Jump to content

A Ready Made Alternative To The Energy Draw System


13 replies to this topic

#1 Cpt Ralphy

    Rookie

  • The Ogre
  • The Ogre
  • 5 posts

Posted 16 October 2016 - 02:50 PM

I think the addition of the Energy Draw System is overly burdensome and unnecessary. I like that the EDS officially gives us a numerical value to our heat penalty. And I like that the heat penalty is tied to total damage and not just weapon type as ghost heat is. I say keep those aspects. But I don’t think we need a new HUD bar that recharges along side the heat indicator we already have, and shuts down are weapons or whatever at some point. I know that Time To Kill is a big factor that we are trying to solve and I think that that is solvable by having excess heat affect mech performance and therefore raise the TTK.
I think that the effects of the heat penalty on a mech are already available in the programing of the game in the form of the 20% performance penalty when a clan mech loses a side torso and the reticle shake when using jump jets. The heat capacity numbers can and should be play tested to death, but for example, if at 70% heat capacity your mech loses the 20% performance (simulating mulimer muscle and actuator sluggishness) and at 85% heat capacity your targeting reticle began shaking(perhaps simulating your gyro is overheating), that would encourage pilots to control their heat better and there for lengthen the TTK the enemy.
Pilots that Alpha Strike will climb into the penalty zone more quickly and there for REDUCE (not eliminate) there ability to control their mech and do more damage. Pilots that use multiple weapons groups and sustained damage will still climb the heat latter, as they do now, and eventually incur the penalties as well, but it is my understanding that these pilots aren’t the target of the ED system anyway.
I also think it would be easier and less burdensome on our PCs to use some existing code rather than layering on yet more CPU crunching programing.

#2 Taxxian

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 227 posts
  • LocationLeipzig

Posted 18 October 2016 - 05:31 AM

Well I dont really understand what exactly you want to change... but think about the following:

The CPU utilization of ghostheat and ED ist roundabout 0, a 20 years old pocket calculator can do it in a microsecond... that is an absolute non issue.

So you want:
a) penalties for reaching 70/85% heat capacity?
Well yes why not, does not solve the basic problem, but I can live with that.

B) penalties for Alphastriking and firing multiple weapons at once?
Ok that is exactly what GH and ED do.
Do you want to flat out penalize the number of Weapons fired?
Well 2 Gaus Rifles is much stronger then 6 Small Lasers... you need a more complicated system tocover that!
You want to penalize ALPHA Strikes especially?
Well ok, instead of 5 ERPPC I simply build a Mech with 5 ERPPC and a Small Laser, now I can fire 5 ERPPC without it being an ALPHA... HAR HAR I dint fire the Small Laser so no penalty HAR HAR

Sorry but there simply is no easy solution to this problem!

#3 Mercie

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 97 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:14 AM

i think that an incremental heat system; rather than " im running at 59 heat, I'm fine - oops 60 heat, shut down"
is a great idea.
I think the Captain is right - the steps in game already exist - and were in previous games as well.

I'd also like to point out, there was ALWAYS an incremental heat system that was MUCH more effective at reducing game-breaking alpha's - the game suffers for not using it

Posted Image

#4 Excessive Paranoia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:24 AM

View PostCpt Ralphy, on 16 October 2016 - 02:50 PM, said:

I think the addition of the Energy Draw System is overly burdensome and unnecessary. I like that the EDS officially gives us a numerical value to our heat penalty. And I like that the heat penalty is tied to total damage and not just weapon type as ghost heat is. I say keep those aspects. But I don’t think we need a new HUD bar that recharges along side the heat indicator we already have, and shuts down are weapons or whatever at some point. I know that Time To Kill is a big factor that we are trying to solve and I think that that is solvable by having excess heat affect mech performance and therefore raise the TTK.
I think that the effects of the heat penalty on a mech are already available in the programing of the game in the form of the 20% performance penalty when a clan mech loses a side torso and the reticle shake when using jump jets. The heat capacity numbers can and should be play tested to death, but for example, if at 70% heat capacity your mech loses the 20% performance (simulating mulimer muscle and actuator sluggishness) and at 85% heat capacity your targeting reticle began shaking(perhaps simulating your gyro is overheating), that would encourage pilots to control their heat better and there for lengthen the TTK the enemy.
Pilots that Alpha Strike will climb into the penalty zone more quickly and there for REDUCE (not eliminate) there ability to control their mech and do more damage. Pilots that use multiple weapons groups and sustained damage will still climb the heat latter, as they do now, and eventually incur the penalties as well, but it is my understanding that these pilots aren’t the target of the ED system anyway.
I also think it would be easier and less burdensome on our PCs to use some existing code rather than layering on yet more CPU crunching programing.


The issue here is that you can't build a system designed to increase TTK solely around weapon generated heat. Doing so would just shift the meta away from high heat weapons in favor of low heat weapons, of which there are a decent amount that could still happily generate a high-point alpha and low TTK. While it may not be perfect, ED penalizes the alpha size rather than the amount of weapon generated heat, which allows the system to put the brakes on the amount of sustained firepower a mech can produce.

View PostMercie, on 24 October 2016 - 05:14 AM, said:

i think that an incremental heat system; rather than " im running at 59 heat, I'm fine - oops 60 heat, shut down"
is a great idea.
I think the Captain is right - the steps in game already exist - and were in previous games as well.

I'd also like to point out, there was ALWAYS an incremental heat system that was MUCH more effective at reducing game-breaking alpha's - the game suffers for not using it

Posted Image


I haven't seen this chart in years. It occurs to me that this system can work in conjunction with ED rather than as a replacement. ED still penalizes large alphas with extra waste heat, and then that excess heat is then used to limit the mech's viability to an increasing degree as more and more heat is built up.

#5 Mercie

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 97 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 05:31 AM

View PostExcessive Paranoia, on 24 October 2016 - 05:24 AM, said:


I haven't seen this chart in years. It occurs to me that this system can work in conjunction with ED rather than as a replacement. ED still penalizes large alphas with extra waste heat, and then that excess heat is then used to limit the mech's viability to an increasing degree as more and more heat is built up.


I am also a fan of the energy draw system - at least in theory - we'll see how well it works in execution -
it addresses things old BT did not - or left abstract - like how much POWER a gauss weapon should require ( which as you pointed out elsewhere, WOULD be tons of waste heat ) -
another battletech abstraction - that mechs are " bags of holding" where a commando has as much internal space as an atlas - are another problem, as people tend to exploit abstractions - ah LEGOMECHS!
that previosu games ( mw4) at least tried to address or limit " legomeching"
https://youtu.be/f4a-6RIgVfA?t=695

#6 Akillius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 398 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 01:08 PM

View PostMercie, on 24 October 2016 - 05:14 AM, said:

i think that an incremental heat system; rather than " im running at 59 heat, I'm fine - oops 60 heat, shut down"
is a great idea.
I think the Captain is right - the steps in game already exist - and were in previous games as well.

I'd also like to point out, there was ALWAYS an incremental heat system that was MUCH more effective at reducing game-breaking alpha's - the game suffers for not using it

Posted Image



Since OP is about 'Ready Made Alternatives' to ED...

I agree the old heat chart is a good beginning to proper heat management.

5.) "Movement Points" just meant movement slows with higher heat. We know PGI knows how to modify speed on/off during match with the MASC. Link heat with speed and the more heat the slower the mech becomes, when the mechs cooled down speed returns to normal.
8.) "Modifier to fire" sounds like how MASC makes aiming difficult and is already in-game therefore no reason to not implement it with it's increasing difficulty to aim as more heat builds up.

Lvl = Scale% = description (rough attempt to translate into PGI usage?)
-- = 110% = approx 80% chance of any Ammo random exploding
-- = 104% = Aiming difficulty like approx. 100% masc heat usage.
-- = 102% = All movements/speeds reduced approx. 75%
30 = 100% = 100% chance of Shutdown.***
28 = 94% = approx 60% chance of any Ammo random exploding
26 = 87% = approx 80% chance of random Shutdown.
25 = 84% = All movements/speeds reduced approx. 50%
24 = 80% = Aiming difficulty like approx. 75% masc heat usage.
23 = 77% = approx 40% chance of any Ammo random exploding
22 = 74% = approx 60% chance of random Shutdown.
20 = 67% = All movements/speeds reduced approx. 40%
19 = 64% = approx 20% chance of any Ammo random exploding
18 = 60% = approx 40% chance of random Shutdown.
17 = 57% = Aiming difficulty like approx. 50% masc heat usage.
15 = 50% = All movements/speeds reduced approx. 30%
14 = 47% = approx 20% chance of random Shutdown.
13 = 44% = Aiming difficulty like approx. 30% masc heat usage.
10 = 34% = All movements/speeds reduced approx. 20%
8 = 27% = Aiming difficulty like approx. 10% masc heat usage.
5 = 17% = All movements/speeds reduced approx. 10%

Also: On shutdown mech disappates heat at 1/2 speed for single and 1/4 speed for double heatsinks. Without power heatsinks release heat by convection unassisted by compressor/liquid cirulator and/or fan/blowers.

Note: Aiming difficulty would need to increase even more with masc usage/heat.

***Keep current damage to mech in MWO (loss of armor points) from overheating.
Plus engines internally only have SHS but any addon heatsinks to the mechs slots could be either type.


I'm sure those changes would be far better then ED.

#7 Excessive Paranoia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts

Posted 24 October 2016 - 04:37 PM

View PostMax Rickson, on 24 October 2016 - 01:08 PM, said:

I'm sure those changes would be far better then ED.


The problem with this, as I've said earlier, is that you can't have a system designed to increase TTK that is based solely on weapon heat as that will just drive the meta to cooler weapons. You have to remember that ED, and GH before it, are systems designed not to force heat management, but rather to limit the rate of damage being traded. If you're trying to build a system to do that, there are a number of options, though most of them are rather unpalatable, such as reducing the amount of damage each weapon does or increasing armor across the board. By penalizing the use of large amounts of quick damage, ED will drive the meta away from large alphas and towards sustainable fire, something that by default should increase TTK and make matches more dynamic.

#8 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 25 October 2016 - 07:52 AM

View PostExcessive Paranoia, on 24 October 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

most of them are rather unpalatable, such as reducing the amount of damage each weapon does or increasing armor across the board.


Why is that unpalatable? It increases TTK without messing up the balance between playstyles (sniper/burst damage/brawler/dps). ED ruins that balance by attempting to literally remove one of the playstyles.

#9 Akillius

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Mercenary
  • The Mercenary
  • 398 posts

Posted 25 October 2016 - 08:34 AM

View PostExcessive Paranoia, on 24 October 2016 - 04:37 PM, said:

The problem with this, as I've said earlier, is that you can't have a system designed to increase TTK that is based solely on weapon heat as that will just drive the meta to cooler weapons. You have to remember that ED, and GH before it, are systems designed not to force heat management, but rather to limit the rate of damage being traded. If you're trying to build a system to do that, there are a number of options, though most of them are rather unpalatable, such as reducing the amount of damage each weapon does or increasing armor across the board. By penalizing the use of large amounts of quick damage, ED will drive the meta away from large alphas and towards sustainable fire, something that by default should increase TTK and make matches more dynamic.


yeah well that heat card / heat scale system thingy was only used for a few decades in TT BattleTech...
And as for driving the "meta" to cooler weapons because of increased time to kill, well that argument holds absolutely no water with me (pun intended) because I started with Battledroids. Back then it was about heat management and yeah MG and canon's were the coolest running and most used weapons. So I don't care about changing the "Meta" back to what I started with, in fact I'd love it!

And a little perspective for clarity. This game originally started out as just another AD&D knockoff that was mastermixed into a board game about the future with giant fighting robots. And it was so successful in those early months FASA didn't just sell/give it all to George Lucas's (Starwars) lawsuit in 1984, instead they settled and renamed the game to BattleTech 2nd Ed (as in 2nd edition of Battledroids) and all of that happened in less then a year. And what that means is, Heats always a problem players had to learn and live with. By 1990 when TRO3050 came out with the clans and double heatsinks were everywhere and cheap. Yes doubleheat sinks were out before that but they were cost prohibitive and very-very rare to find/get. Anyways the clans brought a signifigant shift from MG/canon to laser weapons for the majority of mechs/players and sped up battles.

Today with MWO it's past TRO3050 so PGI can't ignore that double heatsink issue plus everyone plays it differently and under GH/ED there's just no real penalties for not maxing out the heat so you must expect some players attempting to create a variation of The Beef's DireStar but with a completely different mech type and weapons.
And that's possible because the main problem with MWO has always been that PGI does nothing to enforce heat management until the mech is has already overheated and shutdown.

Reducing weapon damage/range/cooldown/etc, increasing armor, quirks, GH and especially-ED are all wrong minded approaches to limit the damage that (most) Heavy and Assault mechs are Supposed to be able to do. FYI assaults aren't light scout mechs and visaversa... Under GH/ED there's just no reason to worry about increasing the heat to maximum so players will just keep shooting without any real penalties and that's why alphastrikes are-and-will-continue to be the problem in MWO.


REMINDER: the OP is about alternatives to the ED and so...

A real heat scale penalty system actually creates penalties as the heat increases.
- This is achieved by slowing movements/speeds incrementally as the heat increases.
- Makes aiming incrementally more difficult as the heat increases.
- At the higher end of the heat scale there should be a chance to randomly shutdown or even have an ammo explosion.
All the things I pointed out in previous post can be easily achieved with solutions that are already inuse and ingame.
So if you don't want 24/7 alphastrikes then get PGI to finally put the real heat penalty system into MWO!


And hey I didn't even mention that players should have a chance to loose some equipped weapons/equipment/modules that are deemed unrepairable from excessive overheating above the 100% shutdown point... That alone will make most players stop and think twice about alphastrike-shutdown tactic.

#10 BlackHeroe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 108 posts
  • LocationKasselhague

Posted 26 October 2016 - 06:14 PM

Exactly what i wanted to add to this:
"- This is achieved by slowing movements/speeds incrementally as the heat increases."

High heat would mean you get an easier target (like in tabletop)

#11 Excessive Paranoia

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 158 posts

Posted 26 October 2016 - 08:32 PM

And yet it would still do nothing about alpha-warriors online. That said, it looks like you guys won this one and ED is dead per Russ' twitter... A sad day for the game.

#12 Znail

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 306 posts

Posted 27 October 2016 - 05:46 PM

View PostWidowmaker1981, on 25 October 2016 - 07:52 AM, said:


Why is that unpalatable? It increases TTK without messing up the balance between playstyles (sniper/burst damage/brawler/dps). ED ruins that balance by attempting to literally remove one of the playstyles.

The fundamental problem that ED is ment to deal with isn't TTK, but that 60 pts of damage to a single location is better then 60 pts of damage spread out over a mech. The origin of the problem is that this is a fps, so we as players can focus our shots where we want, unlike the board game where hits were randomised. So any suggestion that doesn't actually address this problem is not a valid alternative.

#13 Widowmaker1981

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • 4,663 posts
  • LocationAt the other end of the pretty lights.

Posted 28 October 2016 - 04:08 AM

View PostZnail, on 27 October 2016 - 05:46 PM, said:

The fundamental problem that ED is ment to deal with isn't TTK, but that 60 pts of damage to a single location is better then 60 pts of damage spread out over a mech. The origin of the problem is that this is a fps, so we as players can focus our shots where we want, unlike the board game where hits were randomised. So any suggestion that doesn't actually address this problem is not a valid alternative.


But ghost heat already does that, if you take a little responsibility for your own defence - under ghost heat, to get that alpha you have to either mix projectile speeds (UAC10/ERPPC combo - needs to doubletap the UAC10), or use a laser boat (which has a long beam duration) or use spread damage (some kind of SRM splat build). All of these allow you, the target, to spread the damage yourself by moving laterally and torso twisting. GH prevents huge pinpoint front loaded alphas which are the only thing you cannot defend against. (i wouldnt be against linking Gauss and ERPPC in ghost heat, meaning you would have to separate the GR/ERPPC alpha by 0.5s, if thats a big problem for you)

What YOU want is to be able to stare at your target and not move, and expect the game to manage your defence for you.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 28 October 2016 - 04:11 AM.


#14 Cypherdrene

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 81 posts
  • LocationCabo

Posted 31 October 2016 - 11:26 AM

If the problem are Alpha shots, nerf them by delaying heat dissipation or decreasing accuracy after or shake the HUD after 80%, there's no use increasing heat while nerfing cooldowns. You shouldn't be penalized by being a good shooter, you should be penalized, however, for being greedy/bad at managing heat.

I rarely ever alpha, but I do get very trigger happy if I know I can get the kill. Continiously pulling the trigger generates a lot of heat anyway, so it balances itself out.

There's easier ways to balance this without complicating anything or adding nerfs.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users