56 replies to this topic

[Aim-Bot]

As title says. Pls remove 1,5 heat capacity from double heat sinks. they are not supposed to work like this. You made the High Alpha problem and the low TTK yourself when you added heat capacity to Double heat sinks and you try to balance it by using any sort of strange ghost heat system. JUST FINALLY REMOVE HEAT CAPACITY!

[Kotzi]

This would actually achieve nothing. You want people to be able to alphastrike even more?

[Aim-Bot]

our current heat capacity is 45 but its supposed to be 30. double heat sinks are not working like they are supposed to.Lowering heat capacity will lower alpha strikes automatically.Its a PGI made problem when they implemented double heat sinks back then.Before DHS the TTK was way way longer.

[Mawai]

Kotzi, on 15 May 2017 - 04:37 AM, said:

This would actually achieve nothing. You want people to be able to alphastrike even more?

I think he is referring to the fact that in MWO heatsinks increase both the total heat capacity AND the dissipation rate. i.e. heat sinks not only dissipate heat faster but they also increase the total amount of heat possible before the mech overheats.

I think the suggestion is to remove the heat capacity associated with the heat sinks while leaving the dissipation. This would reduce the total heat capacity and thus the number of hight heat alpha strikes possible before the mech overheats.

In Battltech, as far as I recall, heat sinks only increased dissipation and not capacity but I could be wrong.

P.S. The whole heat capacity issue was probably a big factor in why PGI found that true double heat sinks were extremely effective (and chose to nerf them) ... basically since they had implemented them incorrectly. Also, when PGI was implementing double heat sinks they went through several iterations to get both engine and external heat sinks working correctly ... someone had some real difficulties trying to implement something like the table top heat sink rules.

Edited by Mawai, 15 May 2017 - 04:47 AM.

[Aim-Bot]

Mawai, on 15 May 2017 - 04:43 AM, said:

In Battltech, as far as I recall, heat sinks only increased dissipation and not capacity but I could be wrong.

You are absolutely right.The heat capacity is 30 and there is no way in battletech to bring heat capacity higher up, however the double heat sinks in MWO increase the heat capacity by 50% so we can fire high alpha strikes without any drawback wich reduces the Time to Kill to a very short time.Instead playing around with ghost heat systems they should make the DHS work like they should do.
This would solve alot of problems.

Edited by Aim-Bot, 15 May 2017 - 04:51 AM.

[Valhallan]

To be fair, while in TT heatsinks did not "technically" increase heat capacity, in function they did since they sunk the heat as soon as it was applied. That being said since we don't have any of the penalties associated with the 30 heat tree, and some people don't want to see such things/don't believe pgi could code it, it would be better imo to just cut the penalty parts of the table off, so all mechs start at 10 heatcap, and the majority of your heatcap will have to come from your heatsinks (functionally this would copy BT's system which replaced all the penalties with slowly ramping internal damage), with such a system we probably could get rid of spooky heat too, which would be a good thing.

[MrJeffers]

Aim-Bot, on 15 May 2017 - 04:48 AM, said:

You are absolutely right.The heat capacity is 30 and there is no way in battletech to bring heat capacity higher up, however the double heat sinks in MWO increase the heat capacity by 50% so we can fire high alpha strikes without any drawback wich reduces the Time to Kill to a very short time.Instead playing around with ghost heat systems they should make the DHS work like they should do.
This would solve alot of problems.

No, you are absolutely wrong, in TT Battletech heatsinks do increase heat capacity because of how the turn system works and when you check for heat. You perform all your actions, dissipate heat, then check for heat penalties.
Example, the stock Awesome 8q with 3 PPCs, SL and 28 single heat sinks.
On it's turn it:
Runs +2 heat
Fires it's 3 PPCs +30 heat
And now it melts down and self destructs because it's a 32 heat and there is a 30 point heat cap right?

Wrong - that 30 point heat scale is *after* dissipation which in this case is 28, so the effective scale is now 58 for the 8Q
Because he dissipates 28 at the end of the turn, leaving 4 surplus heat. And checks for the penalties of 4 heat on the scale.

Edited by MrJeffers, 15 May 2017 - 06:47 AM.

[Natred]

Funny how "double" heatsinks opperate at 150 percent not actual double. Should call them one and a half heatsinks

[Khobai]

Quote

Pls remove 1,5 heat capacity from double heat sinks. they are not supposed to work like this

yes they are supposed to work like that. its how they work in battletech too.

Quote

To be fair, while in TT heatsinks did not "technically" increase heat capacity, in function they did since they sunk the heat as soon as it was applied

They did technically increase heat capacity. The more heatsinks you had the more heat you could generate before suffering penalties.

Say you have two mechs, one with 10 DHS and one with 20 DHS. Both mechs fire 40 heat worth of weapons.

The first mech generates 40 heat, loses 20 heat from 10 DHS, and ends at 20 heat and suffers penalties

The second mech generates 40 heat, loses 40 heat from 20 DHS, and ends at 0 heat and suffers no penalties

The second mech would need to generate 20 additional heat to suffer the same penalties as the first mech; because it has more heatsinks it has a higher capacity before suffering penalties.

Edited by Khobai, 15 May 2017 - 06:37 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Valhallan, on 15 May 2017 - 05:19 AM, said:

To be fair, while in TT heatsinks did not "technically" increase heat capacity, in function they did since they sunk the heat as soon as it was applied. That being said since we don't have any of the penalties associated with the 30 heat tree, and some people don't want to see such things/don't believe pgi could code it, it would be better imo to just cut the penalty parts of the table off, so all mechs start at 10 heatcap, and the majority of your heatcap will have to come from your heatsinks (functionally this would copy BT's system which replaced all the penalties with slowly ramping internal damage), with such a system we probably could get rid of spooky heat too, which would be a good thing.

It's an old topic, but the way I i see it:

A table top turn is 10 seconds long.Everything mechs do, moving, jumping, firing guns, some kicking, happens in that 10 second interval. The game mechanics don't tell us how things are split up over the 10 second time frame.
Even the TT "Alpha Strike" just means firing all your guns in a 10 second turn. It does not neccessarily suggest that mechs are (always) capable of firing all their weapons in one instant.

When we want to use battletech concepts in a real time game, we have to figure out how we model the specifics in that 10 second turn. It could very well be quite plausible that we'd model it by saying that 30 point heat cap is a fixed value, and thanks to staggered fire (chain fire) and working with the constant application of heat dissipation, we can fire all the weapons that a mech is expected to fire in a 10 second interval.

Obviously, this means that 1-second alpha strikes are no longer practical for many mechs. But this might be exactly what we'd want, if we really worry about short TTKs and excessive alpha striking. (And it might also discourage boating a bit, since one of the biggest advantages - alpha striking with converging weapons - no longer applies.)

It doesn't adress all issues, of course - Gauss Rifles for example will never be limited by heat. (But they got the Gauss Charge mechanic in play for a long while now, and if we'd want to be harsher, we could also say that only one rifle can be in the charged state at a time.)

But since this is such an old topic, I strongly predict that this isn't something that PGI will attempt to do.


I hope that MW5 will not suck too badly and allow us to mod the game statistics so we can experiment with this...

[Athom83]

This would just push more people to the D-Gauss + ERPPC meta even further. It doesn't matter if they almost max their heat, all they have to do is sit behind cover until they cool down. It would also make new weapons like the Heavy Lasers DOA as noone would use them because of their stupidly high heat output.

[Athom83]

Aim-Bot, on 15 May 2017 - 04:42 AM, said:

our current heat capacity is 45 but its supposed to be 30.

Wrong. It is 40 when you only have 10 single heatsinks. It raises to 48 when you change them all to DHS. You can easily get your heat cap to 60 when you competently balance your weapons with heatsinks.

[Khobai]

Quote

This would just push more people to the D-Gauss + ERPPC meta even further. It doesn't matter if they almost max their heat, all they have to do is sit behind cover until they cool down. It would also make new weapons like the Heavy Lasers DOA as noone would use them because of their stupidly high heat output.

yep.

lowering heat cap to 30 just makes dual gauss + dual erppc even more meta than it already is

because x2 cgauss and x2 cerppc is EXACTLY 30 heat

all that accomplishes is removing options, not adding them


people who think heat capacity is the problem clearly dont understand what the real problem is. the problem is the fact you can design a mech that puts 50+ damage into one location. the game needs more mechanics that forcibly spread around damage.

Edited by Khobai, 15 May 2017 - 06:56 AM.

[Alan Davion]

Valhallan, on 15 May 2017 - 05:19 AM, said:

To be fair, while in TT heatsinks did not "technically" increase heat capacity, in function they did since they sunk the heat as soon as it was applied. That being said since we don't have any of the penalties associated with the 30 heat tree, and some people don't want to see such things/don't believe pgi could code it, it would be better imo to just cut the penalty parts of the table off, so all mechs start at 10 heatcap, and the majority of your heatcap will have to come from your heatsinks (functionally this would copy BT's system which replaced all the penalties with slowly ramping internal damage), with such a system we probably could get rid of spooky heat too, which would be a good thing.

You're right on both counts.

The people that don't want it are the ultra-comp-meta-cheese-tryhards, because it would mess up their super-aggressive style of play by slowing them down and preventing them from aiming properly.

And in all likelihood PGI would not be able to code it properly, because we all know they screw up pretty much everything else they try to put into the game by making it overly complicated when the solution is to simplify things.

Khobai, on 15 May 2017 - 06:52 AM, said:

people who think heat capacity is the problem clearly dont understand what the real problem is. the problem is the fact you can design a mech that puts 50+ damage into one location. the game needs more mechanics that forcibly spread around damage.

Gee, sounds like a CONE OF FIRE MECHANIC right there, which will just get shouted down by the ultra-comp-meta-cheese crowd since it messes with their play style by slowing down their super aggressive time to kill weapons.

[Khobai]

Quote

Gee, sounds like a CONE OF FIRE MECHANIC right there

not at all. in fact im adamantly opposed to cone of fire.

I am pro beam duration, burst damage, splash damage, spread damage, ripple fire, etc... though

those are all mechanics that spread out damage without introducing something as ridiculous as cone of fire.

likewise I believe the gauss rifle could be fixed by reducing its overall damage from 15 to 10-12 but giving it the unique ability to get through armor crits. reduces PPFLD and replaces it with utility.

Edited by Khobai, 15 May 2017 - 07:07 AM.

[Mystere]

If PGI is really completely incapable of bringing back the delayed convergence mechanic of closed beta, then a "convergence on lock" system will do as a close approximation.

As for a CoF system, I sure hope its detractors know the differences between a normal distribution, a uniform distribution, and the wildly exaggerated claims of the form "But I don't want my shots to go wildly 90 degrees from what I aimed at". The latter are just simply idiots.

Edited by Mystere, 15 May 2017 - 08:24 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 15 May 2017 - 06:52 AM, said:

yep.

lowering heat cap to 30 just makes dual gauss + dual erppc even more meta than it already is

because x2 cgauss and x2 cerppc is EXACTLY 30 heat

all that accomplishes is removing options, not adding them


people who think heat capacity is the problem clearly dont understand what the real problem is. the problem is the fact you can design a mech that puts 50+ damage into one location. the game needs more mechanics that forcibly spread around damage.

So then take a look at that particular meta and find a way to make this less practical. It is a very small subset of builds you can craft a solution for.

For example, do not allow two Gauss to be in charged state at the same time. Maybe add a 0.5 second "discharge" state that also blocks charging and PPC shots.

It's still better than Ghost Heat.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 15 May 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[Athom83]

Alan Davion, on 15 May 2017 - 06:59 AM, said:

Gee, sounds like a CONE OF FIRE MECHANIC right there, which will just get shouted down by the ultra-comp-meta-cheese crowd since it messes with their play style by slowing down their super aggressive time to kill weapons.

There are ways of doing it that isn't a "cone of fire" (WoT style). One way of doing it is changing aiming is to change convergence. Whether that way is to do it delayed style (beta), lock-on based, or have weapons not have pinpoint convergence (Chromehounds).

MustrumRidcully, on 15 May 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

So then take a look at that particular meta and find a way to make this less practical. It is a very small subset of builds you can craft a solution for.

For example, do not allow two Gauss to be in charged state at the same time.

No... just no. That doesn't address the issues that make that meta, it just band-aid fixes that specific build. Gauss aren't even supposed to have a "charge time", just a very long recycle time (7+ seconds). They only changed it to the charge system because they tried to curb the poptart meta from beta.

Edited by Athom83, 15 May 2017 - 08:27 AM.

[Mystere]

Increasing (C)ERPPC heat by at least 1 should curtail dual gauss + dual ERPPC setups. Allowing only one gauss rifle being charged at any given time is another. Heck, do both.

Alternatively, get rid of gauss charge but allow only a single gauss rifle to be fired at any given time with the normal cooldown timer in between shots. Heck, do the latter as well for all PPCs.

Edited by Mystere, 15 May 2017 - 08:34 AM.

[Athom83]

Mystere, on 15 May 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

Increasing (C)ERPPC heat by at least 1 should curtail dual gauss + dual ERPPC setups.

Agreed. ERPPC for both sides are supposed to be 15 heat.

Mystere, on 15 May 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

Allowing only one gauss rifle being charged at any given time is another. Heck, do both.

No.

Mystere, on 15 May 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

Alternatively, get rid of gauss charge but allow only a single gauss rifle to be fired at any given time with the normal cooldown timer in between shots. Heck, do the latter as well for all PPCs.

The preferred would be to remove charge while increasing time to recycle by 2-3 seconds. But that would reinforce poptart. As it is, gauss is in a weird spot for balancing. Also, by making it so only 1 gauss can fire at a time makes mechs like the Fafnir (one of the most requested mechs) DOA.