137 replies to this topic

[Racerxintegra2k]

Lose a side torso and either blow up or shut down. This change is obnoxious because you have no way of knowing unless you can math like someone counting cards in blackjack. Can anyone explain to me the benefit of this change ?

[Jay Leon Hart]

You need to manage your heat more now, or just take a standard engine - LFE/XL need more drawbacks, so this is good.

[Nightbird]

Direct nerf to LFE and C-XL is also an indirect buff to standard and IS XL engines.

[- World Eater -]

Manage your heat and don't rely on override.

[FupDup]

Nightbird, on 13 December 2018 - 12:25 PM, said:

Direct nerf to LFE and C-XL is also an indirect buff to standard and IS XL engines.

Making Luffies generate more heat on ST loss is still a thousand times better than immediately dying upon side torso loss. This will not change the meta, it will just reduce quality of life a bit.

[RickySpanish]

Ima bring my Grasshopper more often now. HPPC 'Hopper don't care 'bout no heat build up on ST loss.

[Prototelis]

I like this change, except for when it happens to me.

[BrunoSSace]

Sounds bad but will help with balance. Might buff standards a little.

[Kubernetes]

It's stupid. When you lose a ST all your surplus heat transfers into your remaining DHS. It doesn't make any sense.

[justcallme A S H]

Racerxintegra2k, on 13 December 2018 - 12:22 PM, said:

Lose a side torso and either blow up or shut down. This change is obnoxious because you have no way of knowing unless you can math like someone counting cards in blackjack. Can anyone explain to me the benefit of this change ?

The benefit of the change as per the patch notes:

Quote

Heat System Design Notes: We have decided to make some back end changes to the way the heat threshold system is calculated in order to address a number of heat related display bugs that resulted in irregular heat bar behavior when components where destroyed out from under a player while they still had accumulated heat. While this change is mostly targeted to remove these heat display bugs, this will carry with it some shifts to the way that the heat system works.

Sadly this change has done nothing to address the mostly targeted part - heat bug - as the heat bug (broken dissipation bar) is still well and truly there. I've seen two separate examples of it since the patch already so less than 48hrs.

The main benefit was the bug. The bug was not fixed. This clip here is essentially what we are left with:

https://clips.twitch...aguarTwitchRaid


If you make a mistake and overheat then you're essentially dead if you lose a torso as you are out of the match for 8 seconds. If you don't get dual-overheat and you are sitting at approx 85% and lose a torso you will also shut down, again gimped for 4 seconds. This is a huge slap in the face to brawlers who are spreading damage and engaging in such playstyle.

That to me ruins game play flow and greatly reduces fun/enjoyment.

Worst part is I was sooooo upbeat about the past 2 patches and then the Dec patch. Then actually playing a single game with this new torso loss / heat spike mechanic last night. Ridiculous. You are essentially being punished for shooting (high on heat) and rewarded for being passive (low on heat).

It also seems to be inconsistent amounts of heat spike when losing a torso. There are things that affect it like map, mech, engine, how many H/S's you lose when torso is taken off etc etc. A whole entirely new bunch of variables people have to account for that are overly complicated.

Once again this is not doing anything positive for fun gameplay IMO.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 13 December 2018 - 01:22 PM.

[Koniving]

Kubernetes, on 13 December 2018 - 01:12 PM, said:

It's stupid. When you lose a ST all your surplus heat transfers into your remaining DHS. It doesn't make any sense.

Technically its exactly the same in Battletech. When you lose heatsinks due to destruction or melting (through the heatsink taxing rule where if you generate 5 heat more than your heatsinks can handle in a single turn, there's a roll to see if you lose a heatsink due to it rupturing), you keep the heat and just lose the ability to cool it.

The heat emanates from one of two sources: The weapon itself or the reactor spiking to produce the energy needed to fire. BT rules for heat treat all heat as coming from the reactor for simplicity, and this change also treats all heat as coming from the reactor (engine).

The heat isn't in your heatsinks until it is "cooled" so to speak. Since MWO only has a two stage heat system (stage one make heat, stage two its wilted away).

[Tarl Cabot]

https://mwomercs.com...is-bonkers-now/

The above at least one poster noted the heat bug and not display bug is still alive.

This is my POV of how that works, and it is based on how PGI posted on how the initial 20% engine heat dissipation works. It is possible that with the changes and the skill nodes the database may be frak.

Current heat bar/scale is 30 base + 20 engine HS (SHS or DHS) = 50, then if any additional HS, add DHS 0.5 heat capacity/ SHS 0.75 per sink

https://mwomercs.com...41840-16oct2018

• 30 base + 20 from 10 engine HS = 50 heat capacity = 100% heat bar
  
• Destroy ST which removes 4 HS, leaving 6 HS .. 30base + 12 = 42 heat capacity.for new 100% heat bar
  
• adding for mech with no additional HS
  
• 50 heat capacity = 100%
  
• ST destroyed: new 42 heat capacity which is a 16% change in the heat capacity but it is not reflected in the percentage mark, which still shows 100% mark. This new mark should be changed to show the new percentage at 84% but lets leave it at that cause there is still heat bug issues that is not just visual.

When a ST is destroyed for a cXL-LFE, the heat capacity would be reduced but the bar/percentage does not change.

Quote

With this in mind, we have decided to implement a rule that the destruction of a side torso in a Clan 'Mech will result in a loss of 20% of the engines internal heat sink capacity. By way of example, a Timber Wolf with 15 internal engine heat sinks will lose the cooling equivalent of 3 of those heat sinks.

https://mwomercs.com...tober-road-map/

Quote

https://mwomercs.com...39-07-oct-2014/

New heat penalties when a 'Mech equipped with a Clan XL engine loses a side torso.

• The 'Mech will lose 20% of the heat sinks in the engine.
  
• This percentage is calculated as the total of the heat sinks integral to the engine as well as any equipped in its heat sink slots.
  
• The lost heat sinks are removed from those integral to the engine

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 13 December 2018 - 03:12 PM.

[justcallme A S H]

Follow up - Bowser did some testing on stream last night for the community

https://www.twitch.t...488?t=01h06m01s

Check it out (and give him a follow too, v.good to watch and learn from him).


Seems there is some variance as to what mechs take what damage. Could be how many DHS you lose when taking a loss to torso. Some mechs take more damage than others. Granted the B-ASP (first example) the heat was 2-3% higher. Also remember no JJs being used here, those will also further complicate things as will moving or standing still.

Anyway interesting stuff.

I really don't agree with this change either way simply because it looks like it's gonna hurt anyone that accidentally shuts down (leaves override on) and then loses a torso. Being shut-down locked for 8seconds is going to suck badly.

Edited by justcallme A S H, 13 December 2018 - 09:19 PM.

[GeminiWolf]

I love this change!

[Navid A1]

I hate this change.

there is no logical point behind it.


Also, to people who say "manage your heat better"... I rarely rely on override, since I can MANAGE my heat around 90%.
Yet when I try to torso twist to avoid damage, a side torso pop means I'm dead in one way or the other, no matter what.
yeah... MANAGE my heat... you mean avoid firing my weapons right?


My god, this community... go play table top or something.

Edited by Navid A1, 13 December 2018 - 09:57 PM.

[Cargo Vroom]

Koniving, on 13 December 2018 - 01:20 PM, said:

Technically its exactly the same in Battletech. When you lose heatsinks due to destruction or melting (through the heatsink taxing rule where if you generate 5 heat more than your heatsinks can handle in a single turn, there's a roll to see if you lose a heatsink due to it rupturing), you keep the heat and just lose the ability to cool it.

The heat emanates from one of two sources: The weapon itself or the reactor spiking to produce the energy needed to fire. BT rules for heat treat all heat as coming from the reactor for simplicity, and this change also treats all heat as coming from the reactor (engine).

The heat isn't in your heatsinks until it is "cooled" so to speak. Since MWO only has a two stage heat system (stage one make heat, stage two its wilted away).

But it literally is in the sinks in MWO. They provide heat capacity. The fact that they do is fundamental to the recent change because losing them reduces your heat capacity. But, logically any heat in a sink should go with it when it falls off.

I think there is an argument to be made that the mechanic is so silly that it shouldn't exist. Regardless of any balance or meta considerations. Obviously "it's just a game" etc, but we're supposed to be roughly simulating a physical process here. Like, if I'm holding a hot potato, and I drop it, do I get hotter? Of course not. That would be utter madness.

[Kamikaze Viking]

The problem i see it is that even when its working as intended losing a torso effectively INCREASES your current heat total, sometimes over your maximum (when percieved as % of max instead of raw numbers). As compared to previously where it only reduced the rate of heat dissipation.

Despite the bugs, and details as to how this is achieved technically, this is conceptually bad for gameplay as it can cripple a mech easily. And the impact differs based on how recently the target fired (even while managing your heat properly).

eg. If I fire my weapons and then lose a torso within 0.5 seconds im probably crippled for 10+sec. yet if i fire my weapons and then lost my torso ~4.5 seconds later just before i fire again, I'm probably fine. This is due to the problem of spiking heat vs the new implementation.

(please stop with random guesses as to how it works, do proper testing like Bowser and Navid. More testing using the same methods but more variation of builds and maps may give us enough data to determine a pattern and a cause. BUT only if your testing it isolated correctly ie only change one variable at a time then re-test)

Edited by Kamikaze Viking, 13 December 2018 - 11:02 PM.

[Sufo Jareth]

I personally don't think the change is bad at all. LE/C-XL needed some kind of drawback besides dying on both ST destructions. Not quite sure this change is what was needed but it's certainly interesting. If you want a mech that rides the red line it's almost guaranteed better to build that mech around a standard engine now.

I think it encourages more build variety which is what the stealth changes did as well this patch. Hopefully we'll see more builds using standard engines for redline builds and PPCs to counter stealth. Give the community time to balance builds around these changes and I think we'll see the changes were a pretty decent decision.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Forcing stupid tabletop mechanic into this game was always stupid. This one is especially horrible.

[denAirwalkerrr]

Also please take a minute to answer on poll regarding this topic: https://www.strawpoll.me/17042797

Edited by denAirwalkerrr, 13 December 2018 - 11:33 PM.