53 replies to this topic

[xe N on]

Widowmaker1981, on 03 October 2016 - 02:09 AM, said:

Any system that imposes penalties on mechs for firing single weapons from cold, like your idea would do, is a terrible system and should feel terrible. People WILL NOT take auto penalties, and this would literally become Gauss online as that would be the only way to avoid them.

Agree. And this would not feel like BT. If you got enough heatsinks you should be always able to fire multiple energy weapons without penalties.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

You guys need to get a bit more creative with your interpretations and possibilities of the system I suggested.

The idea that you're going to shutdown on the first couple of weapons fired or suffer some similarly severe (read: noticeable) penalties is nonsense.

Any penalties that would be incurred at the low end would be so small (and probably disappear so quickly) that they would barely exist. That is, a penalty on the flat end of the curve could be tiny (like a 1% penalty to recycle times). That's so marginal that it only just barely affects gameplay.

That's also the point of the curve: nearly flat on the low end and extreme on the high end.

Let's none of us be asinine and imagine that blowing up would be the instant result of this kind of system. All the penalties would be incremental.

[xe N on]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 03 October 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

Any penalties that would be incurred at the low end would be so small (and probably disappear so quickly) that they would barely exist. That is, a penalty on the flat end of the curve could be tiny (like a 1% penalty to recycle times). That's so marginal that it only just barely affects gameplay.

So, what use have penalties that are so small you won't notice? You can simply leave them away up to a certain level of heat.

[Cold Darkness]

i know this answer is a littlebit late but:

Pjwned, on 29 September 2016 - 05:40 PM, said:

That would be a minimum of 40 heat capacity and 2.0 h/s dissipation for every mech. I still don't really agree with taking away 30 heat capacity from all mechs like that, but I don't think it would be so bad if that did happen.

no, it would be a minimum of 20 heat capacity and 2.0 dissipation with truedubs , which would be a major problem for many mixed builds and ALL ballistic boats*.
if it was 40, that would be very close to your usual mech that you currently have (i think currently is something like 45 capacity with double heatsinks, and add to that number the skilltree bonuses) and would require 4.0 capacity per double heatsink.

*edit: well technically, an all gauss mech couldnt care less but yeah.

Edited by Cold Darkness, 03 October 2016 - 07:06 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 03 October 2016 - 06:10 AM, said:

You guys need to get a bit more creative with your interpretations and possibilities of the system I suggested.

The idea that you're going to shutdown on the first couple of weapons fired or suffer some similarly severe (read: noticeable) penalties is nonsense.

Any penalties that would be incurred at the low end would be so small (and probably disappear so quickly) that they would barely exist. That is, a penalty on the flat end of the curve could be tiny (like a 1% penalty to recycle times). That's so marginal that it only just barely affects gameplay.

That's also the point of the curve: nearly flat on the low end and extreme on the high end.

Let's none of us be asinine and imagine that blowing up would be the instant result of this kind of system. All the penalties would be incremental.

OK, so in your mind, how big is this heat scale? What would the penalties be like at 20 or 30 points of heat, for example? How long would it take to dissipate said 20 or 30 points?

When you suggest penalties from 1 heat, you assume you mean meaningful ones by 5 or 10. You need to be specific with what you are suggesting.

[Pjwned]

Cold Darkness, on 03 October 2016 - 07:05 AM, said:

no, it would be a minimum of 20 heat capacity and 2.0 dissipation with truedubs ,

My bad, derped on the math.

Quote

which would be a major problem for many mixed builds and ALL ballistic boats*.
if it was 40, that would be very close to your usual mech that you currently have (i think currently is something like 45 capacity with double heatsinks, and add to that number the skilltree bonuses) and would require 4.0 capacity per double heatsink.

*edit: well technically, an all gauss mech couldnt care less but yeah.

What mech with room for enough ballistics (or for a mixed build) would not have room for enough heatsinks though?

Again though, I don't really agree with removing capacity anyways.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

xe N on, on 03 October 2016 - 06:26 AM, said:

So, what use have penalties that are so small you won't notice? You can simply leave them away up to a certain level of heat.

I knew someone would ask this, so I thank you for the opportunity.

Just because they are very small and you might not notice them doesn't mean they don't exist. Barely affecting gameplay is still affecting gameplay. Also, since they would be incrementally more severe and/or cumulative, that would mean that as you heat up they start to stack up and then you notice them a lot.

Numbers being unadjusted, that means that if 1 heat nets you +1% recycle then 2 heat might net you +2% recycle and -1% acceleration/deceleration. That starts stacking up in meaningful ways relatively quickly, if you fire too much and don't have enough heatsinks to dissipate. On the other hand, if you do have enough heatsinks and control your RoF, you would stay in the very negligible range.

Widowmaker1981, on 03 October 2016 - 10:46 AM, said:

OK, so in your mind, how big is this heat scale? What would the penalties be like at 20 or 30 points of heat, for example? How long would it take to dissipate said 20 or 30 points?

When you suggest penalties from 1 heat, you assume you mean meaningful ones by 5 or 10. You need to be specific with what you are suggesting.

How big is the scale? Well, theoretically infinite. No cap means no cap, so there is no number where it ends.

That's reasonable because different weight 'Mechs have different numbers of structure and armor points. Since heavier 'Mechs can bring more big/hot weapons than lighter 'Mechs there is a reasonable amount of inherent balance in this concept. Lighter 'Mechs normally won't get as hot as heavier 'Mechs. Lighter 'Mechs won't be able to carry as many heatsinks and their dissipation will be lower, but they won't have as much heat to dissipate. Heavier 'Mechs will be able to run hotter for a bit longer but the greater heat will end in more damage to their structure/armor (not to mention making them temporarily vulnerable from the performance penalties, a problem lighter 'Mech's will probably rarely encounter).

As for meaningful thresholds: Yes, we need them. For familiarity purposes, you could still make the initial testing shutdown threshold at 30 heat. People are already used to that number from TT and current base capacity here in MWO, I'm all in favor of simplifying things so going with a familiar number makes sense (even if it is legacy and ultimately subjective).

But I would prefer cumulative and incremental penalties that stack up over time. The system might define itself. As above, if you get a +1% recycle penalty at 1 heat and then at 2 heat you get +2% recycle and -1% accel/decel, then the question I want to ask is: "How large do the penalties get?"

In answer: Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 20%. But remember, that's for each penalty applied.

Taking this to a higher heat example:
10 heat = +10% recycle, -9% accel/decel, -8% turnrate, -7% speed, -6% range, etc...

So with every additional point of heat, current penalties are incrementally increased and a new penalty is cumulatively applied. Damage would not start until after the shutdown threshold, but would likewise be incremental and cumulative.

Again, the result is that low heat = negligible penalties but high heat = severe penalties. The more I think about it, the more I like it.

Edit:
Keep in mind that the penalties are only applied in the duration that you are carrying heat. If you dissipate the heat, those penalties would instantly evaporate. It's not like you would be carrying those penalties for long drawn out periods, heatsinks would still add to dissipation and with enough you would never feel them.

Edited by Brandarr Gunnarson, 03 October 2016 - 07:07 PM.

[Widowmaker1981]

Brandarr Gunnarson, on 03 October 2016 - 07:00 PM, said:

As for meaningful thresholds: Yes, we need them. For familiarity purposes, you could still make the initial testing shutdown threshold at 30 heat. People are already used to that number from TT and current base capacity here in MWO, I'm all in favor of simplifying things so going with a familiar number makes sense (even if it is legacy and ultimately subjective).

But I would prefer cumulative and incremental penalties that stack up over time. The system might define itself. As above, if you get a +1% recycle penalty at 1 heat and then at 2 heat you get +2% recycle and -1% accel/decel, then the question I want to ask is: "How large do the penalties get?"

In answer: Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 20%. But remember, that's for each penalty applied.

The fact that you even think thats worth testing reveals that you have no understanding of the game. Making it so that firing 2 ERPPCs at once from stationary and cold should make you shut down is... hilarious? Since it wouldnt be possible to output any viable amounts of damage with energy weapons without shutting down, the game would become "how many gauss can i fit on my mech"

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Widowmaker1981, on 03 October 2016 - 11:11 PM, said:

The fact that you even think thats worth testing reveals that you have no understanding of the game. Making it so that firing 2 ERPPCs at once from stationary and cold should make you shut down is... hilarious? Since it wouldnt be possible to output any viable amounts of damage with energy weapons without shutting down, the game would become "how many gauss can i fit on my mech"

Wow, I state that 30 is a good number to start withfor test and get told I understand nothing about the game. You do understand that the purpose of this proposed system, as well as ED, is to curb alpha striking, right?

You might also consider that under a different heat system we could adjust heat values for the weapon and the thresholds more easily to create a better balance.

What it looks that you mean to say is that firing them successively is a ridiculous idea and we must alpha strike everything. That, by the way, is why we have many of the balance problems that ED is seeking to curb.

You want to increase TTK and diminish alpha strikes? Then you need to prevent alpha strike and slow down the firing rate. That's simple logic. To achieve that you have to put some kind of restrictions on the game.

I just proposed a much simpler and more effective solution that ED, really. But if not what I suggested or ED (which people, myself included, are already starting to resist), what?

You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Balance means trade-offs.

[Widowmaker1981]

I think balance and ttk are fine right now, and alpha striking as it currently stands isnt a problem.
A couple mechs / builds can stand to be reigned in a bit, sure, but its not bad. All the evil builds have counters - dakka kdk? Poke it to death with ppcs. Ppc/gauss kdk? Dakka it.
Change ttk too much and you risk making short range srm brawl the only group queue playstyle

Unless you change the weapon values such that there are NO low heat weapons, an incredibly restrictive heat system is going to obviously favour those weapons, it doesnt need to be tested.

Im all for adding flavour and nerfing hot loadouts a bit by making heat cap = DHSx2, and once you pass that cap you start taking BT/TT style penalties, but i really dont want to see TTK increased much. It already takes quite some time for a 1v1 fight.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 04 October 2016 - 08:03 AM.

[Lily from animove]

ScarecrowES, on 22 September 2016 - 03:32 PM, said:

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.

and? with a proper heatcap PGI could adjust values and give clan erppc's finally 15 damage again. Also, if you use a 2 ERPPC build that build will never run hot if you use the rest for heatsinks doing proper 2.0 heat dissipation where the doubletap kodiak would run hot and not dissipate much after that. thats balancing things out.

it is at least worth a trial over all the fail attemps PGI did. And then we need to see what weapons and combinations break the stuff and some weapons eat values just need some corrections and it will do ebtter than any other cocnept we have, becasue currently PGI just tries to lower an artificial inflated heatbar with adding heat to some combinations (ghost heat) or damage in general (Energy idea).

[Lily from animove]

xe N on, on 02 October 2016 - 02:05 AM, said:

A "fixed" 30 heat threshold as in TT can be realized. As written by me in another thread:



For example: heat neutral AC10 vs. heat neutral PPC in a system as above:

Heat capacity per STD heat sink = 1
STD Heat sink dissipation: 0,2 / s (= 1 heat per 5 second per heat sink)

Base heatsinks 10 (engine)
tonnage AC10: 12 + 2 (ammo) | slots: 7 + 2 = 9
tonnage PPC: 7 + 7 (heatsinks) | slots: 3 + 7 = 10

We fire both weapons every 5 seconds to obtain the same DPS:

Shooting 2x AC 10 generate 6 heat. Uses 6/10 capacity. Dissipation 10 heat / 5 seconds: heat neutral
Shooting 2x PPC generate 20 heat. However, due to more heat sinks we have 20/24 capacity. Dissipation 24 heat / 5 seconds: heat neutral.

Both builds would be heat neutral though the PPC build generate more heat.

If you, however, reduce the amount of heat sink for the PPCs you can reach the point where you generate more heat than your capacity can handle. In this case you trade weight for efficiency - which is ok.

thats the point, but too many don't understand.

30 heat is the point where people have to make a decisions (which many are against, becase they don't like to make tough ones).More would allow doublegauss + dualerppc, which is already too much. less would be too problematic.

however with a 30 heattreshold that strange movement heta of a mech should not exist. it was never there in the old games too irrc. at leats not in MW3 for sure.

Edited by Lily from animove, 04 October 2016 - 09:02 AM.

[Brandarr Gunnarson]

Widowmaker1981, on 04 October 2016 - 07:44 AM, said:

I think balance and ttk are fine right now, and alpha striking as it currently stands isnt a problem.
A couple mechs / builds can stand to be reigned in a bit, sure, but its not bad. All the evil builds have counters - dakka kdk? Poke it to death with ppcs. Ppc/gauss kdk? Dakka it.
Change ttk too much and you risk making short range srm brawl the only group queue playstyle

Unless you change the weapon values such that there are NO low heat weapons, an incredibly restrictive heat system is going to obviously favour those weapons, it doesnt need to be tested.

Im all for adding flavour and nerfing hot loadouts a bit by making heat cap = DHSx2, and once you pass that cap you start taking BT/TT style penalties, but i really dont want to see TTK increased much. It already takes quite some time for a 1v1 fight.

That TTK and balance are good or not good is a matter of opinion. We disagree and that's ok. What's not ok is being hit with a toxic remark when providing creative ideas.

Anyway, fact of the matter is, ED is about to get implemented and in its current form it is a redundant system that is not intuitive, add complexity to the game and poorly reflects the "energy" needed to power any weapon that we currently have.

I just suggested a no-capacity system as a much simpler alternative. Would numbers still need to be played with and tested? Of course. Maybe 30 is too low for a shutdown threshold; maybe PPCs should run cooler.

Again, you think that this is "an incredibly restrictive heat system", it's not. Low heat 'Mechs won't have much heat to carry so they won't have high penalties. High heat 'Mechs (mostly energy-based) will have room and tonnage for plenty of heatsinks, just as they do today, and will dissipate that heat quickly and therefore won't have high penalties.

Since capacity in my model is no longer a factor, dissipation could be more stratified between the heatsink types and DHS/cDHS could give a better return on dissipation than they do currently. That also has the benefit of allowing SHS to be (potentially) viable, especially in 'Mechs strapped for crit space and not producing so much heat (dakka).

Even if your goal is just to limit alphas, that's the same as saying your goal is to restrict the number of weapons that can be fire at once; i.e., you have to fire them successively. If you can't fire all weapons at once, TTK will go up; it's as simple as that.

[ScarecrowES]

Lily from animove, on 04 October 2016 - 08:43 AM, said:

and? with a proper heatcap PGI could adjust values and give clan erppc's finally 15 damage again. Also, if you use a 2 ERPPC build that build will never run hot if you use the rest for heatsinks doing proper 2.0 heat dissipation where the doubletap kodiak would run hot and not dissipate much after that. thats balancing things out.

it is at least worth a trial over all the fail attemps PGI did. And then we need to see what weapons and combinations break the stuff and some weapons eat values just need some corrections and it will do ebtter than any other cocnept we have, becasue currently PGI just tries to lower an artificial inflated heatbar with adding heat to some combinations (ghost heat) or damage in general (Energy idea).

It's not a "proper" heat cap. A proper heat cap is one defined by the build of the mech. PGI decided to take a nearly literal translation of most systems from TT Battletech and plop it down into the game EXCEPT for the heat system. Keeping the build and balance systems intact but then deviating from the heat system - whose sole purpose is combat pacing - it what causes all of these problems in the first place.

The "flat 30 cap" is yet another deviation, this time in completely the opposite direction. It's simple a bad, and already acknowledged by PGI to be unworkable, idea.