The economics of energy vs ammo driven weapons
#321
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:37 PM
#322
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:51 PM
OR
maybe we can get some cool powerups or cooldowns? yayyyy
#323
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:53 PM
Reaver 1 1, on 14 May 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:
MADNESS! UNTHINKABLE! UNPOSSIBLE!
#324
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:54 PM
Sporkosophy, on 14 May 2012 - 07:37 PM, said:
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
Posted 14 May 2012 - 07:55 PM
Christopher Dayson, on 14 May 2012 - 04:55 PM, said:
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
Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:11 PM
#327
Posted 16 May 2012 - 12:04 AM
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
Posted 17 May 2012 - 04:22 AM
Rejarial Galatan, on 15 May 2012 - 08:11 PM, said:
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
Posted 17 May 2012 - 05:45 AM
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
Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:31 AM
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
Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:12 AM
Volthorne, on 13 May 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:
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...).
Volthorne, on 13 May 2012 - 09:54 PM, said:
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.
William Petersen, on 14 May 2012 - 06:59 PM, said:
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
Posted 17 May 2012 - 09:16 AM
Zylo, on 14 May 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:
*mumble* that is not even mentioning the Colossal series battlemechs, damn monstrosities the lot of 'em.*/mumble*
#333
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:28 AM
#334
Posted 17 May 2012 - 10:31 AM
SquareSphere, on 17 May 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:
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
Posted 17 May 2012 - 07:43 PM
But there is no energy equivalent of LRM/MRM/SRMs.
I just wish I could have my clan mechs with flamethrowers :(
#336
Posted 17 May 2012 - 08:07 PM
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
Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:30 AM
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
Posted 18 May 2012 - 06:43 AM
MaddMaxx, 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
Posted 18 May 2012 - 11:45 AM
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
Posted 18 May 2012 - 12:10 PM
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users