nice chart showing you need 24+ dub heatsinks to get better dissipation than in pts3. The change seems really counter intuitive to what PGI is intending to test. Internal dubs should get a buff, even if it's not quite where it was before.

Anyways. Back to ED. I think lower heat cap does what ED is intended to do. However I do think that ED has a place in the game. Ballistics are not nearly as effected by heat as lasers. So, my suggestion is that ballistics get a higher energy draw ratio. While energy weapons actually get a much lower ratio. But, but, before you rip my head off. I would like to recommend in the case of long ranged energy weapons they also incur a recharge penalty. We really haven't seen recharge taken as part of the balance yet. PGI is holding to it as a representation of that .5 second delay to break up alphas. But it could be a viable balancing mechanic for certain weapons.

One last thing. Single heatsinks may be the go to for assaults if dissipation stays where it is. Don't know how I feel about that. I like it as an option, but not the only route for good damage.

This is just my opinion. With what little I got to test and looking through other people's posts and feedback.

Edited by MechaBattler, 13 September 2016 - 10:53 PM.


#2 Kaptain

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,263 posts
  • LocationNorth America

Posted 13 September 2016 - 11:17 PM

View PostMechaBattler, on 13 September 2016 - 10:51 PM, said:

they buffed dubs, but nerfed the engine internal dubs. Fupdup made a nice chart showing you need 24+ dub heatsinks to get better dissipation than in pts3. The change seems really counter intuitive to what PGI is intending to test.



They are setting "reduced capacity" up to fail.

#3 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,057 posts

Posted 15 September 2016 - 04:09 PM

View PostKaptain, on 13 September 2016 - 11:17 PM, said:

They are setting "reduced capacity" up to fail.


I don't think PGI would do that. It's a waste of time and effort. Perhaps they simply just thought it would be enough. Underestimating how much heat dissipation we would need to keep the game play fun, while still cutting down on alpha sizes.

Instead of making allegations, we should just ask them to hotfix in a higher dissipation for internal dubs. I would also suggest a reduced energy draw on lasers. Lower heat cap already addresses laser alphas. But ED can address ballistics and missiles.

#4 Kuaron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 16 September 2016 - 09:54 AM

My guess is they are trying to sustain an artificial necessity for their beloved child, the ED, by leaving the heat dissipation low and having a contrast between the quick ED and the slow heat recharge.

But yes, I too think the heat mechanic should be enough to balance lasers and laser alphas. And the ED bar should be used for cold weapons (I wrote about it somewhere else).
But I also have a problem with the interpretation of this bar. Energy draw is already represented by heat. It would be counter.intuitive and make no sense why firing a projectile weapon by just detonating it's propellant takes as much energy as projecting this energy in form of light directly at the enemy. And already is counter intuitive and makes no sense why both take about the same amount of energy.

To have stuff make sense, this "ballistic limiting" bar would have to be independent from heat, having other effects when over the limit.

#5 MechaBattler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,057 posts

Posted 16 September 2016 - 12:40 PM

View PostKuaron, on 16 September 2016 - 09:54 AM, said:

My guess is they are trying to sustain an artificial necessity for their beloved child, the ED, by leaving the heat dissipation low and having a contrast between the quick ED and the slow heat recharge.

But yes, I too think the heat mechanic should be enough to balance lasers and laser alphas. And the ED bar should be used for cold weapons (I wrote about it somewhere else).
But I also have a problem with the interpretation of this bar. Energy draw is already represented by heat. It would be counter.intuitive and make no sense why firing a projectile weapon by just detonating it's propellant takes as much energy as projecting this energy in form of light directly at the enemy. And already is counter intuitive and makes no sense why both take about the same amount of energy.

To have stuff make sense, this "ballistic limiting" bar would have to be independent from heat, having other effects when over the limit.


I don't think think using a whole different mechanic is necessary. Just for the sake of the name making sense.

#6 Kuaron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 16 September 2016 - 12:43 PM

If it was only a name, it would suffice to change the name. ;)

Unfortunately, though...





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users