23 replies to this topic

[RighteousDude]

Things that should draw on the energy generated by the reactor:
1: MOVEMENT. Acceleration, Deceleration (if you believe deceleration is a thing.) twisting, turning, running.
2: Laser Weapons. i.e. ERLL, ERML, ERSL, LL, ML, SL, LPL, MPL, SPL, PPC's, ERPPC's. Flamers.
3: Electrical systems: BAP, CAP, ECM, MASC, T-Com, CC (command console) AMS, LAMS (please put this into the game.) Targeting systems, sensors.
4: Electrical Propulsion Weapons Systems: GAUSS RIFLES, LB-X AUTOCANNONS, as they use capacitors that discharge massive amounts of current through electromagnets to propel the projectiles out of the barrel.

Things That should either draw very little or nothing from the reactor.

1: Ballistic weapons. Autocannons, Ultra Autocannons, Machineguns. If any draw is applied it should be a very small amount because the firing pins are probably solenoids, and the loading mechanisms/UN-jaming mechanisms are probably solenoids as well.
2: Missile Weapons: SRMs, LRMs, SSRMs.... again, small amounts of draw for bay loading, and small amount for targeting on those systems that require targeting. (e.g. SSRMs and LRMs.)


Things that Generate heat (Read further for breakdown of Types of heat generated.)

1: EVERYTHING! everything that draws on the reactor causes the reactor to generate more heat. everything that doesn't draw on the reactor, probably creates its own heat.

Types of heat:
1: Kinetic Heat: Things that touche other things generate friction. friction is heat.
A: Gauss rifles generate a LOT of friction heat, they have a muzzle velocity (ingame) of 2k M/s
B: LB-X Autocannons work the same way as Gauss rifles. essentially.
C: Autocannons (AC, U-AC, MG's) Generate Kinetic heat.

2: RADIANT HEAT: Things that generate heat separate of friction.
A: LASERS, they radiate heat because that's how they hurt bad mechs... with heat.
B: PPC's, because in addition to using massive amounts of electricity, it's also how they hurt bad mechs.

and the things that generate both.
: SRM's Propellant Generates Radiant and kinetic heat as they leave the tube.
: LRM's Propellant generates Radiant and kinetic heat as they leave the tube.

Motor Size: Should impact how much energy it generates. bigger motor means more top speed, maneuverability of your mech and more guns able to fire at once. Heatsinks applied to and in the motor should only effect the motor, and the thermal capacity of only the motor. heatsinks applied to the same component as a weapon should be applied to dissipate that weapons heat only, and should not effect heat capacity.

Heat capacity: should be determined by the amount of empty space, and the size of what's generating heat vs that amount of space. Application of HeatSinks to open space does not increase Capacity for heat. Rather, introduces dissipation of heat.

add it all together and you get some things that you don't do because it hurts you more than your target. You get more diverse loadouts, less need for huge recycle timers, and only very rarely useful, or even effective "ALPHA STRIKES". while big ones should exist, the time and place for them are few, far between, and may cause you more harm than your enemy. Definitely will cause you more harm if you're not under the circumstance of "Enemy at 220M, optimal for all guns. current temp at 12% capacity because I have been standing still, not shooting, passive radar instead of active radar, current planet surface temp is 32 Celsius, and my enemy isn't looking at me, and is now standing still. with no low obstruction, or high or side obstructions. the shot is clear" then it could be a wise choice to fire all guns at once to eliminate a single target quickly, without supporting actions of your teammates. the other 99% of the time, you have to work with, and for your teammates. YOU HAVE TO, if you DON'T, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO OVERHEAT AND DIE, OR YOU'LL JUST DIE ALONE TO ENEMY FIRE. See? add up my reasoning, and it solves all the problems. If you have any questions, please pose them. If you have additions, please pose them. If you are a troll, go somewhere else, we want a better, more thrilling, and more involving game here.

[FupDup]

"Energy Draw" is just a fancy term for Damage Cap.

If you remove ballistics and missiles from ED, then having ED at all is literally useless. Heat itself already accomplishes the objective of hitting energy but not hitting ballistics or missiles that much.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 15 September 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

"Energy Draw" is just a fancy term for Damage Cap.

If you remove ballistics and missiles from ED, then having ED at all is literally useless. Heat itself already accomplishes the objective of hitting energy but not hitting ballistics or missiles that much.

This.


While I understand that many don't like ED (and with reasons ranging from wholly justified to outright stupid) people need to understand that ED exists not to "emulate power draw from your reactor" but "as Battletech Space Magic to spread fire over a couple seconds rather than in one massive alpha", and most specifically to bundle all weapons under one umbrella - otherwise, we'd just stick with ghost heat which will cover you for individual weapon boating issues.

Taking ballistics out of ED makes it a complete waste of time, as the whole point is to cover combined alphas regardless of what types of weapons they are.


As soon as you start proposing changes to ED based on your interpretation of the utterly stupid fluff that was written up to gloss over the Battletech Space Magic.


Changing systems to make something "sound like how it should work" is a wide, straight road to worse game design.

[RighteousDude]

FupDup, on 15 September 2016 - 02:13 PM, said:

"Energy Draw" is just a fancy term for Damage Cap.

If you remove ballistics and missiles from ED, then having ED at all is literally useless. Heat itself already accomplishes the objective of hitting energy but not hitting ballistics or missiles that much.

Ah yes... But, if you apply Everything that runs off of the energy generated by the reactor, and I mean EVERYTHING THAT USES REACTOR ENERGY, then make the reactor generate its own heat to produce that energy, in addition to the heat generated by other things; it makes the application, and experience just a little bit more dynamic and involving. More so than, just put some random huge guns on a big stompy and run around like a 5 year old with tourette syndrome with absolutely no consequences... Like Ballistic kickback, not a thing in this game. why? so that 5 year old kids can run around with tourette syndrome with absolutely no consequences.

also, kinetic heat generation and thermal capacity based on size of heat source (not just numerical value of heat generated) and space available balances AC/s out perfectly. if you have a UAC/20 in your right arm, there's no room for heatsinks to dissipate any of the heat it generates. so... it's going to generate its own heat, and cause other things to get hot because it's hot.... therefor, if you have 1 UAC/20 in your right arm... it would be really dumb to also put one in your left arm.

so really, and again, having ED, but with full implementation, with all angles covered, T's crossed, and I's dotted, would only make the game more dynamic, with only more emphasis on what the game is truly about: TEAMWORK.

[RighteousDude]

Wintersdark, on 15 September 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

This.


While I understand that many don't like ED (and with reasons ranging from wholly justified to outright stupid) people need to understand that ED exists not to "emulate power draw from your reactor" but "as Battletech Space Magic to spread fire over a couple seconds rather than in one massive alpha", and most specifically to bundle all weapons under one umbrella - otherwise, we'd just stick with ghost heat which will cover you for individual weapon boating issues.

Taking ballistics out of ED makes it a complete waste of time, as the whole point is to cover combined alphas regardless of what types of weapons they are.


As soon as you start proposing changes to ED based on your interpretation of the utterly stupid fluff that was written up to gloss over the Battletech Space Magic.


Changing systems to make something "sound like how it should work" is a wide, straight road to worse game design.

firstly, it should be energy generated and drawn from the reactor, and not battletech space magic to keep people from 100 point alpha strikes.

which is why:
If autocannons don't draw energy, why not make an autocannon... you know. an autocannon. instead of the huge fixed artillery pieces they are now? you know, an AUTOMATIC CANNON, kinda like you see in current AA (Anti Aircraft Guns)? 20mm Slugs that fire quite rapidly... wait that's an AC2, but here's my point, they all fire like an AC/2. just, an AC/5 does it faster, an AC/10 does it EVEN faster, and a 20 does it the fastest. because you're right, making AC/s not draw energy would make the system irrelevant. Change the system to what it should be: Energy Generated for use by the reactor. and make AC's and missiles what they should be: Weapons that don't draw on the reactor, because literally EVERYTHING ELSE should draw on the reactor. This game could be great, and it would balance itself out.

what should be and what's being tested are 2 totally different things though... I know.... Did you know, that this game is based on a table top game that's based on a computer game, that's based on a board game made in the early 70's? did you also know that that board game made in the 70's was based on a series of books (sci-fy) written by a professor of physics in the 50's? Cut away the BS, and look to the roots. The game would be better off. better than the interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago. wouldn't it be better?

Edited by RighteousDude, 15 September 2016 - 02:56 PM.

[davoodoo]

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

you know, an AUTOMATIC CANNON, kinda like you see in current AA (Anti Aircraft Guns)? 20mm Slugs that fire quite rapidly... wait that's an AC2, but here's my point, they all fire like an AC/2. just, an AC/5 does it faster, an AC/10 does it EVEN faster, and a 20 does it the fastest.

Not rly no.

I cant remember all calibers.

but ac2 are basically 20-50mm
ac5 i think 40-70mm
ac10 cant remember, i think up to 150mm.
ac20 up to 203mm.

There are variants firing in short bursts or variants firing up to 50 shells.

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 02:42 PM, said:

Ah yes... But, if you apply Everything that runs off of the energy generated by the reactor, and I mean EVERYTHING THAT USES REACTOR ENERGY

Not everything, mech actually uses heat generated by itself to generate more energy.

And you would be amazed, gauss uses less energy than small laser.
Ice engine cant power any energy weapons but can easily power gauss rifle.

Edited by davoodoo, 15 September 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[Wintersdark]

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

firstly, it should be energy generated and drawn from the reactor, and not battletech space magic to keep people from 100 point alpha strikes.

ED is a system developed for a specific game design purpose. Saying you want it for some random fluff purpose is pointless at best and outright dangerous at worse, because then you get bandaid systems that are somewhat ill-advised to start with being adapted to "make more sense" in a world of stupid battletech space magic, and thus being neither good "sim systems" nor systems that solve the game design problem they where initially created for.

That's a huge freaking mess.

[RighteousDude]

davoodoo, on 15 September 2016 - 03:04 PM, said:

Not rly no.

I cant remember all calibers.

but ac2 are basically 20-50mm
ac5 i think 40-70mm
ac10 cant remember, i think up to 150mm.
ac20 up to 203mm.

There are variants firing in short bursts or variants firing up to 50 shells.

this game is based on a table top game that's based on a computer game, that's based on a board game made in the early 70's? did you also know that that board game made in the 70's was based on a series of books (sci-fy) written by a professor of physics in the 50's

why are you repeating none sense from the interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago?

because PGI has seldom done this. look, the jenner is not as tall as a catapult, and a locust is not as tall as a warhammer.... so why should the caliber of the guns remain the same as what was stated in the interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago? really? why? troll.

[davoodoo]

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 03:12 PM, said:

this game is based on a table top game that's based on a computer game, that's based on a board game made in the early 70's? did you also know that that board game made in the 70's was based on a series of books (sci-fy) written by a professor of physics in the 50's

why are you repeating none sense from the interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago?

because PGI has seldom done this. look, the jenner is not as tall as a catapult, and a locust is not as tall as a warhammer.... so why should the caliber of the guns remain the same as what was stated in the interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago? really? why? troll.

I dont troll and why do i repeat that.

Well because

So i expect them to use some of the source material.

And still it started in 84 with board game(tt), video games came in 90's.

Edited by davoodoo, 15 September 2016 - 03:20 PM.

[RighteousDude]

Wintersdark, on 15 September 2016 - 03:09 PM, said:

ED is a system developed for a specific game design purpose. Saying you want it for some random fluff purpose is pointless at best and outright dangerous at worse, because then you get bandaid systems that are somewhat ill-advised to start with being adapted to "make more sense" in a world of stupid battletech space magic, and thus being neither good "sim systems" nor systems that solve the game design problem they where initially created for.

That's a huge freaking mess.

sounds like you need to spend money on a different game then mate. and take criticism and suggestion as such.... without getting butthurt that they're changing the thing you bought.

[RighteousDude]

davoodoo, on 15 September 2016 - 03:15 PM, said:

I dont troll and why do i repeat that.

Well because

So i expect them to use some of the source material.

omg..... but they aren't.... i told you this in the other post dude. if they went by source material the Locust would be AS TALL AS a WarHammer! Is this because you don't like the idea of energy draw? or because when you stub your toe it hurts? because physics is a *****, i get it. but if you offered alternative suggestions instead of irately calling all suggestions dumb, then I wouldn't be calling you a troll. not to mention that this is our 5th interaction on 2 separate threads. If you really wanted PGI to use source material, you would not be on this thread. because as stated: this system is supposed to be in support and relation to the fact that the BattleMechs run on electricity generated by a Nuclear Fusion Reactor, and as such most system draw on energy generated by it..... that's as close to verbatim as i can remember, but what was intended, and what you're making it into, are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. so unless you have sound, coherent suggestions as to how to make an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago work in a current FPS environment, i suggest you STFU.

Edited by RighteousDude, 15 September 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[Wintersdark]

I'm not butthurt that they're changing it. I like it changing. I'm happy if ED happens, I'm happy if it doesn't.

And for reference, I'd prefer a more sim-style game, preferably more hardcore and demanding on pilots.

What I DON'T want to see is halfassed mixed systems designed for one purpose, then changed to not fulfill that purpose but ALSO not do anything else useful well either. If PGI wants to add more simple elements, then I'm all for that. I'd love to see a good heat penalty system, movement speeds slowed in water, all sorts of pretty reasonable stuff. But a Frankenstein hodgepodge of only half implemented gameplay designs? No. That doesn't do anything well.

[RighteousDude]

Wintersdark, on 15 September 2016 - 03:26 PM, said:

I'm not butthurt that they're changing it. I like it changing. I'm happy if ED happens, I'm happy if it doesn't.

And for reference, I'd prefer a more sim-style game, preferably more hardcore and demanding on pilots.

What I DON'T want to see is halfassed mixed systems designed for one purpose, then changed to not fulfill that purpose but ALSO not do anything else useful well either. If PGI wants to add more simple elements, then I'm all for that. I'd love to see a good heat penalty system, movement speeds slowed in water, all sorts of pretty reasonable stuff. But a Frankenstein hodgepodge of only half implemented gameplay designs? No. That doesn't do anything well.

that is exactly what I was trying to state, that I was in support of the initial statement regarding energy draw. If the core of that statement is to be realized, these are my suggestions on how to make that possible. without them, i don't see how the energy draw system could be anything other than what it is currently in PTS and what you claim it is, another frankenstein hodgepodge of only half implemented gamplay design.

ergo, all of my previous statements.

my point is, stop dogging on what it is, and suggest to what it could be. what it should be.



P.S. See that DavooDoo? that's how you DON'T TROLL. Don't counter the suggestion, don't make it irrelevant, don't criticize it. Either support or differ it. I hoped to understand his meaning. He hoped to understand mine, and now hopefully, we have accomplished successful communication and have come to a preposition or at least an impasse. As I have offered alternatives, so I hope to be offered alternatives about energy draw, and the way I believe it should work.

Edited by RighteousDude, 15 September 2016 - 03:35 PM.

[Wintersdark]

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 03:30 PM, said:

that is exactly what I was trying to state, that I was in support of the initial statement regarding energy draw. If the core of that statement is to be realized, these are my suggestions on how to make that possible. without them, i don't see how the energy draw system could be anything other than what it is currently in PTS and what you claim it is, another frankenstein hodgepodge of only half implemented gamplay design.

ergo, all of my previous statements.

my point is, stop dogging on what it is, and suggest to what it could be. what it should be.



P.S. See that DavooDoo? that's how you DON'T TROLL. Don't counter the suggestion, don't make it irrelevant, don't criticize it. Either support or differ it.

But what you recommend totally fails to acheive the underlying purpose of ED. If it achieved that purpose AND was cooler, then sure. But it doesn't.

[davoodoo]

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

omg..... but they aren't.... i told you this in the other post dude. if they went by source material the Locust would be AS TALL AS a WarHammer! Is this because you don't like the idea of energy draw? or because when you stub your toe it hurts? because physics is a *****, i get it. but if you offered alternative suggestions instead of irately calling all suggestions dumb, then I wouldn't be calling you a troll. not to mention that this is our 5th interaction on 2 separate threads. If you really wanted PGI to use source material, you would not be on this thread. because as stated: this system is supposed to be in support and relation to the fact that the BattleMechs run on electricity generated by a Nuclear Fusion Reactor, and as such most system draw on energy generated by it..... that's as close to verbatim as i can remember, but what was intended, and what you're making it into, are TOTALLY DIFFERENT. so unless you have sound, coherent suggestions as to how to make an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago work in a current FPS environment, i suggest you STFU.

I cant remember height of warhammer, but comparable tonnage clan mechs were around 12m
Locust would be around 8 meters
Yes they are all horribly tall...

No i dont like idea of energy draw any more than gh...
I could however swallow gh as its fairly balanced, ed however is horribly broken from balance standpoint.

Mech scale however, on one hand it helps to balance, on the other hand, it helps to balane because they went with pinpoint accurate weapons.

And i dont even care if idea is realistic or not, if it follows scifi universe internal logic thats good enough to me.

For example i can gladly accept lightsaber from star wars being well laser sword, despite how dumb that is in reality.
What i cant however accept is swtor suddenly calling it plasma...

Edited by davoodoo, 15 September 2016 - 03:38 PM.

[RighteousDude]

underlying purpose being to increase time to kill. right?

well, if you make everything that should draw from the reactor, draw from the reactor. Then you make the reactor generate heat, A LOT OF HEAT. then make other things not draw from the reactor, but generate heat. ... and all to locate and destroy 12 enemy mechs...so now everything you do generates heat, and quite a few things your opponent does generates or even transfers heat to you. then make it a bad idea to go for a CT killshot when enemy mechs are too close... because nuclear bombs and such... how does that not all increase time to kill? here's a theoretical scenario running a 12v12 match, with 3 lights, 3 mediums, 3 heavies, and 3 assaults, from each players perspective: "ran in, so you're too hot to shoot, ran away so you're too hot to shoot. been standing still shooting too long, too hot to run away. ... dang, that bad guy got too close I can't go for the easy CT kill have to try to cockpit or strip him or his reactor will kill me too.... good thing my team mate didn't leave and is helping me strip this guy down..."

none of that increases time to kill?

none of that enhances gameplay? I mean... sure.. 12 year old kids... but... ban them.

Edited by RighteousDude, 15 September 2016 - 03:53 PM.

[RighteousDude]

davoodoo, on 15 September 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

I cant remember height of warhammer, but comparable tonnage clan mechs were around 12m
Locust would be around 8 meters
Yes they are all horribly tall...

No i dont like idea of energy draw any more than gh...
I could however swallow gh as its fairly balanced, ed however is horribly broken from balance standpoint.

Mech scale however, on one hand it helps to balance, on the other hand, it helps to balane because they went with pinpoint accurate weapons.

And i dont even care if idea is realistic or not, if it follows scifi universe internal logic thats good enough to me.

For example i can gladly accept lightsaber from star wars being well laser sword, despite how dumb that is in reality.
What i cant however accept is swtor suddenly calling it plasma...

k, go read Robotech... all 112 books. all 132 battletech related books.... then you can tell PGI that they're not running from source because you'll be able to say exactly where, why, and how. a Warhammer is 11 meters tall, loadout capacity is 70 Metric Tons (2000 lbs./METRIC TON.) and a locust is 11.1 Meters tall, loadout capacity is 20 Metric tons... neither loadout capacity has anything to do with the total weight, or size, or maneuverability of the chassis. if you want 100% source material...............otherwise... really, it's a interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago.... either take it, or leave it. or know all of it, love it, and be furious about EVERYTHING this game is.


oh, and play all 38 board games.... and 6 iterations of table top games... all 97 computer games, including console.

because really, it's been around for almost 60 years. and they're basing it all on an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of an interpretation of a representation of theoretical possibilities from 60 years ago.

Edited by RighteousDude, 15 September 2016 - 03:44 PM.

[davoodoo]

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 03:37 PM, said:

underlying purpose being to increase time to kill. right?

Which it did only for 1v1 which already had like many ppl say "long enough ttk".

In group tactics only things that fired at brawl range ever exceeded 30 dmg alpha.
Thing like stalker 4n, with 6 llas always fired them 3 by 3.
ppc/gauss boats always adjusted aim for velocity.

Only thing ed actually tries to curb is laservomit, thing which wasnt even meta for months now.
Everything else in gh was already adjusted for 30 dmg.
Problem it created is that theres really no reason to go with short range weaponry when you can take as much long range damage which led to multiple nerfs changes and so on to the point where we are now, where only weapons which werent nerfed are lbx, large lurm racks and srm2, stuff which no one wants to use.

Edited by davoodoo, 15 September 2016 - 03:52 PM.

[RighteousDude]

so... why not either make everything 8v8 again... or! OR! don't listen to the tirds doing 1v1's to determine Time to Kill. in reality, it should take upwards of 5 minutes to kill 1v1. or.... did we all forget that this was a TEAMWORK EMPHASIZED game? Or, literally make it to where you can only fire 1 weapon at a time.... OR... make everything you do generate heat.

[davoodoo]

RighteousDude, on 15 September 2016 - 03:57 PM, said:

so... why not either make everything 8v8 again... or! OR! don't listen to the tirds doing 1v1's to determine Time to Kill. in reality, it should take upwards of 5 minutes to kill 1v1. or.... did we all forget that this was a TEAMWORK EMPHASIZED game? Or, literally make it to where you can only fire 1 weapon at a time.... OR... make everything you do generate heat.

Why not... 1v1 ttk being fine is piece of information that problem doesnt seem to be related to dmg specific mechs do.
And 8v8 will hardly help with anything when you need only 6 ppl each firing 30 dmg alpha to down 100 tonner

and 5 miutes in 1v1?? that will be 30x 10 second turns. which means you hit with 3 mlas every turn and somehow perfectly spread damage around atlas without finishing off head legs or ct. Kinda unimpressive amounts of weaponry(stock locust1e packs more) and impressive display of rngesus hate for you.

And yes, back in pts1 i predicted someone will ask for 1 weapon at a time... guess what theres already thread saying 1 weapon max per group and categories should only be allowed to have 1 kind of weapon basicallly 2/2/2.

Edited by davoodoo, 15 September 2016 - 04:15 PM.