Jump to content

The economics of energy vs ammo driven weapons


351 replies to this topic

#321 Sporkosophy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 845 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:37 PM

It seems that everyone here hates catgirls what with this blatant talk of real world physics. Long story short, coolant flush is stupid and only further encourages laser boating beyond what the system already does to encourage it.

#322 Reaver 1 1

    Member

  • Pip
  • 16 posts
  • LocationNebraska

Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:51 PM

Coolant dump? never heard of it, I am not even going to bother reading all of the pros and cons for it either. I think if you are over heating just stop shooting or after you blow yourself up you watch your heat more or set up your mech to be more heat friendly.
OR
maybe we can get some cool powerups or cooldowns? yayyyy
Posted Image

#323 William Petersen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:53 PM

View PostReaver 1 1, on 14 May 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

Coolant dump? never heard of it, I am not even going to bother reading all of the pros and cons for it either. I think if you are over heating just stop shooting or after you blow yourself up you watch your heat more or set up your mech to be more heat friendly.


MADNESS! UNTHINKABLE! UNPOSSIBLE!

#324 Zylo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,782 posts
  • Locationunknown, possibly drunk

Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:54 PM

View PostSporkosophy, on 14 May 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:

It seems that everyone here hates catgirls what with this blatant talk of real world physics. Long story short, coolant flush is stupid and only further encourages laser boating beyond what the system already does to encourage it.

Exactly Spork, that's what upsets some people I guess. They can't run a hot full energy setup without having coolant flush to compensate for their lack of heat control, so they argue that experimental and unreliable tech like coolant pods should be standard equipment just because a coolant flush feature was included in earlier games.

It sounds like a serious balance issue to me that would tip the balance too far to the energy side while making the ammo based weapons less desired.

#325 Belisarius1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,415 posts
  • LocationBrisbane, Australia

Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:55 PM

View PostChristopher Dayson, on 14 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:

Wait wait, physics don't matter now, but they matter in the other thread where people want super long range weapons and lights to survive heavy firepower from assaults unscathed...


Surely you realise that can be turned right around?

Regardless, physics shouldn't be more than a passing part of the argument in either case, because as soon as you start caring about it too much, the whole of CBT falls apart. What matters is believability, which is quite distinct from hardcore realism. If I cared about realism I wouldn't have touched CBT with a long pole.

Incuding coolant does not automatically make energy weapons overpowered, but the discussion is fairly pointless since the devs have scrapped it anyway.

Edited by Belisarius†, 14 May 2012 - 08:08 PM.


#326 Rejarial Galatan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 4,312 posts
  • LocationOutter Periphery

Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:11 PM

Here is the end of this circle fight. Id use a diff word, but, wont. This is how this ends, whether we all like it or not. The dev team led by Paul shall decide the fate of this. They will or will not put it in, they will find a way to make it work IF they put it in. In the end, IF it is in, we will use or not use at our own personal discretion. END OF THIS. I have said this, I do not know how many times, NONE of us will come to see eye to eye on this, we are all jaded by our OWN views on this. Good or bad, this has ended. Developers are our gods, they make it happen or not.

#327 Sassori

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 884 posts
  • LocationBlackjack

Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:04 AM

They won't.

It's not in the screen shots or the video's and they're not going to add it in now as it would necessitate a lot of art redesign and balance mechanics etc. They're not going to change everything this late in the game.

Just let it go mate.

#328 William Petersen

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts

Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:22 AM

View PostRejarial Galatan, on 15 May 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:

Here is the end of this circle fight. Id use a diff word, but, wont. This is how this ends, whether we all like it or not. The dev team led by Paul shall decide the fate of this. They will or will not put it in, they will find a way to make it work IF they put it in. In the end, IF it is in, we will use or not use at our own personal discretion. END OF THIS. I have said this, I do not know how many times, NONE of us will come to see eye to eye on this, we are all jaded by our OWN views on this. Good or bad, this has ended. Developers are our gods, they make it happen or not.



Translation: I'm out-maneuvered, but I want the last word, so here's a truism I've been repeating for the past 10 pages in effort to shut up all of you people who disagree with me.

#329 FrostPaw

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 946 posts
  • LocationUnited Kingdom

Posted 17 May 2012 - 05:45 AM

Actually I always took it "flushing coolant" was a tank of cold liquid that in an enemergency was dumped through the heat sinks to cool them down more rapidly and expell the liquid out of the mech as steam.

We have heatsinks to dissipate heat from the mech as standard, coolant is not used as in the radiator of a car because it is not used to cool the mech as standard function.

Edited by FrostPaw, 17 May 2012 - 05:50 AM.


#330 SquareSphere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
  • LocationIn your clouds, stealing your thunder

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:31 AM

Sorry guys, didn't read the whole thread so forgive me if it's already been suggested.

I figure a "new" way to balance would be additional "cost/risk" to heat sinks in two places.

During battle - it's treated as equipment that can be destroyed in battle, ie someone puts heat sinks in a side torso, every shot that breechs armor has a moderate chance to destroy the heat sink. Double heats have "double" the chance to be destroyed. I'm pretty sure that's how it was meant to be in TT but I'm probably wrong.

Post battle - obviously there's a cost to replace the heat sinks but what about adding a "degradation" cost to the remaining HS on mechs that red line a lot. Until MWO there wasn't a real post battle cost impact. This would make Ammo a pre battle cost and Heat sink a post battle cost.

#331 guardian wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 1,965 posts
  • LocationOn Barcelona where the crap is about to hit the fan.

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:12 AM

View PostVolthorne, on 13 May 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

First, you're welcome for that clarification. Second, it doesn't even matter if there's a second line. As soon as that cold coolant goes into the cooling system (which will have heated up significantly during battle), thermal shock WILL occur, 100% of the time, regardless of two supply lines. Not even tech 1037 years from now can magically solve that problem - unless you can find a way to bypass the laws of thermodynamics.


Jade Falcon? You're kidding, right? If I was a Jade Falcon at heart, I would have signed on with a Jade Falcon clan, no? I despise all you C(l)anners.


Get off that soapbox, this is the wrong place for that. If you want a game that thinks of the kiddies, there are some nice playgrounds over at Activision and DICE. I'm an old school MW2 (vanilla, not Mercs) player. I grew up on overheating and running dry of ammo, until I learned not to do either (mind you, that was way back when I was 5 or 6. If I can learn the hard way at that age...).

View PostVolthorne, on 13 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:

I could quote everything he said, if you'd like, Rejarial. But your cup is already filled, so what's the point. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks (or in this case, an old Canner proper reasoning).

Yes, I'm purposefully misspelling "Clanner" as "Canner".

Hey, hey, HEY, watch the Clan hate going around, granted call the Falcons whatever you want, but we Wolves saved your little arses.

View PostWilliam Petersen, on 14 May 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:

There's already a terrible, horribly ill-conceived, broken, power-creep solution to high heat weapons: Double Heat Sinks.

Yeah, in fact, I think coolant pods were to try and cover for that lack of foresight, but granted, those sinks cost a sh!tton. Anyone else see that, when used, a coolant pod gives 1, and a double heat sink 1, that makes the ratio 2:3, or a whopping 3/2 better instead of twice as good. Nobody? Eh... *gets the soap box that he never stood on, and tosses it into a garbage compactor*

#332 guardian wolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Merciless
  • The Merciless
  • 1,965 posts
  • LocationOn Barcelona where the crap is about to hit the fan.

Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:16 AM

View PostZylo, on 14 May 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

Then you try to apply physics claiming a mech would collapse under it's own weight and somehow because of that the coolant pod problems detailed on the sarna site should somehow no longer exist? Really? Lets see then, if mechs would collapse under their own weight how does mining equipment in use today stand up to the abuse of being operated over rough terrain carrying the weight of a few mechs for larger models? Here's an example for you, if you don't want to look around that page here's a link to the largest truck on the page. Shouldn't those trucks collapse under all that weight every time they hit a bump?

*mumble* that is not even mentioning the Colossal series battlemechs, damn monstrosities the lot of 'em.*/mumble*

#333 Sporkosophy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 845 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:28 AM

The name got changed to Super Heavy in one of the Jihad books; up to 150 tons of scouting.

#334 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:31 AM

View PostSquareSphere, on 17 May 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

Sorry guys, didn't read the whole thread so forgive me if it's already been suggested.

I figure a "new" way to balance would be additional "cost/risk" to heat sinks in two places.

During battle - it's treated as equipment that can be destroyed in battle, ie someone puts heat sinks in a side torso, every shot that breechs armor has a moderate chance to destroy the heat sink. Double heats have "double" the chance to be destroyed. I'm pretty sure that's how it was meant to be in TT but I'm probably wrong.

Post battle - obviously there's a cost to replace the heat sinks but what about adding a "degradation" cost to the remaining HS on mechs that red line a lot. Until MWO there wasn't a real post battle cost impact. This would make Ammo a pre battle cost and Heat sink a post battle cost.


Would we include the 8-10 free Engine HS's a Mech gets?

#335 Lydia

    Member

  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • LocationFlorida, USA

Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:43 PM

I used all the weapons from the old games except machine guns. Shell weapons generate less heat which is why sometimes you should pick a Gauss over a PPC. But yeah in most scenarios, energy weapons are gonna be better.

But there is no energy equivalent of LRM/MRM/SRMs.

I just wish I could have my clan mechs with flamethrowers :(

#336 Mason Grimm

    Com Guard / Technician

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 2,886 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationToronto, ON

Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:07 PM

So yeah! Let's keep it civil in here.

If you disagree with someone, do so nicely.
If someone disagrees with you, be man enough to respect that someone else has an opinion

OTHERWISE

Banhammers for EVERYONE!!!!!!!!! WOooooooooooooooooooooooooo

#337 Owl Cutter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:30 AM

Well, as for wishing we could have things, I'd love to see guided mortars as a sort of compromise between guided rockets and unguided shells.

Re: physics, "realism," immersion, yadda yadda, I am still baffled by the coolant flush discussion revolving around dumping hot coolant for cold when a dedicated phase-change system would make vastly more sense, not least of which because it would be at least theoretically physically possible for doing so to actually reduce your temperature. Also, if a battlemech's systems can handle the strain of heating up from an alpha strike, it is not much of a stretch of the imagination for the same technowizardry that allows that to also allow them to handle cooling down by a similar amount in a similar time interval.

Gameplay-wise, I am pleased to see that the "get out of jail free" card is a no-go, but also hope it becomes available later in the form of the canonical coolant pods. The earlier incarnations encourage every one to take advantage of the feature if possible, and the effect on gameplay is not something I like, but an optional benefit that costs something is a good source of variety if neither choice strictly dominates the other.

Edited by Owl Cutter, 18 May 2012 - 12:32 AM.


#338 SquareSphere

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,656 posts
  • LocationIn your clouds, stealing your thunder

Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:43 AM

View PostMaddMaxx, on 17 May 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:


Would we include the 8-10 free Engine HS's a Mech gets?


Good question, I'd suggest the free engine heat sinks be excluded from the degredation/destruction rule just for game play purposes. Without any base line heat negation, energy weapons become useless quickly.

#339 Sassori

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Rage
  • Rage
  • 884 posts
  • LocationBlackjack

Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:45 AM

Normal mech construction has 10 heat sinks for free as an integral part of having a fusion reactor engine. Some engine sizes can hold more than 10, some can hold less. If it holds less then those 'free' heat sinks still take up crit space even if they don't add tonnage while if it can hold more, if you add heat sinks it still takes up tonnage while it may not take up crit space.

Anyways, every mech should have 10 heat sinks stock. In order to get doubles (imho) you should have to add additional heat sinks since they're not stock. That's just me though.

Without those 10 free heat sinks then the balance between ballistic and energy weapons goes right out the window.

#340 Sleeping Bear

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 179 posts
  • LocationGuam

Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:10 PM

I think the biggest difference you will see is that ballistic weapons have that stagger ability. When a mech takes a laser hit, you get a nice flash and damage. When a mech takes an autocannon hit, you get the flash and damage, but you get staggered as well. The bigger the bore, the more you get rocked. Same with gauss rifles, since they are kinetic killers as well. Energy might seem more efficient, but I think ammunition weapons are just louder and scarier to my enemies.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users