13 replies to this topic

[Reno Blade]

I would like to discuss the difference of the current PTS2.0 heat dissipation+capacity vs the old Energy Draw system (from Energy Draw PTS long ago).

The "problem" with the current low capacity of 40 and high dissipation is that you reduce the alphas (mostly for higher heat weapons like energy) and with enough dissipation you can get "infinite heat" builds where you don't really have to care for heat much.

The "problem" with Energy Draw was that the high heat spikes had a similar "negative" effect on larger alphas, but on an overall larger heat cap (scaling with heat sinks) and slower dissipation.


So my question for discussion:
what does the current PTS2.0 have over the Energy Draw that makes it feel so much better for the people than the Energy Draw?
is it the higher dissipation mostly?
was it the bad spiky nature of the ED penalties (similar to GH)?


I thought that we could have a much smoother experience on a larger heat scale (let's say cap of 100) with more gradient (over time, instead of spiky) heat penalties from Energy Draw (2.0).
And it would allow for much easier tuning, better weapon handling and so on...

[process]

Personally, I don't like having mechanics that are exceptional. Using the base heat system feels more accessible and intuitive than a secondary energy scale as a band aid.

I see ghost heat similarly, as a necessary evil for the time being. Theoretically an even lower heat cap, or increasing the heat values on specific weapons, could see it eliminated entirely.

My issue with high-cap-low-dissipation has always been how it indirectly encourages peak/poke play style by making it all but impossible to sustain fire in a brawl. It also directly enabled the high-alpha laser meta, and past Gauss/PPC meta.

There's also nothing wrong with certain heat-neutral builds. Certain weapons pay for that through other means, like tonnage (ballistics) or range restrictions and spread (missiles). Heat is mostly there to limit lightweight, infinite ammo energy weapons.

[Reno Blade]

My biggest gripe with the idea of removing GH (or ED) completely, is that it keeps the low-hardpoint builds behind.

Without GH, you might be able to use 4 PPCs + 2 Gauss or something like 6 Larges (and even add some meds).
There is then no reason to use less than that and any build only using 1 or 2 PPCs (e.g. PHawk or Vindicator, heck even Marauder/Warhammer)
I would take a Marauder with 4 PPCs, which I already use now, but then I could fire all 4 at once.

I would prefere a environment where it does not always result in bigger=better.
Sure with 40 cap, you can't fire much more PPCs, but things skale linearly without GH and that means it's always better to bring 2x AC20 than to bring a single one with other weapons as backup.

Anyway, I will see what other comments come to this discussion, if people are willing to take it serously like you.
Thanks for your explanation!

[Mycroft000]

With a 40 point heat cap, 4x PPC, you're at the cap anyway. Ghost heat is, as best I can tell, completely unnecessary under this PTS.

[xXBagheeraXx]

*Takes energy draw out back and shoots it*

NO.

LET IT DIE. No more gimmicky freaking mechanics.

[Kuaron]

One major problem with ED was simply that it made no sense at all.
Heat simulates the behaviour of the fusion reactor, and this 2.0 is even closer to the TT original and fulfils some goals of the ED at the same time. That’s why people love it and that’s why we suggested about this same system during the ED PTS. (We could have had it for a long time already, if PGI had wished.)
ED, on the other hand, was just stupid, and created problems with weapon boating in addition.

[Reno Blade]

I think the main issue with Energy Draw is/was that second heat bar and "logic" being to complicated for many ...


It would be more sense to have ALL heat being generated over a certain time and have the second heat bar just showing how high your heat/second stack is now.

The overall experience would be much smoother and the UI could be much easier to understand:
See Mechwarrior2 heat/second buildup HUD display (dH/dT) as reference:


e.g. Using a Warhawk with 4 cERPPC and 15 DHS (example 0.20 dissipation per DHS)
- Fire 1 cERPPC for 15 heat: dH/dT (heat over time bar) stays in the blue showing that you will generate low (15) heat in the next 5 seconds = 3 heat / sec but will dissipate all of it in the same time
- With the 3.0 dissipation/seconds from your DHS basically neutralizing the complete heat of a single CERPPC in 5 seconds

- Fire 2 cERPPCs for 30 heat: dH/dT goes into yellow showing that you will generate 30 heat in the next 5 seconds = 6 heat / sec
- With the 3.0 dissipation/seconds from your DHS basically neutralizing only half the heat of the dual CERPPC in 5 seconds, so you will be at 15 heat after 5 seconds.

- Fire 3 cERPPCs for 45 heat: dH/dT goes into red showing that you will generate 45 heat in the next 5 seconds = 9 heat / sec
- With the 3.0 dissipation/seconds from your DHS basically neutralizing only 1/3rd the heat of the tripple CERPPC in 5 seconds, so you will be at 30 heat after 5 seconds.

- Fire 4 cERPPCs for 60 heat: dH/dT goes into deep red showing that you will generate 60 heat in the next 5 seconds = 12 heat / sec
- With the 3.0 dissipation/seconds from your DHS basically neutralizing only 1/4th the heat of the dual CERPPC in 5 seconds, so you will be at 45 heat after 5 seconds.

Now depending on the heat cap and dissipation setting this can change, but you see that you could keep firing 2 cerPPC if you can equip 30 DHS without building up any heat.

Energy Draw could just add the "penalty" heat over time towards your normal heat/sec bar and then the feeling would be totally natural in the context of the heat/sec build up and the resulting heat on your heat bar.
It can be even adjusted to spread over a longer duration than normal heat (e.g. 10 heat over 10 sec instead of 5 sec).

e.g. when firing 3 cERPPCs you get a penalty of let's say 10 heat (over 10 sec) so your heat/sec goes from 9/s to 10/s and you would be at 35 heat instead of 30 with the remaining 5 heat generated in the next 5 sec for 1/s so that you are at 25 heat after a total of 10 sec from your shot (+5 and -15).

Compared to the current heatspike where you would instantly get all heat + all penalty heat for an instant 55 heat (45+10), I think the heat over time feels more natural.

Edited by Reno Blade, 22 August 2018 - 12:27 PM.

[Xetelian]

My main problem with Energy Draw was that all engines and weights were equal.


20 tons? you can do a 30 alpha with no problem
100 tons? You are restricted to a 30 alpha only.

That kills bigger mechs hard.

[Y E O N N E]

Mycroft000, on 20 August 2018 - 11:27 AM, said:

With a 40 point heat cap, 4x PPC, you're at the cap anyway. Ghost heat is, as best I can tell, completely unnecessary under this PTS.

Check the sustained output of 5x or 6x cERML with 30x cDHS vs. 5x or 6x isERML with just 18-20 DHS. That is why Ghost Heat is still in.

Edited by Yeonne Greene, 22 August 2018 - 09:26 PM.

[Ensaine]

Nothing like beating a dead horse......

[Lozruet Gravemind]

Reno Blade, on 19 August 2018 - 02:20 AM, said:

I would like to discuss the difference of the current PTS2.0 heat dissipation+capacity vs the old Energy Draw system (from Energy Draw PTS long ago).

The "problem" with the current low capacity of 40 and high dissipation is that you reduce the alphas (mostly for higher heat weapons like energy) and with enough dissipation you can get "infinite heat" builds where you don't really have to care for heat much.

The "problem" with Energy Draw was that the high heat spikes had a similar "negative" effect on larger alphas, but on an overall larger heat cap (scaling with heat sinks) and slower dissipation.


So my question for discussion:
what does the current PTS2.0 have over the Energy Draw that makes it feel so much better for the people than the Energy Draw?
is it the higher dissipation mostly?
was it the bad spiky nature of the ED penalties (similar to GH)?


I thought that we could have a much smoother experience on a larger heat scale (let's say cap of 100) with more gradient (over time, instead of spiky) heat penalties from Energy Draw (2.0).
And it would allow for much easier tuning, better weapon handling and so on...

Havnt read all the responses yet but my guess would be easy of understanding. Adding the Energy Draw on top of the Heat system made the thing more convoluted than it really needs to be. Even if the Heat Cap of 50 and increase in dissipation is the exact same fix, talking hypothetically here, its implimented in such a easy to understand and digest way that its much simpler for players, new and old, to figure out its exact workings.

[Reno Blade]

Sure just using flat values such as used on the weapon and the heat sinks (cap/diss) is much easier...
The problem I see comes from the fact that you need to bring the biggest bang for the lowest cost and this is often creating huge difference in power for different builds even on the same mech.

The advantage of GH and ED "on-top" of the existing heatscale is that they provide means for exponential scaling/punishing.
While without GH/ED, you can decide to just double the dmg for double the heat, you get diminishing returns on dmg per heat with the heat penalties...

I think a larger heat scale with slow rising and falling heat allows more finetuned and gradual heat management system (see previous suggestion to heat-over-time).
The PTS2.0 with a 40 cap and fast dissipation feels better than PTS2.1 with a 50 cap and fast dissipation because you dissipate a lower amount while having the same % displayed compared to PTS2.1 and compared to live.
This allows laser+DHS boating to shine more than on live while punishing everything else (especially dakka).

Using the opposite e.g. 100 cap with medium dissipation (which is reduced by having more heat penalties from ED) would slow down the boats more than the other builds (dakka or lower hardpoint counts).
That's why I think it would actually be better than high dissipation and low cap.
At least then you could get more out of hardpoint/heatsink starved medium mechs compared to boats.

[Cato Zilks]

I think my quick answer to your OP is that ED stupidly penalized "cold" weapons with massive heat spikes. Dual Gauss Dual UAC 10 (with the rapid double tap) would cause heat similar to 3 ER-PPCs. This was so fundamentally stupid in my mind and so obviously favored builds that included ample DHS that I could never support it.

For the record, I am also strongly opposed to AC20 GH, and Gauss/PPC ghost heat (though I would be ok if the GH was only multiplied onto the PPCs (making 2 GR 1 PPC much cooler than 1GR 2 PPC)).

[Reno Blade]

Compared to GH, the large spikes from Energy Draw came from ANY combination that exceeded the "limit".

The idea was to penalize high alpha and high dps and allow mechs with lower amount of weapons to work more efficient.
e.g. when a PHawk with 3 lasers was fighting an assault with 10 lasers the penalties made the assault spread the weapons in multiple groups (e.g. 3, 3, 4) and this allowed the medium to have a better chance to fight the assault.
The fact that the heat penalties were such huge spikes and also happening on nearly every shot made it feel very akward, i agree.
->
Now on the PTS2.0 and 2.1 we can see the problem also, even without ED.

With high alpha or even higher with GH penalty, you will get to much larger heat levels so fast that many people are very afraid this would kill many heat intensive builds.
In both scenarios, the players do not want to use fire-discipline because it is currently REQUIRED to use as much alpha + dps as possible or you are just toast.

The solution?
Well, we either go down to a 30 heat bar and high dissipation and deal with any side effects separately. (e.g. tweaking some weapontype heat)
Or we could do it the opposite and use some huge heat bar, but have Energy Draw on top where you get heat "penalties" very often, but so soft that the overall experience of them feels more smoothly.