Jump to content

Should Pgi Give Us True Dubs? (0.2 Hps Double Heat Sinks)


56 replies to this topic

Poll: Should PGI Give us True Dubs? (44 member(s) have cast votes)

Should DHS dissipate 0.2 HPS?

  1. Yes. (38 votes [86.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 86.36%

  2. No, keep them at 0.19 HPS. (6 votes [13.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.64%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 20 September 2016 - 01:50 PM

View PostQuicksilver Kalasa, on 20 September 2016 - 01:19 PM, said:

Kodiak doesn't get a bonus because it is never running with just the base 10 DHS except maybe the Quad Gauss build, at worst it is running 15-16 DHS.


Night Gyr might need it given how slow it is, but then again, it has dakka so we will see how well it compares to the Dakkahammer.


The Kodiak-3 doesn't get as MUCH of a bonus, proportionally, than it would if it had slightly fewer sinks... but it certainly DOES benefit, and significantly compared to an equivalent energy build at 100 tons. Rather than the 5 DHS bonus you get at 10 HS, I think it's equivalent to, what... 3 DHS? I'd have to do the math for the exact bonus, but that's still quite a bit.

#42 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 20 September 2016 - 02:21 PM

View PostRobinson Crusher, on 20 September 2016 - 04:17 AM, said:

I wish the quoting here let me edit text like I can on other forums... and if there is a way to do that here, then someone feel free to let me know how... because I'd like to focus on the last three points you make (as the above analysis is pretty clear). Lovely, it seems to be refusing to include ScarecrowES post responding to my last post.

First let me say that I don't think the original designers of Battletech put this level of thought into the values they chose for weapons and heat. The numbers just don't produce the results in game that they describe in the BT fiction. In fiction people are going hot to tip the balance at some crisis point. In TT you never do, because the penalties are so prohibitive. Making some changes to the heat system would be necessary to make min-maxing gamers willing to take on the penalties. Not that I'm saying the changes PGI made are the right ones, mind you. I also dislike the thirty free heat and no effect on offensive potential environment. I'm just saying that a return to TT would put us back to a situation where no one ever alphas at all, and the alpha strike should have a place in the game since it is a part of the lore.

I agree with the second to last point, but damage and heat are of course related, since you are trading one to get the other. Since people are dying too fast for the game to have maximized enjoyment, some kind of damage choke point seems reasonable.

The final point is the crux of the matter as I see it. By decoupling heat from the build they are forcing a radical change in builds, so much so that people need to reconsider what 'mechs meet their play-styles. Here is the hidden head of the business decision and one that leads to long term bad things for a game. That is to say, the rules change which is designed to sell new hardware. Just like Quirk nerfs that force people out of their current mech, the ED system will produce a flurry of new mech choices and a stream of revenue. Yes, I think the Devs understand their game very well.

I wish all the devs could be forced to play Star Trek online, look at what happened to the best space sim once it adopted that kind of strategy, and take careful note of population levels even amongst Fans who are notorious for being radically committed to their IP.


I wanted to wait til I got home to address yours, since it would be easier to think out a decent reply.

In terms of the BT fiction and the game... I certainly don't think one has bearing on the other, haha. There is a LOT in the fiction that simply makes no sense. It's designed to entertain, not make a functional game.

One interesting dynamic though, when translating the turns of TT to real time like MWO is that, since you've lowered the cooldowns and basically upped the tempo, is that it's easier to push the heat system in MWO than it is in TT. A build that would be perfectly heat neutral in TT is not going to be in MWO (for the most part). Certainly in TT, if you built in enough sinks for your build, you could alpha every single turn. Even a 4xERPPC Warhawk, which is NOT heat neutral, could fire several alphas back-to-back, drop one PPC after a few volleys, and then get right back to a few more full alphas.

Not so easy in MWO. With the TT system in real time, you're looking at one alpha every 10 seconds or so if you want to stay out of penalties. Not bad. Reasonable, I'd say - 60 damage every 10 seconds is not too much, but since it's PPFLD that's a good burst... seems fair for an 85-ton mech. Or, it can chain or volley fire however needed, and be able to sustain that fight for quite awhile.

And this is kinda what we're going for. Typically, a player is going to build a mech with a heat management score around 1.2. This is going to translate to around 1 good alpha without penalties. And you should be able to do that again in no more than 10 seconds. Some maybe a little sooner for low-damage alphas. So throwing alphas down range will still absolutely be a thing. Throwing alphas down range one after the other will NOT be a thing, and I think that's the goal people are leaning toward. But of course, we can make adjustments to make this feel right in the hands of players.

To the next point... Damage and heat ARE related, but are not the same thing... remember that's the point I was trying to make. These are two parts of a trifecta... output (damage and range), heat, and investment (weight, crits, ammo, sinks). Damage is not the control number, heat is - and that's by design, both in TT and in MWO. I would point to how convoluted ED has had to get to try to eek out some level of "balance" using damage as a basis for the system.

Before the system was even set to test, the idea that we could use damage as a metric for output began to crack. After PTS1, that notion pretty much died. Every weapon thereafter ended up with a different draw value. As the community has known well pretty much forever, not all damage is created equal... damage is only half of output... range matters too, and the methodology of applying damage matters. No... heat is what these systems were designed to look at, and for very good reason.

I would add, to your last points... I don't tend to think much of PGI's development intelligence, but I can't lower my expectations so much that I'd believe they'd actually make such abstract changes with such wide-ranging negative effects specifically to set up a paradigm shift designed to bolster sales... and not expect it to tank their game. The proportion of games that fall apart after such changes is MUCH higher than games that get better.

#43 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,642 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 20 September 2016 - 06:58 PM

Quote

I wish the quoting here let me edit text like I can on other forums... and if there is a way to do that here, then someone feel free to let me know how... because I'd like to focus on the last three points you make (as the above analysis is pretty clear). Lovely, it seems to be refusing to include ScarecrowES post responding to my last post.


Hit the quote button and remove the unneeded text, or copy/paste as text. Then select the text and hit the Quote button, or [-quote-] [/-quote-] without the dashes, or a combination.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 20 September 2016 - 07:00 PM.


#44 cazidin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 22 September 2016 - 07:53 PM

View PostTarl Cabot, on 20 September 2016 - 06:58 PM, said:


Hit the quote button and remove the unneeded text, or copy/paste as text. Then select the text and hit the Quote button, or [-quote-] [/-quote-] without the dashes, or a combination.


He may quote me. I'll say something wise and insightful in 3... 2... 1...

Bacon is delicious.

#45 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 22 September 2016 - 08:48 PM

View Postcazidin, on 22 September 2016 - 07:53 PM, said:


He may quote me. I'll say something wise and insightful in 3... 2... 1...

Bacon is delicious.


*gasp* Poignant and succinct.

#46 Robinson Crusher

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 129 posts

Posted 24 September 2016 - 11:09 PM

Trouble is that when I hit the quote button, for some reason I'm not getting any text to edit
. For example this is what I got when I quoted your instructions... just a blank response box.

Can a forum account be bugged?

Edited by Robinson Crusher, 24 September 2016 - 11:12 PM.


#47 C E Dwyer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 9,274 posts
  • LocationHiding in the periphery, from Bounty Hunters

Posted 25 September 2016 - 03:53 AM

View PostScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 06:25 PM, said:


The thing is... if you actually look at what players are advocating for... specifically things like much lower heat cap and much higher dissipation, the way they want alphas handled, they way they want burst damage handled... how much damage they feel is ok to do in a given amount of time... everything players say they want, deep down, when you really ASK them, the TT system provides.

Just putting in the system as it was originally intended does ALL of this. THESE players get their higher caps and low dissipation. THESE players get their low cap and high dissipation. THESE players watch alphas get curbed. THESE players still get to alpha if they pay for it properly. These players get to watch TTK expanded, but THESE players get a system where skill makes a difference. Everyone wins. Nobody gets screwed.

And all we have to do is follow the ORIGINAL design.

Konivig has been saying when he was active, lower thresh hold and higher dissipation since closed beta, and something I strongly believe is the right way to go, had PGI listened, there would have been pretty much everything people want and there would have been no need for Heat Scale, or this nonsense.

Alas PGI don't listen to the right people.

#48 Amerante

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 93 posts
  • LocationHungary

Posted 25 September 2016 - 07:04 AM

I for one would like to see ED how turns out, as love the limiting factor in it. But after some thought, it "low threshold high dissipation" as well. For the trudubs, Yea, I think it would be better to have the doubles really doubles, and maybe boost singles instead.

And heat penalties! I like the concept of the ED, but if I could choose I would choose heat penelties! Would add sooo much to the game, AND it would definitly strengthen the "thinking man's shooter" idea too.

#49 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 25 September 2016 - 12:26 PM

View PostCathy, on 25 September 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

Konivig has been saying when he was active, lower thresh hold and higher dissipation since closed beta, and something I strongly believe is the right way to go, had PGI listened, there would have been pretty much everything people want and there would have been no need for Heat Scale, or this nonsense.

Alas PGI don't listen to the right people.


I don't know what to say in terms of WHY this is. I've paid a LOT more attention to Russ's Twitter feed as we've gone through the ED process, and there really IS a noticeable bias toward responding to or re-tweeting praise. Rarely is there any response to clearly negative feedback, and when there is, it's almost universally dismissive.

There's a line of tweets talking about moving forward with ED, including massive patching to support a full live-server test and even talk already of adding ED to the live servers as early as November. When pressed on the issue of players really not having a positive opinion of ED, Russ stated that he believed the majority thought it was better, but that he hadn't bothered to actually look at player response.

Of course, his twitter feed is FULL of negative responses. In fact, it's overwhelmingly negative... to the point where positive responses are few and far between. How does one see such responses, not bother to actually look at player opinion in his own forums, and still come up with the idea that the majority supports ED?

We had an incident this week where one of MWO's most prolific promoters received a Twitter block from Russ because someone pointed Russ toward one of his videos where he criticized (in an entirely professional and appropriate way) the methodology being used for the PTS - basically that the changes were haphazard, feedback wasn't being followed, and that we're supposed to be testing ED as a system, but PGI is messing with everything BUT ED to try to make it work. Russ, upon issuing the block, said that criticizing the way the devs do things is a way to make sure your voice is not heard.

Now, Russ later unblocked said poster, saying it was a hasty "mistake." But the point there is loud and clear I think. Your voice only counts if you agree with his position.

And weirdly enough... there is MUCH support over systems that are in the direction PGI has been heading with his most recent PTS changes... specifically in regard to lowering effective cap and raising effective dissipation rates. The specific changes have not been seen as favorable, but the direction has. Players are also nearly universally in favor of a real penalty system... and Russ himself supports this.

It would seem obvious that the course of action that most players would support would be in fixing the high cap of the base heat system and implementing real heat penalties. Unfortunately, even though it's been proven otherwise, some of the people Russ actually listens to have said the TT system won't work for MWO. I think we've demonstrated just how WELL it actually does work in these forums since the ED PTS started, and enough people agree that I think there is more than enough support to try.

#50 MrVei

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 97 posts

Posted 25 September 2016 - 10:23 PM

View PostScarecrowES, on 16 September 2016 - 07:43 PM, said:


I believe many of the technical issues they have with such simple systems comes from their insistence that core gameplay systems be handled on the servers rather than the client as "anti-cheat" measures. This is a concept they expanded on quite a bit when that article about predictive weapons coding came out.

A lot of the discussion was that there were a lot of things that would be easy to do from the client perspective, including stuff related to hit reg, but that PGI insisted on doing things through the servers to prevent the possibility of cheating and corrupted clients.

I really can't see anything in energy draw that would have required the sort of technical wizardry PGI claimed it would have required, unless it's featuring more of the same "server prediction" crap.

In any case, Energy Draw works mechanically. And the same mechanics that make Energy Draw work are the same mechanics that make the TT heat system work. All you have to do is have the ED bar look at heat instead of damage. Then, swap the functionality of the ED bar and heat scale - ED bar gets the heat cap (defined by the number of sinks times their value) and dissipation rate (1/10th of the heat cap per sec), and the heat scale gets a fixed 30 pts and a dissipation rate equal to 1/10th of the unused portion of the ED scale.

Boom, you just created the TT heat system. Less than a day's work.

We already have coding for variable movement in the game... MASC, getting legged, losing a torso on the Clan side. You just need some coding for the bar to change states at certain levels on the bar. That's super easy. And now you have scaled movement penalties.

The other penalties take work. Players have recommended HUD fade and fizzle... that takes the same state-change coding as movement penalties AND some UI artwork to add the effect. Some players have suggested losing sensor data and targeting info... those systems already exist, so it's just a matter of turning them off completely at certain heat levels, or changing their function, depending on exactly what we want to see. Some immersion-increasing pilot heat effects would be cool... heat distortion in the air around the pilot would be awesome, but a heavy burdon on the engine.

Other things like pilot damage might be nice... expand on the "damage for overheat" concept on live. In addition to taking damage when you overheat, maybe make the pilot take damage for spending too much time at high heat - not enough to kill you quickly, but enough that if you spend a lot of the match running hot, it could eventually kill you. The hotter it is, the more ticks of damage accumulated over the match. Maybe represented by damage done to the heat of the mech?

It's really NOT that hard. And even without the penalties online right away, just putting the TT system in should curb SOME of the problems with TTK and high output just from pure mechanics alone.


you! I like you... you should be on the next round table thing XD

#51 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 26 September 2016 - 05:01 AM

View PostMrVei, on 25 September 2016 - 10:23 PM, said:


you! I like you... you should be on the next round table thing XD


If my unit gets invited back, that might very well be the case. My unit lead represented us at the last one, but it's been suggested I sit in for the next if we get another. Who knows.

#52 cazidin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 26 September 2016 - 06:57 AM

View PostScarecrowES, on 26 September 2016 - 05:01 AM, said:

If my unit gets invited back, that might very well be the case. My unit lead represented us at the last one, but it's been suggested I sit in for the next if we get another. Who knows.


The round table discussion that I'm fairly certain Russ has forgotten about already? No offense to yourself or your unit, of course.

#53 Kael Posavatz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 971 posts
  • LocationOn a quest to find the Star League

Posted 26 September 2016 - 07:38 AM

View Postcazidin, on 26 September 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:

The round table discussion that I'm fairly certain Russ has forgotten about already? No offense to yourself or your unit, of course.


It took PGI more than a month to decide what to do with it, and their proposed changes are far more extensive than what was put forward. With an almost 6-month turn-around from announcing that the Round Tables were happening, to implementation (assuming we meet that December deadline), it makes me wonder if the only work PGI will do on community warfare is what RT's propose (aside from the new map designers saying 'I think I'll work on an Invasion map this month').

#54 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 26 September 2016 - 08:18 AM

View Postcazidin, on 26 September 2016 - 06:57 AM, said:


The round table discussion that I'm fairly certain Russ has forgotten about already? No offense to yourself or your unit, of course.


No offense taken. I personally disliked the general tone and methodology of the round table, and was OK with sitting that one out. With the topic being "buckets" the result was a foregone conclusion, and really didn't need that level of discussion.

And much as I hate everything about it, going clan vs IS was really the only way to achieve PGI'S goals in the short term. In preparation for what I figured would be inevitable, I championed a few ideas for how that could be implemented in a way that at least retained some faction flavor, and I'm happy as least that some of those ideas made it in. Specifically retaining at least some level of warplanning and having rotating faction events, etc.

I'm actually more surprised at the other changes. Adding QP to FP was something I've pushed for quite hard, and respawns in those modes as well. Moving from the "territories" system to a tug of war always made more sense. Not everything is implemented exactly as I laid out, but looking at what's being done I'd swear PGI was cribbing from my notes.

As much as I find some of the changes fairly horrifying (clan vs IS), I try to have some peace of mind in knowing that they're necessary in the short term, and have hope that some of them STAY short term.

#55 Kael Posavatz

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 971 posts
  • LocationOn a quest to find the Star League

Posted 26 September 2016 - 09:08 AM

View PostScarecrowES, on 26 September 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

As much as I find some of the changes fairly horrifying (clan vs IS), I try to have some peace of mind in knowing that they're necessary in the short term, and have hope that some of them STAY short term.


I don't necessarily find the Clan vs IS to be as horrifying so much as how Russ proposed to handle planet flipping. Retaining the various houses and clans as sub-factions was probably a necessary nod if they weren't going to totally alienate the (mostly) already highly-dissatisfied loyalist population that feels taken for granted and put upon, as well as to maintain the veneer of the game being set in the BT universe. Unfortunately, I think that--at least in regards to loyalists--is going to happen anyway under the proposed planet-flipping mechanic. I'm not sure there is a good way to handle it once you go 'two super-factions', but taking 1 planet from each of FOUR sub-factions vs taking 4 planets for ONE sub-faction is probably not it.

That said, I think the bucket issue was a logical beginning point. The two things I find troubling about it are that, first, the round-table itself took far longer than the issue deserved, and two, it's going to take approximately six months to go from saying "we are having a Round-Table on Bukkets" to Patch-day (assuming December patch deadline is met).

Edited by Kael Posavatz, 26 September 2016 - 09:09 AM.


#56 cazidin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • FP Veteran - Beta 2
  • 4,259 posts

Posted 26 September 2016 - 10:38 AM

View PostKael Posavatz, on 26 September 2016 - 07:38 AM, said:

It took PGI more than a month to decide what to do with it, and their proposed changes are far more extensive than what was put forward. With an almost 6-month turn-around from announcing that the Round Tables were happening, to implementation (assuming we meet that December deadline), it makes me wonder if the only work PGI will do on community warfare is what RT's propose (aside from the new map designers saying 'I think I'll work on an Invasion map this month').


I wonder IF PGI will do the work proposed from the RT. I listened to the first half of that and I heard a lot of good ideas but Russ' responses seemed to either be "That'd be nice to implement but..." "...buckets..." "...we're looking forward to something similar..." "...buckets..." "...These are all really good ideas..." "...chocolate buckets are tasty." and that's what we're told on Twitter and I'm STILL waiting for my promised Command Console buff!

View PostScarecrowES, on 26 September 2016 - 08:18 AM, said:

No offense taken. I personally disliked the general tone and methodology of the round table, and was OK with sitting that one out. With the topic being "buckets" the result was a foregone conclusion, and really didn't need that level of discussion.

And much as I hate everything about it, going clan vs IS was really the only way to achieve PGI'S goals in the short term. In preparation for what I figured would be inevitable, I championed a few ideas for how that could be implemented in a way that at least retained some faction flavor, and I'm happy as least that some of those ideas made it in. Specifically retaining at least some level of warplanning and having rotating faction events, etc.

I'm actually more surprised at the other changes. Adding QP to FP was something I've pushed for quite hard, and respawns in those modes as well. Moving from the "territories" system to a tug of war always made more sense. Not everything is implemented exactly as I laid out, but looking at what's being done I'd swear PGI was cribbing from my notes.

As much as I find some of the changes fairly horrifying (clan vs IS), I try to have some peace of mind in knowing that they're necessary in the short term, and have hope that some of them STAY short term.


Be VERY careful when asking for short term fixes by PGI. That's very similar to a temporary tax. "We need to raise taxes by 2% on gas for 2 years..." and this temporary tax is renewed every few years until it's made permanent. PGI's short term is about a year or 2 and to be fair, they're a small team.

#57 ScarecrowES

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 2,812 posts
  • LocationDefending the Cordon, Arc-Royal

Posted 26 September 2016 - 10:47 AM

View Postcazidin, on 26 September 2016 - 10:38 AM, said:

Be VERY careful when asking for short term fixes by PGI. That's very similar to a temporary tax. "We need to raise taxes by 2% on gas for 2 years..." and this temporary tax is renewed every few years until it's made permanent. PGI's short term is about a year or 2 and to be fair, they're a small team.


Certainly. I can hope temporary doesn't become permanent, but there's always a chance it will. The best we can hope for in such cases is that we have some level of influence on the direction of what we get. I don't necessarily mind non-core functions being compromised on as long as they work.

Not sure how much I'd care long term if we stay clan vs is, as long as its not half-added. When it comes to core systems though, we should not settle. ED being a prime example here.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users