40 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Fundamental problem in the game right now is that weapons are imbalanced due to the way rate of fire and heat generation vs heat dissipation interact.

IF you have a mech that is heat neutral with his current build-up and your current firing pattern and want to make his AC/10 fire twice as often, you need to add 3 more heat sinks. If you want to do the same with a PPC, you need 9 heat sinks.

But the Devs repeatedly state "we want heat to matter". So they seem to refuse to want to fix the issue of heat generation vs heat dissipation, because they believe it dumbs the game down.
But the game can be "dumbed down" like that if you use lower heat ACs, Missiles or plainly the Gauss Rifles. It just won't be that dumbed down if you try the hotter energy weapons.

But if you lower the heat capacity considerably, you can have heat matter a lot more than now and not have a dumbed down game.

Example:

Let's say you have two weapons that can fire every 4 seconds, each for 10 heat.
Let's say you had a heat scale like this when you had enough heat sinks to be heat neutral:
0-5 Heat: No Effects
6-10 Heat: You suffer a 10 % speed penalty
11-15 Heat: You suffer a 25 % speed penalty, and your torso twist speed and range is reduced by 10 %.
16-20 Heat: You suffer a -50 % speed penalty and your torso twist speed and range is reduced by 25 %.
21-25 Heat: As before, but after 10 seconds at this heat level, an automatic shutdown may occur, which you can override. (which resets the timer), and ammo explosions may occur.
26-30 Heat: As before, but shutdown and ammo explosion occur after 5 seconds. You also start taking internal damage every second.
31+ Heat: You shutdown automatically. This shutdown cannot be overriden.

That means:
1) If you alpha strike, you immediately get in the 20 Heat range. Since it takes 4 seconds to dissipate all that heat, that means you spend about 1 second at the 16-20 Heat Penalty Level and 1 second at the 11-15 penalty level,and 1 second at the 6-10 heat penalty level.
So for 3/4 during a "heated" engagement, you would suffer at least a 10 % speed reduction, and for 1/2 the time at least a 25 % torso twist range and speed penalty.

2) If instead you fire your weapons with a 2 second delay between each other, your heat penalty would never go above the level 6-10 level range, but it would stay pretty consistently in the 6-10 range, so you have a 10 % speed reduction the entire time.

Overall Result
Heat Management Matters all the time. When you decide for an Alpha Strike, even if your mech could support it indefinitely due to heat neutrality, you will take penalties for that. These penalties are harsher than staying consistently on a low level of heat, so you always have the choice to make whether you want to stagger your fire or go for alpha strikes. But despite staggering your fire, your overall damage output wouldn't reduce - it may be just a bit harder because you need to shoot your weapons separately, and you cannot rely on convergence as much.


Generalizing the Example:
The above example allows the mech to dissipate 20 heat in 4 seconds. That's a heat dissipation rate of 5 per second. So the heat scale would basically look like this:
If your heat dissipation rate per second is x, then the scale would look like this

• 0 to x Heat: No Effects
  
• x+1 to 2x Heat: You suffer a 10 % speed penalty
  
• 2x+1 to 3x Heat: You suffer a 25 % speed penalty, and your torso twist speed and range is reduced by 10 %.
  
• 3x+1 to 4x Heat: You suffer a -50 % speed penalty and your torso twist speed and range is reduced by 25 %.
  
• 4x+1 to 5x Heat: As before, but after 10 seconds at this heat level, an automatic shutdown may occur, which you can override. (which resets the timer), and ammo explosions may occur.
  
• 5x+1 to 6x Heat: As before, but shutdown and ammo explosion occur after 5 seconds. You also start taking internal damage every second.
  
• 6x+1 Heat: You shutdown automatically. This shutdown cannot be overriden.

What else can we do?
My example used a mech utilizing 2 weapons that had a rate of fire of 1 shot per 4 seconds.

Now there are interesting options on how to tweak other weapons.

For example, the current PPC can fire every 3 second and deals 10 damage and 9 heat per shot. That gives it a dps of 3.3 and a hps of 3.
You could get the same DPS and HPS with a rate of fire of, say, 5. That would mean it would deal 16.5 damage per shot and produce 15 heat per shot.

Now, if a mech only equipped with this PPC would had sufficient heat dissipation to be heat neutral, he would have a dissipation of 3. A single shot of the PPC would cause 15 heat, which is 5 times his dissipaton rate - so a single shout would bring this mech in the shutdown territory.
If the weapon would stay at its "old" rate of fire, a single shot would brig it only in the 3 times its dissipation - which is a lower penalty level.

So by maintaining hps and dps but adjusting the rate of fire, we get another, interesting tool - we have a way to alter how a weapon affects the level of heat penalties it can cause.
We can use this to balance advantages like range or single shot damage - which can be quite important sometimes, by giving weapons with a higher single shot damage or a higher range a lower rate of fire. Positively for them, it means you have more time for aiming, but negatively for them, they are more likely to bring your mech into more penalizing heat levels.


The scale I outlined above is basically designed around weapons firing every 4 seconds. I think that's a good fit, because many weapons have a rate of fire currently around 4. The Medium Laser has a cooldown of 3 seconds and a beam duration of 1, for a total recycle time fo 4, the Gauss Rifle fires every 4 seconds, SRMs fire every 3.5 to 4 seconds, the Large Lasers fire between every 4 to 4.25 seconds. So it's a good value.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 03 November 2012 - 05:51 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

This could, by the way, also create interesting options for balancing DHS. For example, if they raise primarily dissipation but would deliver the same capacity gain as an equal number of single heat sinks, then interesting new options would arise - mechs build around DHS would characteristically be known for firing most weapons separately so they can avoid spiking their heat levels, while single heat sinks would be much more attractive to sniper builds that rely on alpha strikes.

Imagine the example mech with twice the dissipation but only half the capacity


0-2.5 Heat: No Effects
3-5 Heat: You suffer a 10 % speed penalty
6-7.5 Heat: You suffer a 25 % speed penalty, and your torso twist speed and range is reduced by 10 %.
8-10 Heat: You suffer a -50 % speed penalty and your torso twist speed and range is reduced by 25 %.
11-12.5 Heat: As before, but after 10 seconds at this heat level, an automatic shutdown may occur, which you can override. (which resets the timer), and ammo explosions may occur.
13-15 Heat: As before, but shutdown and ammo explosion occur after 5 seconds. You also start taking internal damage every second.
16+ Heat: You shutdown automatically. This shutdown cannot be overriden.

An alpha strike would immediately lead to a shutdown: He simply couldn't do it. But with quadruple the dissipation, he should be able to maintain firing 4 of the weapons, not 2, right? So let'S try it.
1st Shot brings him to heat level 10 - 50 % speed penalty. Just half a second later, he's at 5 heat, 10 % speed penalty. At 1 second, he would be at 0 heat so shooting his 2nd weapon would bring him to 10 heat again.
So he could maintain firing 4 of these 10 heat monsters continuously with a 1 second delay between each - but he'd be ring close to the shutdown change line. He can't afford alpha strikes, but he could maintain a great DPS.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 03 November 2012 - 06:03 AM.

[ManDaisy]

I would like to add that the higher you heat becomes the more scrambled you hud, info screens, targeting reticule, etc becomes. Additional heat penalties would go a long way in making flamers more useful.

[Squidhead Jax]

I like it. As I liked it before, and will probably like it again.

How can we actually get them to go with it?

[Matthew Ace]

This should be the way the heat system work in the first place; Even if not taking Battletech into account, previous MW games does not have penalties for varying level of heat (except when you O/H and shutdown). This will add something fresh, and could actually make for an interesting experience handling mechs.

[RaNDoMPReCiSioN]

Or, perhaps, make it way too complicated for the average gamer. I like the ideas though.

[Aaron Knight]

There is a potential level of complication that it adds; though I don't think that is a bad thing. I personally rather like the technical nuances of the game. Furhter, anything that separates MWO furhter from an FPS is a good thing. The scale you suggest would certainly add a strong encouragement to manage heat better instead of simply watching the top of the scale. It would also add a certain level of immersion, I would think. The added tension of the pilot as a combat drags on, the heat slowly rising, the mech becoming more sluggish and unresponsive. Maybe its just the story teller in me, but I think it would add to the dynamic tension of combat.

Also as ManDaisy said:
"Additional heat penalties would go a long way in making flamers more useful."

edit: correcting html

Edited by Aaron Knight, 03 November 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Squidhead Jax]

RaNDoMPReCiSioN, on 03 November 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Or, perhaps, make it way too complicated for the average gamer. I like the ideas though.

Arguably less so - if simple, heat-neutral, sustained-fire builds become reasonable and effective, they'll be the baseline from which harder-to-use builds based on less-sustainable heat spikes and envelopes of fire proceed (with difficulty) from.

[RaNDoMPReCiSioN]

Aaron Knight, on 03 November 2012 - 08:26 AM, said:

There is a potential level of complication that it adds; though I don't think that is a bad thing. I personally rather like the technical nuances of the game. Furhter, anything that separates MWO furhter from an FPS is a good thing. The scale you suggest would certainly add a strong encouragement to manage heat better instead of simply watching the top of the scale. It would also add a certain level of immersion, I would think. The added tension of the pilot as a combat drags on, the heat slowly rising, the mech becoming more sluggish and unresponsive. Maybe its just the story teller in me, but I think it would add to the dynamic tension of combat.

Also as ManDaisy said:
"Additional heat penalties would go a long way in making flamers more useful."

edit: correcting html

A funny outcome from this would be watching all the mechs trying to get around like a bunch of lost geriatrics on a mystery tour, looking desperately for the loo at a roadside stop.

[Tice Daurus]

This is I think the model of how heat SHOULD be in this game. If they did this, this would work and DHS could be at a full 200 percent efficiency over single heat sinks and it keeps with the core rules of the game.

[EmperorMyrf]

If such a system is to be implemented, then I feel a buffer would be necessary so that we can avoid instant penalizing for firing a weapon. If the feel of TT is to be maintained, then completely heat neutral mechs should be able to fire without any heat penalties applied to them. This is currently handled by increasing your heat capacity by the number of heat sinks you have, and it could possibly be done again similarly in your suggested model.

If there was some cushion room between 0 heat and the first heat penalty (dependent on heat sinks) then it would allow you to safely chain fire weapons to avoid any punishments. I wouldn't think that a 1:1 ratio of heat sinks to buffer heat would be ok, maybe 2:1 or even 3:1 (12 HS = 4 H buffer) would be alright. You'd be penalized for alpha striking all the time, but not for chain fire.

Another possible way to implement this would be a time buffer. If you are at a certain heat level for a given amount of time (length of which is dependent on number of heat sinks equipped, maybe .1s / HS), then you suffer the penalty for it, and are relieved of it immediately when your heat drops below that level. This would achieve roughly the same thing, penalize alpha strikes but not chain. Auto-shutdown should probably be immune of this though, but be at a relatively higher level.

[Squidhead Jax]

EmperorMyrf, on 03 November 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Another possible way to implement this would be a time buffer. If you are at a certain heat level for a given amount of time (length of which is dependent on number of heat sinks equipped, maybe .1s / HS), then you suffer the penalty for it, and are relieved of it immediately when your heat drops below that level. This would achieve roughly the same thing, penalize alpha strikes but not chain. Auto-shutdown should probably be immune of this though, but be at a relatively higher level.

I prefer this of the two options.

[MustrumRidcully]

EmperorMyrf, on 03 November 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

If such a system is to be implemented, then I feel a buffer would be necessary so that we can avoid instant penalizing for firing a weapon. If the feel of TT is to be maintained, then completely heat neutral mechs should be able to fire without any heat penalties applied to them. This is currently handled by increasing your heat capacity by the number of heat sinks you have, and it could possibly be done again similarly in your suggested model.

If there was some cushion room between 0 heat and the first heat penalty (dependent on heat sinks) then it would allow you to safely chain fire weapons to avoid any punishments. I wouldn't think that a 1:1 ratio of heat sinks to buffer heat would be ok, maybe 2:1 or even 3:1 (12 HS = 4 H buffer) would be alright. You'd be penalized for alpha striking all the time, but not for chain fire.

Another possible way to implement this would be a time buffer. If you are at a certain heat level for a given amount of time (length of which is dependent on number of heat sinks equipped, maybe .1s / HS), then you suffer the penalty for it, and are relieved of it immediately when your heat drops below that level. This would achieve roughly the same thing, penalize alpha strikes but not chain. Auto-shutdown should probably be immune of this though, but be at a relatively higher level.

I like it. I used the approach for the shutdown triggers and the ammo explosions,so it could apply to all penalties.

[Targetloc]

OP is 100% correct.


Also, PGI, for the love of Primus, start actually looking at the math and doing some data modelling of how weapons are balanced against each other instead of relying so much on play-testing and 'feel'. It's a losing game where you're constantly playing catch-up and buffing/nerfing based on the flavour of the month.


Weapons need to be within 10-15% of each other on paper to start. Play-testing and 'telemetry' is for fine-tuning the more nebulous values of 'ease of use' and secondary effects.

[Corvus Antaka]

Been saying this for 2 months. However, with DHS things have changed. that said, lowering the heatcap and increasing dissapation may still be needed after this next patch. wait and see for now.

[MustrumRidcully]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 03 November 2012 - 10:58 AM, said:

Been saying this for 2 months. However, with DHS things have changed. that said, lowering the heatcap and increasing dissapation may still be needed after this next patch. wait and see for now.

I am in favor of waiting, seeing and showing. With threads like these or the one in my signature. I don't have the feeling I am reaching someone at the other end, though.

[ExAstris]

RaNDoMPReCiSioN, on 03 November 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

Or, perhaps, make it way too complicated for the average gamer. I like the ideas though.

The problem is not that this is too complicated for the average gamer, the problem is that this idea is actually bad for MW:O.

In the current system, heat really does matter. In the system proposed, heat really does matter too, just in a different way.

The proposed system is really two different suggestions molded into one, I'm going to break them down because I only think one of those two components is really bad, the other is more of a neutral suggestion.

Component #1: Reduce the heat cap.
Component #2: Introduce penalties for exceeding certain heat percentages.

We have to consider their effects on the game individually. Lets take component #1 first. If we reduce the heat cap drastically, then we end up with mechs that are highly constrained by their dissipation. In a sense, this does "make heat matter" but in another sense, it removes player options. In the current system, you can dump several alphas before you hit the heat threshold, this gives you a bit of burst damage assuming you start the engagement near 0 heat. Reducing the heat cap drastically effectively removes this feature from the game. Mechs will no longer posses any appreciable burst damage at the start of an engagement, instead, everyone will be continuously applying their damage at the rate their build's dissipation allows.

This is bad. I grant that there is a sense in which this makes heat more vital to manage, but it does so at the cost of build strategies and battlefield tactics. Mechs with multiple weapons arrays, or heat heavy weapons, can currently hop into battle, burst some serious damage (and probably draw attention), then fade. It splits up enemy fire, and lets this player concentrate fire in shorter time spans and expose themselves for less. Granted, then have a lower overall average dps throughout the fight, but thats not how this build works, it works by striking and fading so that it can live long enough to strike again and again.

Putting a very low total heat cap in MWO entirely removes strikers from the game. Every mech simply builds to maximize their dissipation and carries the most heat efficient weapons they can. There is no pace to battle, it does not flow and ebb, you wade in, grind away at a steady rate until one falls down. No longer can you really push your machine to a brink, then retreat for 20 seconds to recover. Recovery in this system is just a recycle away. So not only have you removed strikers from the game entirely, you've also killed one of the major reasons to perform a tactical retreat.

This change destroys builds and tactics.

Furthermore, this change eliminates a very important element of pilot skill: long term weapons management. In the proposed system, you provide additional reasons for players to prefer chain fire over alpha strike, but that is really a different proposal, and not the type of weapon management skill that I think will be lost with this change. The skill that will be lost is knowing when to use your weapons. In the proposed system you pretty much just always fire at specific intervals because you will always be riding a specific heat zone, i.e. right around 0 to maintain no penalty. If you don't shoot, you're not doing damage, then if you group fire, you get heat penalties, so you are always chain firing. There is no room in this setup for the pilot to choose when to apply his damage, he just always shoots when he sees a target, and always shoots in precisely the same fashion. This is boring and removes fire discipline as a skill. The current system lets you alpha away without penalty for a little while, yes, but it does allow for better weapon discipline. When you're high on heat and your opponent turns away so that you waste ammo/heat on his still fresh back/arm armor, the proposed system would have us just keep chipping away, while the current system lets us hold our fire, save up heat so that we can blast him harder when he turns back.

Finally, damage:heat efficiency becomes, by far, the most important statistic on any given weapon. In the proposed system, the current gauss rifle will be an absurdly better weapon than anything in the game because it will not significantly contribute to hitting those heat penalties letting you fire your other weapons at the appropriate intervals. The current system actually allows for the AC20 to be a better option for the first 12-20 seconds of a fight, yes, you reach your heat cap faster and have to use it at a closer range, but it also deals more raw dps, letting you burst harder. So we also kill weapon variety as no weapon which is currently burst efficient but long-term heat inefficient will ever be used again.



In Summary of Component #1
It kills striker builds entirely, it negates one of the stronger motivations for tactical retreats, it negates the skill of fire discipline, and it negates the usefulness of burst efficient weapons.

Conclusion
Lowering the heat cap drastically is a terrible idea. It transforms the entire game in a way that removes features that are essential to the current experience.



Component #2
This entirely seperate suggestion is that heat have more deleterious effects as it climbs. This might work, but its a slipperly slope.

Suppose we add movement penalties. Now, strikers have a harder time getting away, penalizing that build, but not brawlers, snipers, or support.
Suppose we reduce locking range penalties. Now LRM boats lose locks penalizing support but not snipers, brawlers, or strikers.
Suppose we add randomness to the firing pattern (perfect convergence is lost), now ppc and AC2 snipers suffer even worse than before while gauss snipers still hit perfectly.

So, while I'm not opposed to Component #2 in principle, I just don't know what penalties would be appropriate that would penalize all mechs equally.




Now, the proposal does have an additional effect, which I assume was an intentional part of the way it was constructed, but not explicitly one of the fundamental features that was changed. It would make chain fire preferable to alpha strikes in the majority of cases.

I'm ok with giving chain fire a place in MWO, but this suggestion is not the way to do it, it steps on way to many other toes. Just causing group fired weapons to produce more heat or to have an increased recycle time or (better yet) causing heat sinks to be less efficient during the firing, would all be better ways to encourage chain fire.

[Napalm003]

You are thinking linear.

It is tough compare a ppc to a ac10. If you do so, consider more than heat.

A PPC requires no ammo unlike the AC10 which depending on the amount of ammo, likely takes up more room and its ammo is susceptable to critical hits. x9 heat issue of ppc is looking like a reasonable alternative to me.

[Squidhead Jax]

Napalm003, on 03 November 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

You are thinking linear.

It is tough compare a ppc to a ac10. If you do so, consider more than heat.

A PPC requires no ammo unlike the AC10 which depending on the amount of ammo, likely takes up more room and its ammo is susceptable to critical hits. x9 heat issue of ppc is looking like a reasonable alternative to me.

The point at which adding ammo mass flips efficiency at 5s cycle over to favor the PPC is 7 tons, far more than necessary for all but the most liberal shooters to last out a round.

At the PPC's maximum recycle of 3s, which the AC10 can match, that goes up to 15 tons. And the AC10 is one of the more-affected ballistics, heatwise - only the AC20 takes it harder.

Edited by Squidhead Jax, 03 November 2012 - 02:20 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Thanks for the exhaustive reply, ExAstris! You bring up some good points that cannot be ignored, even if I don't agree with everything. I believe some compromises are possible that address the issues you brought up.

ExAstris, on 03 November 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

The problem is not that this is too complicated for the average gamer, the problem is that this idea is actually bad for MW:O.

In the current system, heat really does matter. In the system proposed, heat really does matter too, just in a different way.

Just as short note: While heat matters in the current system, it also creates vast imbalances. The devs do not seem to find a way that works to remove the imbalances without removing the important of heat managament. I see it necessary to point out
1) The game is imbalanced due to how heat affects higher heat weapons too strong
2) There are ways to remove these imbalances by lowering heat generation or increasing heat dissipation
3) There are ways to do it while keeping heat very important to manage.


The proposed system is really two different suggestions molded into one, I'm going to break them down because I only think one of those two components is really bad, the other is more of a neutral suggestion.

Quote

Component #1: Reduce the heat cap.
Component #2: Introduce penalties for exceeding certain heat percentages.


We have to consider their effects on the game individually. Lets take component #1 first. If we reduce the heat cap drastically, then we end up with mechs that are highly constrained by their dissipation. In a sense, this does "make heat matter" but in another sense, it removes player options. In the current system, you can dump several alphas before you hit the heat threshold, this gives you a bit of burst damage assuming you start the engagement near 0 heat. Reducing the heat cap drastically effectively removes this feature from the game. Mechs will no longer posses any appreciable burst damage at the start of an engagement, instead, everyone will be continuously applying their damage at the rate their build's dissipation allows.

This is bad. I grant that there is a sense in which this makes heat more vital to manage, but it does so at the cost of build strategies and battlefield tactics. Mechs with multiple weapons arrays, or heat heavy weapons, can currently hop into battle, burst some serious damage (and probably draw attention), then fade. It splits up enemy fire, and lets this player concentrate fire in shorter time spans and expose themselves for less. Granted, then have a lower overall average dps throughout the fight, but thats not how this build works, it works by striking and fading so that it can live long enough to strike again and again.

Putting a very low total heat cap in MWO entirely removes strikers from the game. Every mech simply builds to maximize their dissipation and carries the most heat efficient weapons they can. There is no pace to battle, it does not flow and ebb, you wade in, grind away at a steady rate until one falls down. No longer can you really push your machine to a brink, then retreat for 20 seconds to recover. Recovery in this system is just a recycle away. So not only have you removed strikers from the game entirely, you've also killed one of the major reasons to perform a tactical retreat.

The system does not remove strikers from the game. It changes the cost for them.

Quote

This change destroys builds and tactics.

Furthermore, this change eliminates a very important element of pilot skill: long term weapons management. In the proposed system, you provide additional reasons for players to prefer chain fire over alpha strike, but that is really a different proposal, and not the type of weapon management skill that I think will be lost with this change. The skill that will be lost is knowing when to use your weapons. In the proposed system you pretty much just always fire at specific intervals because you will always be riding a specific heat zone, i.e. right around 0 to maintain no penalty. If you don't shoot, you're not doing damage, then if you group fire, you get heat penalties, so you are always chain firing. There is no room in this setup for the pilot to choose when to apply his damage, he just always shoots when he sees a target, and always shoots in precisely the same fashion. This is boring and removes fire discipline as a skill. The current system lets you alpha away without penalty for a little while, yes, but it does allow for better weapon discipline. When you're high on heat and your opponent turns away so that you waste ammo/heat on his still fresh back/arm armor, the proposed system would have us just keep chipping away, while the current system lets us hold our fire, save up heat so that we can blast him harder when he turns back.

On the contrary, this increases the need for fire discipline, because you need to know exactly when you can afford to fire your weapons.

Quote

Finally, damage:heat efficiency becomes, by far, the most important statistic on any given weapon. In the proposed system, the current gauss rifle will be an absurdly better weapon than anything in the game because it will not significantly contribute to hitting those heat penalties letting you fire your other weapons at the appropriate intervals. The current system actually allows for the AC20 to be a better option for the first 12-20 seconds of a fight, yes, you reach your heat cap faster and have to use it at a closer range, but it also deals more raw dps, letting you burst harder. So we also kill weapon variety as no weapon which is currently burst efficient but long-term heat inefficient will ever be used again.

The Gauss Rifle will be no more overpowered than it already is, unfortunately. Balancing the Gauss Rifle vs other weapons (or rather, other weapons against the Gauss Rifle) is a necessary task.

Quote

In Summary of Component #1
It kills striker builds entirely, it negates one of the stronger motivations for tactical retreats, it negates the skill of fire discipline, and it negates the usefulness of burst efficient weapons.

Conclusion
Lowering the heat cap drastically is a terrible idea. It transforms the entire game in a way that removes features that are essential to the current experience.

The question is - are we disagreeing fundamentally, or could we actually haggle over the price? I made a deliberately harsh heat cap. I build it purposefully around a 4 second cycle. If I'd use a 6 second cycle, then heat neutral builds would face the heat penalties less, but so would the strikers and snipers. My main point here was to illustrate that changing the heat capacity can make heat management relevant even if you have a high heat dissipation. The Devs seem to be very concerned that DHS for example make mechs "too cool" so that heat management doesn't matter anymore. (They don't seem to be aware that a good build will utilize the additional dissipation so he can deal more damage and stay hot, because a heat neutral build is sacrificing burst damage that could save his life for the purely theoretical advantage of being able to fire non-stop for 15+ minutes.)

Quote

Component #2
This entirely seperate suggestion is that heat have more deleterious effects as it climbs. This might work, but its a slipperly slope.

Suppose we add movement penalties. Now, strikers have a harder time getting away, penalizing that build, but not brawlers, snipers, or support.
Suppose we reduce locking range penalties. Now LRM boats lose locks penalizing support but not snipers, brawlers, or strikers.
Suppose we add randomness to the firing pattern (perfect convergence is lost), now ppc and AC2 snipers suffer even worse than before while gauss snipers still hit perfectly.

I am definitely opposed to adding randomness to the firing pattern. I would keep it with speed penalties and movement range penalties.

Quote

So, while I'm not opposed to Component #2 in principle, I just don't know what penalties would be appropriate that would penalize all mechs equally.

Now, the proposal does have an additional effect, which I assume was an intentional part of the way it was constructed, but not explicitly one of the fundamental features that was changed. It would make chain fire preferable to alpha strikes in the majority of cases.

I'm ok with giving chain fire a place in MWO, but this suggestion is not the way to do it, it steps on way to many other toes. Just causing group fired weapons to produce more heat or to have an increased recycle time or (better yet) causing heat sinks to be less efficient during the firing, would all be better ways to encourage chain fire.

Fundamentally, currenly, chain fire in MW:O is almost not neccessary. I think the only meaningful place right now may be with weapons that have knockdown effects, especially missiles - staggering shots can allow you to keep the enemy rocking around the entire fight.

But if you, say, use the Awesome 8Q, there is no advantage at all to chain firing. The best thing you can still do is trying to delay the most damage in the shortest amount of time and hope that your enemy is either dead afterwards, or you can run away to cool off.
If you chain your weapon fire, you do not benefit from convergence. That means your damage is spread around. You have to aim each shot individually, which means you will spend more time getting a good aim, potentially lowering your rate of fire even further. And if you don't alpha strike your enemies as fast as your ROF allows, there is a chance he may be be doing the same on you and deliver enough damage to kill you.

Without heat penalties, and with a high heat capacity as we have it right now, alpha strikes builds are still generally the best. And that seems to me the antithesis of the idea of "heat management matters". The only thing heat management in MW:O seems to be about is "stop firing before you shutdown". The lack of heat penalties means there are no other trade-offs to consider and evaluate.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 04 November 2012 - 02:55 AM.