271 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Y E O N N E, on 22 March 2019 - 01:04 PM, said:

Heat is counted at the end of the turn; you lost an engine crit at some point before it was time to count the heat but still did all your heat producing actions. That's not a spike, that's equivalent to continuing to alpha strike after losing an LFE ST in MWO.

Now we would have to look into if you got initiative or not.. If you lost initiative, you might have activated that unit first, fired to "the right heat value", then engine crit. Would be seen as a heat spike in that situation, as it was "unexpected". Where as if you won initiative, the tables turn. You'd know you have engine damage, so you now calculate that "heat spike" into your turn.

Remember, in TT, engine crits are show as heat bleeding into your mech from your reactor. It's initial damage would seem to be a spike of heat. In MW:O, we've represented this as reduced performance from your heat sinks (same mentality) with a reduction to your threshold (which changes, unlike TT), which can show the same thing as TT. I would be understanding of calling it a double penalty for showing the same damage. (And here, I might want to remark that we have increasing thresholds and cooling from heat sinks to try and represent the cooling before heat pens are applied in TT. So, technically speaking, our heat in MW:O is both cooling and threshold, where as TT it's only cooling and all mechs have the same (after cooling happens) thresholds. Bare with me, it's complicated and I'm trying to make it into a "brief" explanation so I don't make up a super post about it.)

[HammerMaster]

Prototelis, on 22 March 2019 - 07:49 AM, said:

lol. So in other words, no source. Nothing in any of the articles describes loss of engine crits/heatsinks as a loss of just "shielding."

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/CBT_Tables

First Engine Hit +5 per turn
Second Engine Hit +10 (total) per turn
A cursory search.

Oh here's more from Introductory rules.
http://www.darkagepr...uctoryRules.pdf

pg 30.
BattleMech engines HAVE 3 POINTS OF SHIELDING. Each critical hit of an engine slot destroys 1 point of SHIELDING. As points of SHIELDING are destroyed, the amount of heat escaping from the BattleMech's Fusion drive increases.
The first hit increases the Mech's heat buildbup by 5 points per turn. The second on hit results in 10 total points of added heat buildup per turn, and the third critical hit to an engine slot shuts down the engine and puts the BattleMech out of commision for the rest of the game.

I'm late to the maths and shielding part of the conversation but this is what i found in 5 minutes.
I think what people are also forgetting is that PGI's TOTAL LACK OF CRITICAL HIT SYSTEM abysmal crit system results in no one ever suffering an engine hit UNLESS THERE is ST OR CT LOSS. So there's that too. I'm pretty sure the loss of internal engine sinks as you ST loss (2 hits of your engine) is PGI saying you lost internal sinks.

Edited by HammerMaster, 22 March 2019 - 02:55 PM.

[Prototelis]

Boardgame rule designed to effect on dissipation, not all heat in system being transferred back into the system. Irrelevent because this game thankfully does not have engine crits.

[HammerMaster]

Prototelis, on 22 March 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

Boardgame rule designed to effect on dissipation, not all heat in system being transferred back into the system. Irrelevent because this game thankfully does not have engine crits.

Oh.
You're welcome for the info too.

[Tesunie]

Prototelis, on 22 March 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

Boardgame rule designed to effect on dissipation, not all heat in system being transferred back into the system. Irrelevent because this game thankfully does not have engine crits.

Actually... we do have engine crits. However, engines can not suffer from critical hits. Engine crits come into play when a section is destroyed, hence two criticals of engine destroyed comes up a lot (and three). This is because the cXL and LFE have two criticals in a side torso and the IS XL has three. When a side torso becomes destroyed... those engine criticals there become "destroyed", leading to the engine damage chart...

[HammerMaster]

Tesunie, on 22 March 2019 - 04:42 PM, said:

Actually... we do have engine crits. However, engines can not suffer from critical hits. Engine crits come into play when a section is destroyed, hence two criticals of engine destroyed comes up a lot (and three). This is because the cXL and LFE have two criticals in a side torso and the IS XL has three. When a side torso becomes destroyed... those engine criticals there become "destroyed", leading to the engine damage chart...

See above reference to source sir.

[Y E O N N E]

Tesunie, on 22 March 2019 - 01:14 PM, said:

Now we would have to look into if you got initiative or not.. If you lost initiative, you might have activated that unit first, fired to "the right heat value", then engine crit. Would be seen as a heat spike in that situation, as it was "unexpected". Where as if you won initiative, the tables turn. You'd know you have engine damage, so you now calculate that "heat spike" into your turn.

That's not at all relevant, it's still not a spike. Think about it in terms of what the 'Mech is actually doing.

[Tesunie]

Y E O N N E, on 22 March 2019 - 05:29 PM, said:

That's not at all relevant, it's still not a spike. Think about it in terms of what the 'Mech is actually doing.

In TT, the heat is produced on the same turn as the engine takes critical damage, not the turn after. So, it could be "viewed" as a spike of heat. I'm just saying that it can be interpreted in different ways, depending upon how you wish to view it.

I will mention that this does not mean I support the heat spike upon side torso loss, just that I can see how it could be viewed that way within the TT rules. I personally would rather have it as just a reduction in cooling abilities, as that is how I personally view what is happening in TT. So please don't confuse what I'm saying as support for the feature.

[HammerMaster]

Tesunie, on 22 March 2019 - 07:36 PM, said:

In TT, the heat is produced on the same turn as the engine takes critical damage, not the turn after. So, it could be "viewed" as a spike of heat. I'm just saying that it can be interpreted in different ways, depending upon how you wish to view it.

I will mention that this does not mean I support the heat spike upon side torso loss, just that I can see how it could be viewed that way within the TT rules. I personally would rather have it as just a reduction in cooling abilities, as that is how I personally view what is happening in TT. So please don't confuse what I'm saying as support for the feature.

I personally was indifferent to it.
What I took issue with is the claim it was a supposed nerf to our "skilled" players (And only them. Not the meat and potatoes.)

Edited by HammerMaster, 22 March 2019 - 08:09 PM.

[thievingmagpi]

yeah, another stupid gameplay decision by the overlords. something no one asked for and no one with any game sense wants. GG no re

Edited by thievingmagpi, 22 March 2019 - 08:11 PM.

[Lily from animove]

so the TT iteration would be 0,5heat/s per engine crit, if an xl has 2 crit slots it would be 1heat/s in MWO. pretty much the equivalent of around 4 lost DHS. So they either make us lose those heatsinks, or just add that as a constant heat generated. bettr than a magical heatspike, even If I have to say I have yet not died by such an ST loss heatspike. But it's a non logical thing to happen.

that would be a pretty critical on a 10Heatsink mech. as most of the remaining heatsinks ow would be busy with colling that.

Edited by Lily from animove, 23 March 2019 - 12:53 AM.

[ingramli]

Academic theory aside, being shutdown by blowing off a ST ruins gaming experience severely, my thought is, if heat spike must exist, the spike should be capped at 99%, the player should at least be given a chance to stop firing and disengage if he /she wish to, a shutdown penalty is way too heavy IMHO.

[Tesunie]

Lily from animove, on 23 March 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

that would be a pretty critical on a 10Heatsink mech. as most of the remaining heatsinks ow would be busy with colling that.

That was the thing. Normally in BT:TT having engine damage would all but force some/many mechs into retreat, especially if they only had 10 heatsinks. Then again TT you controlled more than a single mech, weapons tended to spread damage on their own, and was more so able to do campaigns. Pulling a mech back into retreat would be more beneficial than fighting until it dropped. (Mechs could also continue the fight without legs as long as they still had arms to prop themselves up to shoot, but often didn't as they where easy targets.)

Meanwhile, this game you control only a single mech, there are no options for retreat, there is no "campaign" where damage and lost mechs make an impact, and we want it to be fun for single mechs. AKA: It's no fun finding yourself weaponless or stun locked eternally by heat. Just like it would be no fun to still be alive with no legs, a sitting turret, just waiting for someone to drop you.

This is why I agree with how PGI did implement the engine critical damage effects. It doesn't actually leave one paralyzed, as it doesn't produce more heat than your mech might be able to cool, but that it instead "disables" only a portion of your heat sinks to reduce your ability to cool. This means, with enough pacing, one can still go and fight with engine damage. (Though, I don't necessarily agree with the heat spike, but the rest is seeming solid.)


I would like to leave a note here: Yes, I know it's not really a "heat spike" but instead just the loss of threshold, but if it feels like a heat spike, I'm gonna call it a heat spike. No matter how it's being generated or explained.

[VonBruinwald]

ingramli, on 23 March 2019 - 05:55 AM, said:

being shutdown by blowing off a ST ruins gaming experience severely

It still beats insta-death.

ingramli, on 23 March 2019 - 05:55 AM, said:

if heat spike must exist, the spike should be capped at 99%, the player should at least be given a chance to stop firing and disengage if he /she wish to, a shutdown penalty is way too heavy IMHO.

You could always override... you might pop though.

I like the idea of capping at 99% (same as flamers) but the problem is it would punish players who don't red-line. If you fire an alpha and hit 99%, then pop, it makes no difference where as if you're sitting at 5% (exaggerating) you've lost a whole bunch of damage potential. The penalty needs to affect the red-liners more than the dudes who are chilled.

The best we should get is a cap on the DPS override does to you and base it on tonnage so a light who spikes to 150% dies in apprx. the same amount of time as an assault at 150%. It gives the people who spike higher more time to retreat and shut-down in cover but still punishes them more than a small smaller spike.

[Y E O N N E]

Capping at 99% won't make a difference unless you also put a second or so of grace period, because otherwise it happens so fast you can't react to it.

[2DaT]

Heat spike is not a mechanic, it's a bug that should be fixed.

[Y E O N N E]

Nope, is definitely an explicit mechanic. Go check the December 2018 patch notes.

Still garbage, though.

[Kynesis]

Without writing a thesis, just consider the following questions.

• Does this mechanic add unnecessary complication?
  
• Is its existence and consequence apparent?
  
• What goal does it achieve?
  
• Does that goal align with the objectives of the game?
  
• Is it fun?
  
• Does it contribute to the give-and-take of piloting challenges?
  
• Are the consequences manageable?
  
• Does it enhance or degrade the differences between equipment choices?

My brief answers:

1. This mechanic already largely exists, the core feature being a penalty for losing a side torso.

2. Its existence is only apparent through the surprise of a ST loss, which nearly always happens without warning. There is no in-game indication that informs or alerts players to the impending consequence of losing a ST and no explanation as to why their mech, which had been performing relatively normally, has suddenly exploded or shut-down.
The heat scale which normally traverses at a rate that players expect suddenly, and without warning, behaves in an unexpected and unpredictable way, with game-ending consequences.

3. This is the topic that we should be discussing - rather than trying to wedge in an existing solution, we should be looking at the core issue and _first_ before applying a solution (any solution) figure out _why_ a side torso loss should be consequential and secondly, what kind of _gameplay_ should follow from that.

4. The objectives of the game, from a 40,000ft view, are to have mechs that fight one-another and whose capabilities degrade as they take damage, making each match more challenging as it progresses.

Instant death / match-ending features do not fit within this scope.

5. Whether or not a feature is fun or not is obviously subjective. Plenty of Rogue-likes are fun, but they're designed from the ground-up to with game-ending mechanics as a core feature. MWO and BattleTech more generally have an established pace, which as mentioned above is that as fights progress, they become harder and require more piloting, gunnery and tactical skill for each pilot to find solutions to the various challenges they face in controlling their mechs well enough to keep on fighting and try to win.

6. I put it to you that any feature that immediately ends a player's match simply can not contribute to anything after that point - the match for that player has ended.

7. The consequences for a match-ending feature are again, impossible to manage.

8. The current implementation greatly narrows the distinctions between XL/LFE engines and does nothing to enhance the identity of any type of engine or heat sink.

[Kynesis]

Stated another way, it's a bit like comparing these two clips & thinking about which is more fun & engaging - which is more likely to make players salty?
(YouTube seems to have changed its embedding, I'm not sure how to do it properly now).

Mech pilot manages to somehow get his mech to the end of a match or at least go down fighting
https://youtu.be/6BHeaEat_aI?t=23

Disaster strikes with no way to recover, no control over a horrible loss.
https://youtu.be/jeK7NQnulbM?t=19

Edited by Kynesis, 23 March 2019 - 08:39 PM.

[Tesunie]

Kynesis, on 23 March 2019 - 06:40 PM, said:

• Does this mechanic add unnecessary complication?
  
• Is its existence and consequence apparent?
  
• What goal does it achieve?
  
• Does that goal align with the objectives of the game?
  
• Is it fun?
  
• Does it contribute to the give-and-take of piloting challenges?
  
• Are the consequences manageable?
  
• Does it enhance or degrade the differences between equipment choices?

1. This game is already fairly complex. I think the thought behind the penalty is simple, consider the best engine for your intentions. I do not believe it is unnecessarily complex at the moment, thought can be "surprising".

2. It's existence should be apparent and the consequence should be evident. Otherwise, these engine types would completely invalidate all other engine types (with of course a few exceptions, such as H. Gauss and the occasional XL engine build, particularly on lighter mechs). Some kind of penalty needs to be in place to keep Std engines relevant.

3. It's goal is simple, to make sure these engine choices do not invalidate all other choices presented. The engine crit penalty was in TT for much the same reason, as well as to provide additional ways to knock a mech out of a fight, without needing to completely destroy it.

4. The objective of any game is to have fun... In this case this game was originally suppose to be a "mech simulator". To that end, it does help nudge things in that direction.

5. Death and penalties are rarely considered "fun". But game balance and letting people have more freedom of choices tends to lead to more fun. So it does add an element to that concept, depending upon how well it is implemented.

6. I feel most of the mechanic, in it's intention, does add to the piloting challenges. That isn't necessarily saying that the mechanic might not need adjusting. It might be too severe of a penalty for the decision, considering that it does almost always lead to a mech with a cXL or LFE to basically being shut down and subsequently destroyed... it's almost (key word is almost) lending itself out as acting like an XL engine now. I can not contest to it with perfect accuracy, but I do recall a few times shutting down with around 60% heat on my gauge when losing a side torso. That seems a little too punishing for the engine type selected.

7. I feel that, beside the options to take an XL or Std, the consequences are barely manageable considering you can lose a side torso so fast you often times don't even have recognition that it's about to go until it's just... gone. Sometimes, a single concentrated blast can do that. (Concentrated can be from a single mech, or several mechs hitting the same location.)

8. Once again, the core concept enhances the differences, but the "heat spike" might be a little too much. It's hard to tell overall, especially without more concrete numbers about the effects. If it's shutting people down at 60-70%, than it's probably too punishing. If it's only doing it at 80-90%, than it's probably fine. It also might be more punishing for lighter mechs who can't mount many external heat sinks, and even more penalizing for IS mechs in general, who become crit/slot starved easier with their 3 crit slot DHS, heavier weapons (on average) and crit soaking upgrades... Of course I'm not certain what the LFE penalties are exactly in comparison to cXL. I think someone posted that information here... somewhere...


A lot of this discussion doesn't seem to be "Should you be penalized for losing a side torso when using a LFE or cXL engine" and more so "Is the drop in threshold from the top (heat spike) too much". I don't recall anyone claiming to completely remove the side torso destruction penalty, just debating on if it's too much. (Okay, some people might be lobbying for it's removal.)

Edit: Insertion of quote.

Edited by Tesunie, 23 March 2019 - 09:18 PM.