187 replies to this topic

[Marzepans]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 23 November 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

This adds strategy to the game, and you want it taken away. Learn some firing discipline perhaps?

TBH, these types of post aren't helpful. We all agree that heat should play a factor in the game and this might mean that true DHS are never going to be introduced. However, I think you would agree that whatever implementation of DHS we end up with should provide equal benefit to all Mech classes instead of what we have now that favours the lighter mechs.

[BA Dillard]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Courtsey of Mr. Bradley.

Thanks Bryan, as usual, you DA MAN!

[Jeff K Notagoon]

Marzepans, on 23 November 2012 - 08:01 AM, said:

TBH, these types of post aren't helpful. We all agree that heat should play a factor in the game and this might mean that true DHS are never going to be introduced. However, I think you would agree that whatever implementation of DHS we end up with should provide equal benefit to all Mech classes instead of what we have now that favours the lighter mechs.

No more unhelpful than all the people who think every rule and variable needs to be the same as their board game, "just because."

[Marzepans]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 23 November 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

This adds strategy to the game, and you want it taken away. Learn some firing discipline perhaps?

also I use a JENNER with 4 ML and 13 DHS and it works just fine... this just tells me that you and the other "heat is broken!" people feel the need to be firing CONSTANTLY for some reason. Pro tip: stop feeling the need to be firing constantly!

What size of engine are you using?

[Zyllos]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 23 November 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

This adds strategy to the game, and you want it taken away. Learn some firing discipline perhaps?

also I use a JENNER with 4 ML and 13 DHS and it works just fine... this just tells me that you and the other "heat is broken!" people feel the need to be firing CONSTANTLY for some reason. Pro tip: stop feeling the need to be firing constantly!

As just an FYI, how high does your heat go? Do you fire until it reaches close to 100% then you cut back by chain firing to maintain heat?

What would you do if DHS were 0.2 dissipation and 1.0 capacity (to the SHS of 0.1 and 1.0 capacity) but if you went over 50% heat, you then received a small movement penalty, if over 60% a small movement and torso/arm twist penalty, if over 70% large movement and small torso/arm twist penalty, if over 80% large movement and torso/arm twist penalty along with an overridable shutdown, and if over 90% you received all the above with random internal damage with those having a chance of doing a 1 damage critical (so ammo explosions can happen, 1x/2x/3x criticals to internal components)?

The way I see this, SHS would be for adding capacity so you reach the penalty locations slower but take longer to dissipate for more weight while DHS would be for the dissipation and weight savings, so faster firing, but reaching the penalty locations faster and more critical slots.

I really only see two paths going forward for PGI from here. They either revamp the heat system, actually implementing the CBT heat penalties of slower movement (literally) and aiming (slowing the torso twist and arm speed) to the scale. But then fix the DHS/SHS by giving them different advantages that are inline with the game.

Or they leave the heat system as is, where it only matters if you go over 100%, and bring the DHS to something lower than 0.2 dissipation and same capacity. But this will only hurt mechs that use a lot of critical slots because mechs using lower critical slots will only just run more efficient.

Time and time again, PGI has said they want heat to matter in this game. Before DHS, heat only mattered if you was going over 100%. And yes, it did matter, because SHS are woefully inefficient for large heat weapons but great for arrays of smaller weapons, so mechs constantly shutdown. After DHS, heat is much more manageable with large heat weapons and still great for arrays of smaller weapons but heavier critical use mechs are hard pressed to see any advantage.

Hopefully, PGI will think about adding these other penalties.

[John Norad]

NaerahQc, on 22 November 2012 - 01:45 PM, said:

Back in close beta, Bryan (i think) said that he didn't want to bother taking 15 min of the programmers time to get detailed info about issues because thats 15 min where the guys were not fixing things. Well i completly disagree, i beleive he or someone else should take that time because we want those data.

So am I right when I guess those programmers will also not take 15min to properly comment their code? Oh dear.. this is not the way you should develop software.
Maybe it works for some small group of independent backyard developers. But for a professional team you need well defined workflows/SOPs and a good QA. This doesn't sound like it.

If you really think that 15min to inform your beta testers how things work, so that said testers can do their job more effectively, is wasted, you can't be helped. That's the wrong philosophy and it will waste more time in the long run than it saves you.

Unless of course the whole beta test thing was/is just an excuse..

[Elyam]

Thanks devs for the responses.

[Quxudica]

Moorecroft, on 22 November 2012 - 04:50 PM, said:

Hi! This is one of several reasons the Jenner is objectively better than the Raven at the moment. Bigger engine means not only faster/more survivable, but also more 2.0 heatsinks, and more efficient use of engine weight for heatsinks. In a 35 ton mech, those are pretty significant alone. Not to mention the jumpjets, or the stupid side-torso hitbox on the raven that always gets my XL blown out. It needs to be a little smaller, but anyway.

I know you're still tweaking heaps of stuff, and I know that there are still some electronics out there that are yet to be implemented etc... I'm excited about them, but I don't think ECM is going to be enough to make the raven as competitive as the jenner.

I have four ideas for what might help:

1. 360 torso twist on the raven. Or at least as far as the catapult. Something like that.

2. Raven side-torso hit box smaller.

3. +1 missile slot on maybe the 3L and 2X (Allowing a loadout that the jenner can't just be better at)

4. 2x AMS slots on a couple of the variants.

Obviously I would not expect all of them, and my preference would be in the same order as posted, but any one of those things would make me a happy Raven pilot.

Also if you can fix THE ENTIRE INTERNET that would be great, because I'd love to use a UAC5 on a raven, but it's just so damn hard to hit the stuff I'll end up targetting. =P

Thanks!

It's important to keep in mind that a Raven and a Jenner do not fulfill the exact same roles. The Raven is a support mech, focused on Electronic Warfare (which is not fully implemented yet) and support fire builds, the Jenner is a forward scout and harasser mech primarily designed to briefly engage the enemy via hit and runs without much support. It would make sense that a Raven is weaker in direct combat since that's not the role it was explicitly created for. MWO's customization does allow for you to outfit a Raven for combat and it might even be effective to a degree, but it's still not going to do as well as something built from conception to harass without help.



OT: Does anyone know how much is added to your total Heat Ceiling by the basic pilot skill (forget its name)? I assume it adds a percentage.

[Vermaxx]

Marzepans, on 23 November 2012 - 07:53 AM, said:

I suggest you do your math again. 10 engine and 10 external gives 1.7 average. 10/9 gives 1.71 average. 10/8 gives 1.73 etc. on a linear progression to 10/0, which gives 2.0.

Edit: I'd like a value of 1.7 introduced for all DHS meaning that the current unfair advantage to those mechs using only the first ten in the engine was removed without removing heat management from the game.

My math included the 15% from doubled basic efficiencies. You know, that xp system I said was 'worth using?' It is correct, unless PGI has fubbed the function of the efficiency boost.

[John Norad]

Jeff K Notagoon, on 23 November 2012 - 07:58 AM, said:

This adds strategy to the game, and you want it taken away. Learn some firing discipline perhaps?

also I use a JENNER with 4 ML and 13 DHS and it works just fine... this just tells me that you and the other "heat is broken!" people feel the need to be firing CONSTANTLY for some reason. Pro tip: stop feeling the need to be firing constantly!

Dude, you're talking about a scout. A scout doesn't have to fire constantly. A light mech can employ hit and run tactics without a problem, and in fact should need to. By doing this, even 4ML and single heat sinks work. An assault can not do that. It has to fire constantly because it is in the thick of it and can't just wave in and out.
The system should not be balanced around whether or not scouts can fire their weapons, but around heavy mechs and their weapons. The only advantage a heavy mech has is his armor, his additonal heat sinks and larger weapons with more range.
If the armor is worth less than the speed and lag shield of a light mech, and heat sinks are not efficient enough to utilze the additional heavy weaponry, then this advantage is nullified.
Maybe that's intentional, to 'balance' light mechs vs. heavy mechs. But I find it a stupid approach. They should be balanced by different roles.

[Marzepans]

Vermaxx, on 23 November 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

My math included the 15% from doubled basic efficiencies. You know, that xp system I said was 'worth using?' It is correct, unless PGI has fubbed the function of the efficiency boost.

OK, fair enough however the pilot efficiency is a flat rate for everyone. The functionality of DHS is not the same for everyone and is therefore skewing the playing field. You also have other pilot skills that increase firing rates and therefore heat generation. Instead of getting into a discussion about the end result it would be much easier to treat DHS in isolation for the purposes of this discussion.

Edited by Marzepans, 23 November 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 November 2012 - 03:46 PM, said:

Courtsey of Mr. Bradley.

So Mr. Bradley is reporting that the Gauss Explosion mechanics didn't work correctly, and they are fixing that, and on top of that, they are making it more fragile?

Have you ever heard of overcompensation? At least test the fix in play for a while before you get the next nerf bat.
You're so incredibly "careful" with double heat sinks (despite several players already pointing out that due to the high fire rates you gave weapons, double heat sinks at full effectiveness would be needed to achieve a semblance of balance between high heat energy weapons and other weapons.), but you want to do these two things together?

And I am even one of the people that is bothered by the fact that the Gauss is vastly more powerful than the PPC.

[FerretGR]

MustrumRidcully, on 23 November 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

double heat sinks at full effectiveness would be needed to achieve a semblance of balance between high heat energy weapons and other weapons.

No question. Several Awesome builds are simply not viable without sticking with SHS, for example, and that doesn't make much sense to me.

MustrumRidcully, on 23 November 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

And I am even one of the people that is bothered by the fact that the Gauss is vastly more powerful than the PPC.

Agreed, and that's how they should be handling the imbalance at this point, for sure: love for the PPC, not nerf bat vs. Gauss.

Edited by FerretGR, 23 November 2012 - 09:06 AM.

[Zyllos]

Zyllos, on 23 November 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

As just an FYI, how high does your heat go? Do you fire until it reaches close to 100% then you cut back by chain firing to maintain heat?

What would you do if DHS were 0.2 dissipation and 1.0 capacity (to the SHS of 0.1 and 1.0 capacity) but if you went over 50% heat, you then received a small movement penalty, if over 60% a small movement and torso/arm twist penalty, if over 70% large movement and small torso/arm twist penalty, if over 80% large movement and torso/arm twist penalty along with an overridable shutdown, and if over 90% you received all the above with random internal damage with those having a chance of doing a 1 damage critical (so ammo explosions can happen, 1x/2x/3x criticals to internal components)?

The way I see this, SHS would be for adding capacity so you reach the penalty locations slower but take longer to dissipate for more weight while DHS would be for the dissipation and weight savings, so faster firing, but reaching the penalty locations faster and more critical slots.

I really only see two paths going forward for PGI from here. They either revamp the heat system, actually implementing the CBT heat penalties of slower movement (literally) and aiming (slowing the torso twist and arm speed) to the scale. But then fix the DHS/SHS by giving them different advantages that are inline with the game.

Or they leave the heat system as is, where it only matters if you go over 100%, and bring the DHS to something lower than 0.2 dissipation and same capacity. But this will only hurt mechs that use a lot of critical slots because mechs using lower critical slots will only just run more efficient.

Time and time again, PGI has said they want heat to matter in this game. Before DHS, heat only mattered if you was going over 100%. And yes, it did matter, because SHS are woefully inefficient for large heat weapons but great for arrays of smaller weapons, so mechs constantly shutdown. After DHS, heat is much more manageable with large heat weapons and still great for arrays of smaller weapons but heavier critical use mechs are hard pressed to see any advantage.

Hopefully, PGI will think about adding these other penalties.

Oh, you would also need to make weapons produce their heat over the CD of the weapon instead of instantaneously. So if you fired 3x PPCs, they produce 9 heat per second. So the stock AWS-8Q, firing all three PPCs, would produce 9 heat per second for 3 seconds. Then, sense the heat capacity and dissipation for 28 SHS is 2.8 heat per second and 58 capacity, would produce a total effect of 9.0 - 2.8 = 6.2 heat per second, totalling 18.6 heat. 18.6 / 58 capacity = 0.32 or 32%.

Doing this, you could fire all three PPCs, then on the next CD, fire two PPCs, and just be shy of not receiving any penalties, or just shy of 50%. Then, you would have to wait 10s before doing those strikes again to avoid receiving penalties.

Edited by Zyllos, 23 November 2012 - 09:08 AM.

[Acehilator]

MustrumRidcully, on 23 November 2012 - 09:03 AM, said:

So Mr. Bradley is reporting that the Gauss Explosion mechanics didn't work correctly, and they are fixing that, and on top of that, they are making it more fragile?

Have you ever heard of overcompensation?

Given their recent track record, no they have not.

/sadface

[MaddMaxx]

Redoxin, on 22 November 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

Wow, extremely useful information.

Thanks, but I cant believe we are only getting this now as an answer to a random forum post.

I can't believe that you actually believe that that is somehow all new, previously unknown data. Just because there are always new folk arriving and so many of them are not arsed to look stuff up, or even read some of the past Postings that include many of these items already, that it isn't/hasn't been posted already.

Do you really think any Dev would get anything done if they had to re-type and re-post everything every time a new player hit the Forums? (holy slap-em again Batman)

P.S. another problem for the Dev is how folks just assume things when no change has been posted (hot-fixes aside). Example. DHS's. I have read in this thread and others that the DHS's were changed (as they could feel it) and yet here we get the same numbers back.

If folks are not going to believe what is posted then I say f-em all (but 6, for they be Pall Bearers) and let them stew in their own QQ. It is obvious they won't/don't believe anything they are told anyways.... because it is all one big CONSPIRACY against them and their person. LOL!

Edited by MaddMaxx, 23 November 2012 - 09:19 AM.

[Marzepans]

MaddMaxx, on 23 November 2012 - 09:16 AM, said:

I can't believe that you actually believe that that is somehow all new, previously unknown data. Just because there are always new folk arriving and so many of them are not arsed to look stuff up, or even read some of the past Postings that include many of these items already, that it isn't/hasn't been posted already. Do you really think any Dev would get anything done if they had to re-type and re-post everything every time a new player hit the Forums? (holy slap-em again Batman) P.S. another problem for the Dev is how folks just assume things when no change has been posted (hot-fixes aside). Example. DHS's. I have read in this thread and others that the DHS's were changed (as they could feel it) and yet here we get the same numbers back. If folks are not going to believe what is posted then I say f-em all but 6 (for they be pall bearers) and let them stew in their own QQ. It is obvious they won't/don't believe anything they are told anyways....

Your example isn't a good one. Two weeks ago the patch notes claimed all DHS would function at 1.4. After the patch it was the players who discovered that the first ten in the engine were functioning as 2.0. This thread is the first time in over two weeks that the Devs have deigned to comment on the subject.

[Vermaxx]

Marzepans, on 23 November 2012 - 08:58 AM, said:

OK, fair enough however the pilot efficiency is a flat rate for everyone. The functionality of DHS is not the same for everyone and is therefore skewing the playing field. You also have other pilot skills that increase firing rates and therefore heat generation. Instead of getting into a discussion about the end result it would be much easier to treat DHS in isolation for the purposes of this discussion.

We can't talk in absolute base figures because I think it's clear PGI views "2.0" as the devil. Any number you suggest wherein the efficiencies increase it up to or above "2.0" will be rejected. I think buffs are coming, but they will never put the "1.4" figure at or above 2.0 alone. IF they do, the engine sinks will get "fixed" and go back to 1.4 or whatever new figure they select.

We also can't talk in averages, because while a Jenner with ten engine sinks IS getting "full 2.0" out of them, he is still only flushing .2 heat per second. Every sink I add above base increases my heat. The 'average' goes down, yes, but my functional heat dissipation ALWAYS goes up by 1.4.

This is a matter of perspective. Clearly, what we have is not as good as it "should be," or even what it COULD be. I think they're "good enough." I don't expect people to agree, I just expect them to accept math - sinks right now WITH XP are 'almost 2.0' in most combinations. PGI just made us work for it, making the 'buy three mechs' mechanic integral and not optional.

[Bommer]

Has anyone thought of an alternative solution to the "2.0 vs. 1.4" heatsink problem, by making the external sinks only consume 2 critical slots instead of three ? Everyone would be able to incorporate enough (think legs ect.) additional sinks to eliminate the so-called 'large mech' penalty.

[Marzepans]

Vermaxx, on 23 November 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

We can't talk in absolute base figures because I think it's clear PGI views "2.0" as the devil. Any number you suggest wherein the efficiencies increase it up to or above "2.0" will be rejected. I think buffs are coming, but they will never put the "1.4" figure at or above 2.0 alone. IF they do, the engine sinks will get "fixed" and go back to 1.4 or whatever new figure they select.

We also can't talk in averages, because while a Jenner with ten engine sinks IS getting "full 2.0" out of them, he is still only flushing .2 heat per second. Every sink I add above base increases my heat. The 'average' goes down, yes, but my functional heat dissipation ALWAYS goes up by 1.4.

This is a matter of perspective. Clearly, what we have is not as good as it "should be," or even what it COULD be. I think they're "good enough." I don't expect people to agree, I just expect them to accept math - sinks right now WITH XP are 'almost 2.0' in most combinations. PGI just made us work for it, making the 'buy three mechs' mechanic integral and not optional.

We can and have talked in absolutes. The Devs themselves said all DHS would function at 1.4 as of the last patch and seemed to either change their mind or mess it up again.

In addition, a Jenner using only the first ten EDHS is flushing at 2 heat per second (10x0.2). An Atlas using the first ten only is also getting heat dissipation of 2 per second. That is neither here nor there.

The fact remains that the only fair way to implement DHS is to have them all provide the same heat dissipation and contribute the same amount to the threshold. Otherwise the system is unfair.

Edited by Marzepans, 23 November 2012 - 09:31 AM.