Jump to content

Bring Back Energy Draw?


155 replies to this topic

#141 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 09 July 2017 - 11:10 AM

View PostReno Blade, on 09 July 2017 - 10:46 AM, said:

recap of ED from another post:

i hope this clears some confusions for now.


It wasn't dakka DPS spam that was the problem child, it was cERML DPS spam that was.

#142 Wildstreak

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 5,154 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 05:14 AM

View PostKhobai, on 08 July 2017 - 04:53 AM, said:


It was simpler than ghost heat is. Which was the whole point of energy draw. To simplify ghost heat and make it more transparent so people could actually understand it.

View PostYeonne Greene, on 08 July 2017 - 08:27 AM, said:

It was, and that was why it didn't work. They had to start tacking on all these modifiers and, when it became apparent that it would need many more, they canned it.

Never was any presentation of ED simple.
There were MUCH simpler ways of fixing the problem than ED or GH anyhow.

#143 Rusharn

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • 224 posts

Posted 10 July 2017 - 08:21 AM

I think the real issue with Energy Draw is it is one more system on top of all the other systems already in place. Adding Energy Draw would cause another layer of complication not only in design of mechs but in the actual playing of the mechs. If certain weapon combinations are over performing then the weapons can be adjusted in their heat, damage, duration, have charge up times, or any number of existing stats to reign in any over performing designs.

#144 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,461 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 10 July 2017 - 09:27 AM

View PostYeonne Greene, on 09 July 2017 - 11:10 AM, said:


It wasn't dakka DPS spam that was the problem child, it was cERML DPS spam that was.

Hmmm what was the problem iwth cERMLs? were they boated more than 6 and the penalty too low?
I wasn't really happy that lasers got less than 0.9 penalty multiplier (as they are DoT), but tweaking that multiplier (or just setting the values itself) would be my first step to fix that.

View PostWildstreak, on 10 July 2017 - 05:14 AM, said:

Never was any presentation of ED simple.
There were MUCH simpler ways of fixing the problem than ED or GH anyhow.

So the few simple rules I've posted above are not simple enough?
It's easier than GH where you don't see anything ingame besides the warning triangle in the mechlab, because you have weapon values AND can see the effect ingame on the energy bar instantly (even with sound).

View PostRusharn, on 10 July 2017 - 08:21 AM, said:

I think the real issue with Energy Draw is it is one more system on top of all the other systems already in place. Adding Energy Draw would cause another layer of complication not only in design of mechs but in the actual playing of the mechs. If certain weapon combinations are over performing then the weapons can be adjusted in their heat, damage, duration, have charge up times, or any number of existing stats to reign in any over performing designs.

Energy Draw was designed to replace Ghost heat.
Nobody would be able to balance the game if you had both mechanics on top of each other. :)

#145 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 11 July 2017 - 09:12 PM

View PostReno Blade, on 10 July 2017 - 09:27 AM, said:

Hmmm what was the problem iwth cERMLs? were they boated more than 6 and the penalty too low?
I wasn't really happy that lasers got less than 0.9 penalty multiplier (as they are DoT), but tweaking that multiplier (or just setting the values itself) would be my first step to fix that.


Combination of factors:
> 1x cERML is 7 damage for 1 ton, 10x cERML is 70 damage for 10 tons
> cERML have good range for their weight
> Lots of room left for heatsinks with only 10 tons weapon payload
> 5x cERML fired together is 35 damage
> 35 damage was not notably penalized under Energy Draw, and with large numbers of heatsinks it was furthe trivialized
> Fast Clan assaults with large numbers of energy hardpoints (Gargoyle, Executioner) could fire 5+5 for 35+35 and push with superior armor and there was nothing else in the game to counter; IS 'Mechs could only muster 3+3 Large Laser and it had neither the same cooling support nor the same damage, dakka boats were far slower and more vulnerable
> Rendered ranged gameplay weak, forced a brawl

Everything revolved around a 'Mech's ability to just stand there and absorb fire because nothing could lob a threatening enough volley when trying to play from cover. It was silly. And this was in 12 v 12, not 4 v 4.

#146 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,461 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 11 July 2017 - 11:12 PM

View PostYeonne Greene, on 11 July 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:


Combination of factors:
> 1x cERML is 7 damage for 1 ton, 10x cERML is 70 damage for 10 tons
> cERML have good range for their weight
> Lots of room left for heatsinks with only 10 tons weapon payload
> 5x cERML fired together is 35 damage
> 35 damage was not notably penalized under Energy Draw, and with large numbers of heatsinks it was furthe trivialized
> Fast Clan assaults with large numbers of energy hardpoints (Gargoyle, Executioner) could fire 5+5 for 35+35 and push with superior armor and there was nothing else in the game to counter; IS 'Mechs could only muster 3+3 Large Laser and it had neither the same cooling support nor the same damage, dakka boats were far slower and more vulnerable
> Rendered ranged gameplay weak, forced a brawl

Everything revolved around a 'Mech's ability to just stand there and absorb fire because nothing could lob a threatening enough volley when trying to play from cover. It was silly. And this was in 12 v 12, not 4 v 4.

Thanks for the clarification.

My first reaction is to nerf cERML to 6dmg.
TBH I always put them down to 6dmg in any calculation anyways...

Another take would be to put (Clan) laser energy draw to 1.0 or 1.1 multiplier.

And then there is the possibility to have energy regeneration slower than 20/sec
- or just have a short delay before it recharges, so you can't fire back-to-back energy neutral volleys, but this would affect dakka also - good or bad? I'm not sure.

The "not threatening enough volley to stop rushes" is one thing I don't see as a problem if brawling weapons are also less potent.
I guess it would make most mechs only take few long range weapons for "softening up" the enemy before reaching brawling range, but tbh, the only weapon that has problems in brawling range is LRM and PPC within min range.

#147 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:23 PM

Even if brawling weapons are less potent, it doesn't matter. The point was that you couldn't deal sufficient damage to stop the brawl, and once in-range the inherently superior heat efficiency on brawl weapons did the rest.

There is really nothing wrong with the game right now. Most build archetypes are useful in their proper time and place and TTK is not actually that short when matches routinely take 7-10 minutes despite the fact that you can potentially get 12 'Mechs shooting at one.

#148 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 13 July 2017 - 08:30 PM

Quote

TTK is not actually that short when matches routinely take 7-10 minutes despite the fact that you can potentially get 12 'Mechs shooting at one.


Match length has nothing to do with TTK though. Kindve a silly correlation.

You can have a long match time and still have low TTK.

For example if a light mech decides to run around and hide and prolong the game thats not an indication that the light mech's TTK is higher.

TTK is still not quite where it needs to be IMO. At least not for 12v12. TTK is fine in 8v8, and if we went back to 8v8 it would be perfect. But 12v12 is still screwing things up big time.

#149 Y E O N N E

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 16,810 posts

Posted 13 July 2017 - 09:32 PM

View PostKhobai, on 13 July 2017 - 08:30 PM, said:


Match length has nothing to do with TTK though. Kindve a silly correlation.


Average TTK is a function of literally everything that can go on in a match, not just the average time it takes one 'Mech to kill another in a stand-up 1 v 1 fight extrapolated out into 12 v 12. A 1 v 1 doesn't even use 'Mechs of the same type of configuration used for 12 v 12, you usually get far more cheesy for 1 v 1.

I've been watching some competitive Quake Champions 1v1s recently and I can make a fair example, here. TTK is the time it takes to get a frag in those matches, and our internal clock resets every time a champion dies. For the entire time span between frags, you are doing things to ensure that you get that frag be it hiding, running, walking, shooting, or stacking. Every minute action is geared to getting you into a state to earn that frag, a step in the kill-chain. If it's in the kill-chain, it's part of the engagement and, thus, factors into TTK.

If we were to use the definition of TTK that you are going for, it would be an absurdly low 3-6 seconds for Quake, but that would be an incredibly misleading number.

Quote

For example if a light mech decides to run around and hide and prolong the game thats not an indication that the light mech's TTK is higher.


But I can also run around and make favorable trades at long intervals, eventually bringing my target down while rendering his return fire ineffective because I have complete initiative. So I can get a three or five or eight minute TTK because that engagement was active for that long. This also works well with the Quake analogy, because even when you aren't diving for the kill you are still trading blows back and forth intermittently to disadvantage your enemy's stack. The engagement is always active. I am doing the exact same thing with my Locust, with the added benefit of potentially increasing the instantaneous average TTK on my teammates by pulling more guns away from that part of the fight than they lost by having me squirreling.

Quote

TTK is still not quite where it needs to be IMO. At least not for 12v12. TTK is fine in 8v8, and if we went back to 8v8 it would be perfect. But 12v12 is still screwing things up big time.


"Quite" is the operative word here. I think it's fair to say that it's not "perfect," but at the same time I don't think it's fair to say that it's "bad." I do agree that 8 v 8 is the sweet spot for the game with all else remaining as-is.

#150 Reno Blade

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blade
  • The Blade
  • 3,461 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 14 July 2017 - 03:08 AM

What I'd like to see in a comparison chart:

In MMORPGs you have the term "out of combat". Some addons track your stats like dps in battle and out of battle so you can compare them...

- TTK in combat vs TTK total (including out of combat time like hiding and flanking)
in combat the TTK can be very short.
Without cover, armor sharing and such, the flat time to kill/die can vary much between few seconds and a few minutes (depending on movement, twisting and pilot/target skills and builds.

TTK comparison between mechs and builds:
e.g.
- light vs med vs heavy vs assault (averages)
- same mech, different builds. e.g. PHawk with 3x LL vs PHawk with 2x ERLL + 1x ML vs PHawk with 2xLP

TTK comparison between range engagements:
e.g.
- 200m vs 400m vs 600m vs 800m

Then it might turn into a huge multi-level-matrix, but I guarantee that there is a big jump between some of these.
A Phawk (already fragile and weak in general) fighting a NightGyr at any range ... no way the PHawk will survive long.
Any light mech will probably survive longer due to dodging the hits.
Some heavies/Assaults might be able to punish/cripple/destroy that NightGyr even.

But in the end, there is a power creep towards agile and frontloaded heavy mechs.
Be it lots of lasers, Gauss+PPC or SRMs, a fast/agile heavy mech can win most fights, with only the fastest and sneakyest lights being a thread due to the speed and backstabbing, or a assault with more firepower that can survive the damage and deal more damage.

While I am usually more for "nerfing", the main goal for me is to reduce the Gaps between more weapons and less weapons.

#151 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 16 July 2017 - 08:00 AM

View PostNesutizale, on 02 July 2017 - 07:37 AM, said:

Heatscale (the original TT system slightly modified)
The old TT system wasn't capping anything, it was easy to understand, could increase TTK while keeping alphas an option and works with any kind of weapon combination.

It needs some tweaking to work in MWO but it offers more depth to the game then ghostheat or energydraw can.

You can see my topic about the changes here https://mwomercs.com...eting-movement/

TT's Heatscale ultimately had its own way of capping things. With the Heatsink Taxing, the risk was melting heatsinks if you produced more than the cooling power of your heatsinks, and if you hit 30 excess (uncooled) heat, you shut down. (I should note there is no override, and according to the rules you cannot start back up until cooled to 46.67% heat aka "14" units.)
(In Battletech, there's a weapons override when the weapons shutdown. Weapons shut down at >80% and do not restore on their own until 79% heat. The IS commonly override this. The Clans do not.) There is no override for the mech shutting down, period. That is a Mechwarrior game fabrication.)

Our current heat caps are in the 80 to 120 range for most builds. That's higher than the 60 locked limit of Mechwarrior 4 and its rampant abuse which was twice that of tabletop. Furthermore, we can fire 6 PPCs (sans the ghost heat limitation) at once without shutting down and in 7 seconds we were good to do it again before shutting down.. In Tabletop you'd shut down with a similar build that has MORE heatsinks than MWO's build AND shutdown on the first volley almost automatically.

MWO has to resort to ******** systems because it allows so much more freedom than intended. Ghost heat allows loopholes to be exploited, so we can combine these lasers with those lasers to produce 80 damage "alphas."

Alpha strikes are defined as a high risk/modest reward manuever performed by desperate mechwarriors as a last ditch effort. Not the common practice.
Of course we mistake the lore Alpha strike for the tabletop one, where we queue all the weapons to fire over 10 seconds. That is not the alpha strike but we call it that for some reason. The lore version is all at once, and typically mechs are known to explode due to ammo explosions, weapons are known to take damage or explode, barrels on autocannons are known to melt, and pilots are known to cook alive inside of their mech.

Now consider what Energy Draw does for a moment.
You fire X damage at once, you cook.
Seems pretty straight forward. That is very simple to communicate to new players. But therein rests the problem, the condition for applying it sucked.

it needs better conditions, applying an "energy usage" trait to each weapon can then produce better combinations, and then you have "X" energy which drains and fills. Rather than an arbitrary ghost heat thing, you'd just not fire things outside of that range if you fire too much. Then comes in the alpha strike key, hit this and the energy draw lmit is ignored, all weapons fire at once, and laser durations are cut in half. The cost, of course, is you get all that heat + an additional 50%.

Now I'm not saying that's the best way to do it. But it does sort of fit the intent and the issues you described.

Edited by Koniving, 16 July 2017 - 08:03 AM.


#152 ManDaisy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 3,272 posts
  • LocationKing Of Flower Beds

Posted 21 July 2017 - 05:01 AM

The failing of energy draw was tieing it to heat and not actually any penalties. PGI half assed it, thus it didnt work. Energy draw also regened way to fast. So as I stated earlier all it did was give a slight delay, this was due to the energy draw regen being taken into account to avoid heat.

Edited by ManDaisy, 21 July 2017 - 05:03 AM.


#153 Kalimaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,811 posts
  • LocationInside the Mech that just fired LRM's at you

Posted 06 December 2017 - 04:24 PM

Tell you what....NO

#154 Mighty Spike

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 5,595 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationHoly Beer City of Munich

Posted 07 December 2017 - 01:56 PM

Yep, bring it online.

#155 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 07 December 2017 - 08:09 PM

im all for energy draw 3.0

but they need to fix what made energy draw 2.0 suck

like the fact assaults had the same 30 energy cap as lights. that just took away the only advantage assaults had which is firepower.

also having both heat and energy draw was confusing. there should only be one draw system. if heat and energy draw could be integrated into one single draw system that would be better.

Edited by Khobai, 07 December 2017 - 08:11 PM.






16 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 16 guests, 0 anonymous users