53 replies to this topic

[Felbombling]

This from the public test notes...

The first caveat is that we have run the numbers on the often-requested "flat 30" Heat Threshold value, and have subsequently concluded that this value would be too restrictive - even with full Double Heat Sink Dissipation rates - to be practical for builds heavily focused around Energy weaponry.

I have a simple question for you PGI... you have been tinkering with numbers left and right since this energy draw public test went live. How is it that you have come to the conclusion that the 'flat 30' would be impractical for heavily focused energy builds?

Aren't those the exact kind of builds that you are trying to tamp down a bit? It would seem logical to me that you would at least try the flat 30 system with tweaked energy weapon numbers before outright dismissing the idea.

I only ask this because, as we get deeper into the Public Test and the different versions of the system, it seems to me that we are going in a convoluted direction that may ultimately prove impossible for newer players to pick up and understand, whereas a simple heat scale with increasingly detrimental heat penalties would seem more intuitive to me.

I think you guys are stuck in a mode of thinking that says heat neutral Mechs are bad. They are not... the heat scale penalty area should be a punishing place to be after losing Mech performance due to extensive damage or by having pushed the Mech too far with an alpha strike too many. You don't constantly have to play in an overheat situation to make the game exciting... that will come near the mid-point of the match when attrition and damage start to take hold.

At least let us test it out before we totally abandon the concept.

*** I should note that my version of heat threshold would be best described as Mech heat sinks [dissipation per unit of time] plus a 30 heat cushion that the Mech can overheat by... a red zone if you will... where the Mech would suffer heat related penalties while within that range. I misinterpreted the term, applying it to the hard 30 heat of the overheat penalty. Sorry for any confusion, but the OP still stands as far as questioning why PGI would abandon a viable option so out of hand, it seems. Thanks to Scarecrow for pointing out my misunderstanding/misinterpretation of the use of term.***

Edited by StaggerCheck, 23 September 2016 - 06:35 AM.

[FupDup]

Well, when we consider that 2 ERPPCs generate 30 heat...that should illustrate why.


To make it work, one of two things would have to happen:

1. The heat of weapons like that would have to be reduced by practically half.

2. Dissipation rates would need to be doubled if not greater. By doubled I don't mean 2.0 TruDubs, I mean at least 4.0.

Edited by FupDup, 22 September 2016 - 02:00 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

FupDup, on 22 September 2016 - 02:00 PM, said:

Well, when we consider that 2 ERPPCs generate 30 heat...that should illustrate why.


To make it work, one of two things would have to happen:

1. The heat of weapons like that would have to be reduced by practically half.

2. Dissipation rates would need to be doubled if not greater. By doubled I don't mean 2.0 TruDubs, I mean at least 4.0.

You forgot another option, allow for the heat spread mechanic from the MW4 days, but that wouldn't be explained very well if at all so it isn't necessarily a good option either.

[ScarecrowES]

It should be noted that, aside from the impracticality of a such a low heat cap for all mechs, there's the matter that it doesn't treat all weapons equally. The dreaded 4xUAC/10 Kodiak-3 tends to mount no more than 15 DHS (heat cap, 30) and does 80 damage every 2.5 seconds using only 24 heat per double-tap. On the other hand, 2x cERPPC is 30 heat for 30 damage. Isn't exactly fair. There is a reason heat cap is based on the build of a mech.

[Gen82]

As a newer player of MWO, but a long time gamer, I have to agree that its all getting a little too complex and convoluted. I don't understand why the need to add an extra system. Surely this only makes the math harder to do.

Go back to basics. Damage, cooldown, range, damage over time. Balance this. Then on top of that put the MechWarrior flavor of heat. Balance this. It should be a matter of basic math and then very minor tweaks to get the numbers right.

[Felbombling]

Looking at a simple baseline of a Mech with fifteen true double heat sinks, the firing of two ER PPC would start to put the Mech into the red, true. Along that same line of thinking, the other example of the Kodiak 3 and the four Ultra AC/10 set up with the same number of heat sinks also has merit as a counter, but those examples don't take into account a few things...

1. The adjustment of energy weapon numbers that would surely have to accompany a flat 30 value test.
2. The ammunition consumption of the 4x Ultra AC/10 load out... after ammo is depleted, it has serious issues.
3. The two ER PPC load out has room and tonnage above and beyond the four Ultra AC/10 load out to add extra heat sinks.

Hey, it is a starting point. The four Ultra AC/10 Mech might never get into an overheat situation all match, but it could run out of ammo and be stuck looking to flip a base in order to win. The energy boats don't run out of ammo, but are forced to throw extra tonnage into heat sinks. Currently, heat sinks don't seem as imperative to have in abundance as they would under a flat 30 value system, keeping in mind that that flat 30 represents the red overheat range that I would expect to have diminishing penalties applied to the Mech for advancing into... either voluntarily or not.

[FupDup]

StaggerCheck, on 22 September 2016 - 03:59 PM, said:

...
1. The adjustment of energy weapon numbers that would surely have to accompany a flat 30 value test.
...

This raises another question, though. If we have to reduce the heat of many weapons in order to accommodate the 30 heat cap, doesn't that make the heat cap reduction redundant in the first place?

[ScarecrowES]

FupDup, on 22 September 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

This raises another question, though. If we have to reduce the heat of many weapons in order to accommodate the 30 heat cap, doesn't that make the heat cap reduction redundant in the first place?

It also comes with an additional issue... weapons balance involves a very careful ballet between output (damage, range), investment (weight, crits, sinks, ammo, etc), and then ultimately heat as the "fulcrum" between the two.

In order to maintain that balance, you can't simply reduce the heat for energy weapons. You have to change their ratio of investment as well.

If I suddenly have an ERPPC that does 15 points of damage for 2.5 heat at 800m, and is still 2 slots and 6 tons... why would I EVER bring anything else? The reason energy weapons have higher heat is to counter the lack of initial investment (weight, crits) by requiring additional investment (sinks) to bring the weapon to output parity with ballistics. And vice versa. Ballistics have low heat because you pay more for them up front.

As such, the build system ensures that your heat cap (and dissipation) strikes a balance with your output and investment as a counter to your heat requirements.

To have weapons be balanced under a fixed cap / fixed dissipation environment, weapons would need to have the same weight and size (investment) for a given output (range, damage). So... like MW4's sized hardpoints/weapon crits... only WAY more restrictive. A standard PPC and an AC/10 would have to weight the same, have the same range, take up the same number of crits, and have the same fire rate... oh, and ammo cannot take up space in the mech.

It's really really really not as simple as people make it out to be. This requires a complete, ground up redesign of every core MWO system.

[Tombs Clawtooth]

ScarecrowES, on 22 September 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

It also comes with an additional issue... weapons balance involves a very careful ballet between output (damage, range), investment (weight, crits, sinks, ammo, etc), and then ultimately heat as the "fulcrum" between the two.

In order to maintain that balance, you can't simply reduce the heat for energy weapons. You have to change their ratio of investment as well.

If I suddenly have an ERPPC that does 15 points of damage for 2.5 heat at 800m, and is still 2 slots and 6 tons... why would I EVER bring anything else? The reason energy weapons have higher heat is to counter the lack of initial investment (weight, crits) by requiring additional investment (sinks) to bring the weapon to output parity with ballistics. And vice versa. Ballistics have low heat because you pay more for them up front.

As such, the build system ensures that your heat cap (and dissipation) strikes a balance with your output and investment as a counter to your heat requirements.

To have weapons be balanced under a fixed cap / fixed dissipation environment, weapons would need to have the same weight and size (investment) for a given output (range, damage). So... like MW4's sized hardpoints/weapon crits... only WAY more restrictive. A standard PPC and an AC/10 would have to weight the same, have the same range, take up the same number of crits, and have the same fire rate... oh, and ammo cannot take up space in the mech.

It's really really really not as simple as people make it out to be. This requires a complete, ground up redesign of every core MWO system.

Or just have heatsinks unique to MWO to solve this issue that are specific to classes of weapons. Laser heatsinks, PPC heat sinks, Missile heatsinks etc.

The weight, crit slots, and heat mitigation of these heatsinks could be used to balance their usage while leaving the actual weapons in their native table top state.

Probably a terrible idea but it allows for experimentation without dramatically changing the game.

You could call them capacitors, heatsinks, energy amplifiers, w/e... Just a means of specializing a mech for usage with this weapon class.

Edited by Tombs Clawtooth, 22 September 2016 - 06:47 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

Tombs Clawtooth, on 22 September 2016 - 06:41 PM, said:

Or just have heatsinks unique to MWO to solve this issue that are specific to classes of weapons. Laser heatsinks, PPC heat sinks, Missile heatsinks etc.

The weight, crit slots, and heat mitigation of these heatsinks could be used to balance their usage while leaving the actual weapons in their native table top state.

Probably a terrible idea but it allows for experimentation without dramatically changing the game.

You could call them capacitors, heatsinks, energy amplifiers, w/e... Just a means of specializing a mech for usage with this weapon class.

Trying to find an extremely complicated and meandering way to fix what is ostensibly a VERY simple problem is what got us into this mess in the first place. Twice.

[Felbombling]

FupDup, on 22 September 2016 - 04:35 PM, said:

This raises another question, though. If we have to reduce the heat of many weapons in order to accommodate the 30 heat cap, doesn't that make the heat cap reduction redundant in the first place?

Like I said in the OP, they've been adjusting numbers left and right throughout the PTS for Energy Draw. I don't see how adjusting energy weapons to fit into a new scheme is any different in the pursuit of balance. Isn't the problem that PGI is trying to tamp down the massed clusters of energy weapons? Ok... so adjust them accordingly and let's test.

I think we're a lot closer to balance with the ballistic and missile weapons within a 30 value table at this point.

ScarecrowES, on 22 September 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

If I suddenly have an ERPPC that does 15 points of damage for 2.5 heat at 800m, and is still 2 slots and 6 tons... why would I EVER bring anything else?

That's a little extreme for an adjustment to the ER PPC, Scare. I don't see that happening anytime soon. Maybe 12-13 heat instead of 15 would do the trick.

ScarecrowES, on 22 September 2016 - 05:31 PM, said:

To have weapons be balanced under a fixed cap / fixed dissipation environment, weapons would need to have the same weight and size (investment) for a given output (range, damage). So... like MW4's sized hardpoints/weapon crits... only WAY more restrictive. A standard PPC and an AC/10 would have to weight the same, have the same range, take up the same number of crits, and have the same fire rate... oh, and ammo cannot take up space in the mech.

It's really really really not as simple as people make it out to be. This requires a complete, ground up redesign of every core MWO system.

Cannot agree here. Seems to me that ballistic weapons suffer far greater due to weight alone. For an example, the Inner Sphere AC/10 and the PPC are fairly balanced as is for what they require to mount alone. Assuming single heat sinks, the AC/10 comes in at about fourteen tons for the weapon and two tons of ammo. Heat for the weapon is so low as to not require additional heat sinks to account for movement heat. The PPC comes in at roughly nine tons [seven for the weapon and two heat sinks to account for movement heat]. When you start adding more weaponry into the Mech, the heat sink requirements ramp up, especially for energy. Two AC/10 would come in at twenty-eight tons with still enough heat sinks with the base engine ten to handle their heat burden. Two PPCs, on the other hand, would require twenty-six tons. Fourteen for the weapons and twelve extra heat sink to handle weapon and movement related heat burden.

Ok... so things start to balance out now. I know for sure that Medium Lasers would require some adjustments, because they were never really balanced in TT or any other MW game I can remember. Things like that will require some tinkering.

*** I should note that my version of heat threshold would be best described as Mech heat sinks [dissipation per unit of time] plus a 30 heat cushion that the Mech can overheat by... a red zone if you will... where the Mech would suffer heat related penalties while within that range. ***

Edited by StaggerCheck, 22 September 2016 - 08:56 PM.

[ScarecrowES]

StaggerCheck, on 22 September 2016 - 08:54 PM, said:

*** I should note that my version of heat threshold would be best described as Mech heat sinks [dissipation per unit of time] plus a 30 heat cushion that the Mech can overheat by... a red zone if you will... where the Mech would suffer heat related penalties while within that range. ***

Quite a bit different than a fixed 30-point cap. What you're describing is the TT heat system - upon which the MWO heat system is based (minus the actual penalties) - just for the sake of clarity.

But back to the first point...

An AC/10 requires a mere 0.7 sink value to dissipate its full heat between cycles. Not even one single heat sink. A standard PPC needs a sink value of 2.37 - 3 singles or two doubles. An ERPPC would need 3.5. If we get to a point where our cap is so low we need to pare down heat values for energy weapons just to make them workable, you've basically dropped the factor that balances the low initial investment for energy weapons (low weight and crits) against its output (damage/range). You basically turned it into a ballistic at half the weight and crits, and needing no ammo. No bueno.

[Felbombling]

ScarecrowES, on 22 September 2016 - 11:04 PM, said:

An AC/10 requires a mere 0.7 sink value to dissipate its full heat between cycles. Not even one single heat sink. A standard PPC needs a sink value of 2.37 - 3 singles or two doubles. An ERPPC would need 3.5. If we get to a point where our cap is so low we need to pare down heat values for energy weapons just to make them workable, you've basically dropped the factor that balances the low initial investment for energy weapons (low weight and crits) against its output (damage/range). You basically turned it into a ballistic at half the weight and crits, and needing no ammo. No bueno.

Excuse my ignorance, Scarecrow, but where are you getting the .7 heat sink value from for the AC/10? Three heat applied against a ten heat sink pool cycle would appear to be 30% of available capacity to me, yet you are applying a fraction of that as an argument. Just trying to understand your chaos math... I assume you're talking about the current functionality in game where we have a massive heat pool to begin with?

[Lostdragon]

People get too hung up on 30. It doesn't have to be 30, it can be any number, but if you are going to do a hard heat cap then it will require rebalancing the heat of every weapon and putting heat on the GR. If hou start with a base 1:1 dmg to heat ratio then use modifiers for things like spread, ammo, short range, etc I think you could come up with something that works as long as dissipation is also tweaked. You could very effectively limit PPFLD and alphas without needing a new mechanic but it will require killing some sacred cows.

ED is basically doing this same thing but in a much more convoluted manner. ED and GH both use heat to limit damage and add ED adds heat to the GR. Heatless GRs is a huge problem for balancing the game and have been for some time.

[ScarecrowES]

StaggerCheck, on 23 September 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

Excuse my ignorance, Scarecrow, but where are you getting the .7 heat sink value from for the AC/10? Three heat applied against a ten heat sink pool cycle would appear to be 30% of available capacity to me, yet you are applying a fraction of that as an argument. Just trying to understand your chaos math... I assume you're talking about the current functionality in game where we have a massive heat pool to begin with?

I should have specified this was the Clan AC/10, since that's the more useful comparison to the ERPPC, since IS ERPPCs are wonky. But yeah, there's more math involve with practical cooldowns, DPS, whatever.

To get down to more simplified numbers, I'll just use IS weapons here... AC/10 is 3 heat over 2.5 seconds cycle time, so needs 1.2pts/second dissiption. That's 12 standard heat sinks or 6 DHS for heat neutrality. An isPPC is 9.5 heat over 4 seconds, so needs 2.3pts/sec dissipation. 23 singles or 12 doubles for heat neutrality. The isERPPC is 14 heat over 4 seconds, so needs 3.5pts/sec dissipation. 35 singles or 18 doubles for heat neutrality.

If we were to drop heat on the PPCs to make them work within a 30-heat cap, this throws off the balance for those weapons. If I could have a PPC at even half the heat they currently are, there'd be no need to take anything else.

[Felbombling]

Ah, ok... I see where you are going with it now, Scare. I'm working on a premise of much longer cool downs for the heavier weapons in my mind, where I think PGI screwed up huge with the insane rate of fire on everything. Your numbers now make perfect sense in the world PGI created. Perhaps slowing down the rate of fire on the heavier stuff and reduced damage of the smaller weapons to maintain their current rate of fire might create a mix that supports less massive alphas, while still maintaining that 'excitement' factor for the people who want constant action.

Lostdragon, on 23 September 2016 - 08:26 AM, said:

People get too hung up on 30. It doesn't have to be 30, it can be any number, but if you are going to do a hard heat cap then it will require rebalancing the heat of every weapon and putting heat on the GR. If hou start with a base 1:1 dmg to heat ratio then use modifiers for things like spread, ammo, short range, etc I think you could come up with something that works as long as dissipation is also tweaked. You could very effectively limit PPFLD and alphas without needing a new mechanic but it will require killing some sacred cows.

ED is basically doing this same thing but in a much more convoluted manner. ED and GH both use heat to limit damage and add ED adds heat to the GR. Heatless GRs is a huge problem for balancing the game and have been for some time.

I floated the idea of giving the Gauss Rifle five heat... makes sense to me given the damage output and loose comparisons to other ballistic weapons.

[ScarecrowES]

StaggerCheck, on 23 September 2016 - 10:25 AM, said:

Ah, ok... I see where you are going with it now, Scare. I'm working on a premise of much longer cool downs for the heavier weapons in my mind, where I think PGI screwed up huge with the insane rate of fire on everything. Your numbers now make perfect sense in the world PGI created. Perhaps slowing down the rate of fire on the heavier stuff and reduced damage of the smaller weapons to maintain their current rate of fire might create a mix that supports less massive alphas, while still maintaining that 'excitement' factor for the people who want constant action.



I floated the idea of giving the Gauss Rifle five heat... makes sense to me given the damage output and loose comparisons to other ballistic weapons.

*shrug* The variable cooldown mechanic makes sense for MWO given the nature of the weapon mechanics that exist here. Cooldowns are a way to balance the value of damage. Pinpoint is more valuable than spread, so spread gets faster cooldowns than pinpoint, etc. There's a bit of Solaris rules in these mechanics. Ultimately though, given the workings of the heat system itself, we still play largely on the same 10-second time scale from TT.

It's important to understand that for most weapons, cooldowns don't much affect their actual practical output. The heat output of the weapon takes the same amount of time to dissipate on a given mech, no matter what the cooldown is. There aren't many weapons in MWO whose cooldown actually exceeds its dissipation requirements. I think only the gauss and small ballistics (and these only on SOME mechs) fall into that category. This is really not an arena in which cooldowns work best.

It should be noted that, yes, the cooldown scale overall is a bit too short. Realistically, no weapon but the gauss and machine gun (and I'd argue the gauss is a bit broken in MWO) should be able to have cooldowns as far out of sync with their dissipation requirements as some are in this game. Largely, the whole scale should be shifted toward longer cooldowns... just an eensy bit.

But unfortunately, extending cooldowns won't really make up for dropping the heat on energy weapons. Not unless we extend the cooldown range outside the 10-second turn premise we have now.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

ScarecrowES, on 23 September 2016 - 01:34 PM, said:

Pinpoint is more valuable than spread, so spread gets faster cooldowns than pinpoint, etc.

This isn't always true, but it generally turns into higher DPS in some fashion (higher damage potential, faster cooldowns, lower heat to damage ratio, etc).

[ScarecrowES]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 23 September 2016 - 01:39 PM, said:

This isn't always true, but it generally turns into higher DPS in some fashion (higher damage potential, faster cooldowns, lower heat to damage ratio, etc).

I could add a bunch of other qualifiers to the statement... proportional to the amount of damage and investment required, a given weapon with spread damage... yadda yadda. You got what I was saying.

[Not A Real RAbbi]

And AGAIN, I wonder why we keep the intrinsic heat capacity.

Need more neat sinks for energy weapons, because they're hotter. Missile and ballistic weapons, not so much, BUT they require ammo. So there's the trade-off--a ERPPC never ever ever ever ever ever runs out of ammo, nor does it ever have to concern the pilot about ammo explosions or weapon jams or anything else.

SO, let's go back to the example of ERPPCs versus UAC/10s. The cUAC/10 weighs 10 tons and occupies 4 slots, according to Smurfy, whereas the cERPPC weighs 6 tons and occupies 2 slots. FURTHER, the cUAC/10 needs at least one ton of ammo to be of any use at all, so we're at 11/5 versus the cERPPC's 6/2. Right away, I see that I could add one cDHS to the cERPPC and come out 4/1 lighter/smaller than the cUAC/10, or TWO DHS to come out 3/-1. This is all to say that the tradeoff isn't ONLY about heat, but also about weight and critical space. The example is woefully inadequate without considering those as well.

So yeah, 2 ERPPCs will generate more heat than 4 UAC/10s, but they will leave more space and weight free to add heat sinks. That doesn't matter much with a FLAT 30, sure. But say that the mech's intrinsic heat cap was dropped to something like 10 or 15, for starters, rather than the obscenely high current value (IIRC, that's been consistent since open beta... I haven't noticed any big change, anyhow, or don't remember it). Each additional SHS adds 1.0 to the heat cap, each DHS adds 2.0. Tweak dissipation rates to balance™, and call it a day. What's this do? It does what Paul & Russ apparently really REALLY want to do, which is that it limits those high-damage pinpoint alphas that they're so scared of. The obscene heat capacity of any/every mech in the game right now makes energy weapons all the more viable for boating, because it gives a fair bit of cushion to work with against the heat cap for those hot weapons. REMEMBER that HEAT is what supposedly balances out the lighter, smaller energy weapons, versus the heavier ammo-dependent missile and ballistic ones. With that ceiling being as high as it is for no additional investment of tonnage or critical space, though, the energy weapons have an advantage. And that advantage has contributed to those metas that Paul & Russ have worked so hard to balance™ out.

And it's a single number somewhere in the system that can be changed, without having to add new HUD elements and new functions and whole new game mechanics that will INEVITABLY be exploited in some unforeseen way, as is every balance™ change to-date in MWO's glorious four-year public history. Change one number, tweak other values as necessary or adjust that change to the number. Drive on.

And that, in turn, forces those wanting to boat energy weapons to make more room for DHS. YES, it emphasizes the Clan advantage over IS tech, with their smaller/lighter energy weapons of greater range. And that'll be hard to balance, in turn. Might require individually quirking mechs, or something...