187 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Zyllos, on 23 November 2012 - 09:07 AM, said:

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.

I guess to go ahead and take this example further. If you mounted 22 DHS (I think you can get to this with 3 PPCs, and a 240 STD engine), then you get the numbers of 9.0 - 4.4 = 4.6 heat per second, or 13.8 heat. 13.8 / 52 = 0.26 or 26%. This build would receive a nice bonus from the changes. They still could not fire 3x PPCs twice in a row without receiving a penalty but they will have to wait a bit short time before firing again.

[Vermaxx]

Marzepans, on 23 November 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

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.

I think the system IS fair. The Jenner gets exactly the same 'easy' heat flush that an Awesome gets (changed for later example). If the Jenner bothers to add external sinks, they get exactly the same ratio that an Awesome gets. What you are complaining about is the perceived imbalance in running light, small weapons against heavy, large ones. Those are player choices. An Awesome can also run a "Jenner" combination of 6 medium/small lasers and get the same "overpowered" bonus from base engine sinks.

No one runs an Awesome with six medium lasers, although that used to be a somewhat popular build when combined with a really big arse (engine). I used to run an Awesome with 5 SMALL LASERS and a 375 engine as a nod to the Charger (a mech we will probably never see). Well, the engine limits killed my dream, yeah a 9M might let me do it again but too expensive.

The issue is not that Jenners are benefiting from a system that is unbalanced. The issue is that large mechs combined with large weapons are not getting any pity, and players feel they need it. Everyone has exactly the same systems right now - default engine sinks are 2.0, and additionals are 1.4. Every mech has the ability to use a 250 engine, even with limits. Therefore, every mech can have 10 x 2.0 sinks.

The system isn't giving Jenners an unfair bonus. It is giving SMALL WEAPONS an "unfair" bonus based on a matter of perception. This disparity existed in tabletop too, only it was worse because small mechs got ten 2.0 sinks regardless of what size engine they carried. Imagine a Jenner that downgraded to a 200 engine for some reason, and was still running 10 true DHS. Ravens typically have smaller engines, but every mech has at least 10 sinks. Ravens got way more out of 10 sinks than an Awesome did, ONLY because they were using smaller weapons.

Large weapons will always require more heat management, more rate of fire management, and more heatsink tonnage. The benefit is higher single-hit or pulse damage, and longer range. Tabletop evened all that out with the turn system and limiting weapons to one shot per turn. A FPS game like this has varied rates of fire, which will inevitably lead to the small/fast weapons being slotted into optimized builds as the best option.

MWO DHS are still better than SHS by stock dissipation figures. I would be absolutely THRILLED with true 2.0 sinks, but I accept this is never going to happen. 1.7 might work for MWO DHS, because it becomes 1.955 with efficiencies. It would also force them to modify engine sinks to match the same figure. Which would mean that my builds (which are not Jenners) and benefit from a 250 engine would cease to exist. Neither system is any more or less "fair" in my opinion. Everyone has the same access to 10 x 2.0. Some people have less issue with the engine tonnage.

[Marzepans]

A Jenner with 12 DHS (10 in engine) gets an effective heat dissipation of 0.19 per second per DHS. An Awesome using 19 DHS (10 in engine) gets an average heat dissipation of 0.17 per second per DHS. Weapon Loadout and Pilot Skills are a complete red herring when talking about this basic imbalance.

[Vermaxx]

I look at that the other way, because averages made me lose heat dissipation on one mech: the jenner is flushing 22.8 and the awesome is flushing 32.6. The awesome still wins, I don't care who has a better efficiency.

We're going terribly off topic in the thread I think, so I'm bowing out.

[Marzepans]

The whole point is that DHS should be the same for everybody, not better for Lights and Mediums than everyone else.

[FerretGR]

Vermaxx, on 23 November 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

No one runs an Awesome with six medium lasers, although that used to be a somewhat popular build when combined with a really big arse (engine).

8Q with 7 ML is still a good build, if a little slow, and 9M with 6ML is perfectly viable. Good examples of the issues with non-2.0 DHS as well: I can squeeze 45 SHS into the 7ML 8Q, and only 20 DHS in the same build. Right now, 20 DHS gets me 34 equivalent heat capacity, which is nowhere near the 45 I get with SHS. Even true DHS would only net me 40.

[Tuonela]

Here's my take on crit hits:

It shouldn't be a matter of HP per component. I would personally like it better if the change of crit hit was reduced, but each critical hit basically counts as destruction of that critical slot. This would give weapons like machine guns and LBX10s a better defined role because you have a better chance of knocking out components with increased number of projectiles (although lasers would have to go back to counting as 1 hit, not per second), irrespective of damage.

However, you could still put in an 'hp' counter, but not base it on weapon damage but rather how many crit slots an item takes. Lets say an engine loses 25% of its crit slots, its damaged but not out of operation. At 50% of its crit slots gone it would be 'destroyed'. You could apply this theory to all weapons/items at different levels to also balance weapons like gauss (perhaps its gone with 10-20% of crit slots hit).

Therefore, in respect to components and items, each weapon does equal 'damage' (while actual damage to armor/internal would remain the same as today), and components are disable/destroyed based on the number of critical slots that are hit.

Machine guns would become a very potent weapon to destroy internal systems (hence the chance of crit needs to be lowered), while gauss and other potent weapons are still the heavy hitters for armor and internals.

[Col Forbin]

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

Courtsey of Mr. Bradley.

Thanks, Bryan!!!

[Steel Will]

Am I reading it right that crits randomly hit only occupied slots? So say I have 12 slots, 9 empty, and 3 occupied by an XL engine in my side torso. Eevery critical hit on that section goes to my engine? That seems not right to me. I realize hitting an empty slot in effect would negate the crit altogether, but IMO they should randomly hit any slot in that section, occupied or not. Or the number of occupied vs. unoccupied slots should affect the chance of a crit in that section in the first place.

[HRR Insanity]

Marzepans, on 23 November 2012 - 10:10 AM, said:

The whole point is that DHS should be the same for everybody, not better for Lights and Mediums than everyone else.

Then all weapon weights should also scale to the size of the 'Mech carrying them... Oh, wait. No they shouldn't.

In their current implementation, DHSs give a slight benefit to smaller 'Mechs carrying energy weapons... just as larger 'Mechs have an advantage when carrying heavy weapons. It further differentiates the 'Mechs from one another and isn't a terrible problem. You still have to add sinks to smaller 'Mechs to really boat energy weapons effectively.

The heat model is differerent than I would like it to be, but rather than whining about it, I just figure out how to use it to my advantage.

You should too.

Steel Will, on 23 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Am I reading it right that crits randomly hit only occupied slots? So say I have 12 slots, 9 empty, and 3 occupied by an XL engine in my side torso. Eevery critical hit on that section goes to my engine? That seems not right to me. I realize hitting an empty slot in effect would negate the crit altogether, but IMO they should randomly hit any slot in that section, occupied or not. Or the number of occupied vs. unoccupied slots should affect the chance of a crit in that section in the first place.

It's similar to the TT system where 'empty crit rolls' were rerolled until the critical hit matters.

I'm more concerned about whether the % critical chance is 'per weapon' or 'per packet of damage'...

Lasers give 26-30 packets of damage over their beam-on time. If those %s aren't adjusted for the # of packets... that's a TON of criticals... especialy from a 'Mech running multiple lasers.

Insanity

Edited by HRR Insanity, 23 November 2012 - 11:05 AM.

[FerretGR]

Steel Will, on 23 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

Am I reading it right that crits randomly hit only occupied slots? So say I have 12 slots, 9 empty, and 3 occupied by an XL engine in my side torso. Eevery critical hit on that section goes to my engine? That seems not right to me. I realize hitting an empty slot in effect would negate the crit altogether, but IMO they should randomly hit any slot in that section, occupied or not. Or the number of occupied vs. unoccupied slots should affect the chance of a crit in that section in the first place.

In TT, you reroll if you hit an empty slot. Every crit is actually a crit. Makes sense: what's the real-life analog of hitting an empty slot? It's not like there are cavities in mech's torsos where "empty crits" exist. IRL, if you shot through a mech's torso, you'd hit something on the way through.

[Steel Will]

HRR Insanity, on 23 November 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

It's similar to the TT system where 'empty crit rolls' were rerolled until the critical hit matters.

I'm more concerned about whether the % critical chance is 'per weapon' or 'per packet of damage'...

Lasers give 26-30 packets of damage over their beam-on time. If those %s aren't adjusted for the # of packets... that's a TON of criticals... especialy from a 'Mech running multiple lasers.

Insanity

The reroll just doesn't make sense to me. If you have a section that's 25% occupied (and 75% empty space) vs a section that's 100% occupied with components then any single shot to each section would have a 25% vs 100% chance respectively of hitting one of those components. If each shot has a 25% chance to crit (at least once) then there would be a 6.25% to crit on the former section and a 25% chance to crit on the latter.

I'd imagine as a matter of practicality criticals would have to be calculated on a per-shot (or per-projectile) basis.

[FerretGR]

Steel Will, on 23 November 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

The reroll just doesn't make sense to me. If you have a section that's 25% occupied (and 75% empty space) vs a section that's 100% occupied with components then any single shot to each section would have a 25% vs 100% chance respectively of hitting one of those components.

Don't think of it as empty space. The total crit spaces are the maximum available. Your techs would have to make adjustments to fit the equipment on or in the mech. Crit spaces aren't just "holes" or "slots" that you slot things into.

[Viper69]

There is no empty space in a mech, in the same manner there is no empty space in a tank. If a tank gets penned by an enemy projectile, something important gets hit, always, be it people, ammo or electronics. Just because a weapon system may not be in the space the round went through, its fire control or electronics may have been. That is why you reroll a crit on an empty space in TT.

[Marzepans]

HRR Insanity, on 23 November 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Then all weapon weights should also scale to the size of the 'Mech carrying them... Oh, wait. No they shouldn't.

In their current implementation, DHSs give a slight benefit to smaller 'Mechs carrying energy weapons... just as larger 'Mechs have an advantage when carrying heavy weapons. It further differentiates the 'Mechs from one another and isn't a terrible problem. You still have to add sinks to smaller 'Mechs to really boat energy weapons effectively.

The heat model is differerent than I would like it to be, but rather than whining about it, I just figure out how to use it to my advantage.

Quoting this just for the sheer idiocy of the argument. Well done.

[Steel Will]

Viper69, on 23 November 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

There is no empty space in a mech, in the same manner there is no empty space in a tank. If a tank gets penned by an enemy projectile, something important gets hit, always, be it people, ammo or electronics. Just because a weapon system may not be in the space the round went through, its fire control or electronics may have been. That is why you reroll a crit on an empty space in TT.

It has to be empty space. Otherwise you couldn't add those nine heatsinks or whatever else fits in the section with 9 empty critical slots left. Critical spaces are representative of volume. Rerolling on a crit to an empty space would be fine if it rerolled the chance to crit again as well. You just can't have the same probability of hitting something internally that's 75% empty vs. 100% full.

[Khavi Vetali]

HRR Insanity, on 23 November 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I'm more concerned about whether the % critical chance is 'per weapon' or 'per packet of damage'...

Lasers give 26-30 packets of damage over their beam-on time. If those %s aren't adjusted for the # of packets... that's a TON of criticals... especialy from a 'Mech running multiple lasers.

This is covered in the thread. Lasers have a chance to strike a critical location every tick they have, but only do a fraction of the damage each crit.

David Bradley, on 22 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Thanks you for your responses guys. I assumed it was something along those lines, but just wanted to be sure. In any case, the numbers for double heat sinks are something that we will very likely be looking over once again.

Also, I just realized that I forgot to include something in my answer regarding how crit hits work. Weapons that deal damage over time, like lasers, work by quickly dealing tiny amounts of damage repeatedly over the lifetime of the laser beam. I think the medium laser does something like 0.20 - 0.25 damage repeatedly until it does the full 5 damage. Each of those micro damage hits have their own chance to crit. This means that lasers will have many chances to crit, but the crits will be spread out amongst the equipment in the location, and do little damage each time. Meanwhile an autocannon will have only one chance to crit per shot, but do all its damage to one piece of equipment (or applied multiple times if you get a double or triple crit).

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

as for the 2.0 as i said in another thread;

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 23 November 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Oh you saw this in game did you? Oh wait no; thats just the BULL they told us.
Dont spread unsubstantiated rumors

I say they put it in the BETA TEST - thats what we're here for to TEST aint it?? And let us make up our own minds.

let the BETA TESTERS
TEST IT

[Teralitha]

Bryan Ekman, on 22 November 2012 - 04:07 PM, said:

We've looked at tonnage. However tonnage doesn't factor in player skill. It's part of the equation, but not the the whole answer. If you took identical teams (mech for mech, loadout for loadout, etc..) skill would still be the single deterministic aspect of deciding which team would win. ELO MM handles this concept a bit better, albeit still not perfect. No MM system is.

The problem with matching mech for mech, it doesnt do for very dynamic matchups. in MW4, league, we had tonnage limits, and it was very interesting to see what teams did with their tonnage limit. With mech for mech matchups, you already know what your facing... How is that make for a challenge? The unknown is much more interesting, and challenging. How fun is it to take catapults, to be matched up with 8 catapults? And even if you are matched 8 catapults vs 8 catapults, they are still all different in the weapon configs. And even then, if you were to take 8 dragons 60 tons(for example) you could be matched with 8 cataphracts 70 tons.... how is that fair? So its still not truly even, since we all know some weapon configs are either easier to use, or more efficient, longer or shorter range so really... how is matching mech for mech make for an evenly matched game where only skill matters? It doesnt.

With a tonnage limit, a team might choose to take 2 scouts, and ton up the others, and the other might choose to take 1 scout, and have more mediums than heavy/assault... the point here is you might see a million different mech combinations and weapon configs with a tonnage limit, and you never know what your gonna get, in that view the whole teams skill is pit againt the other team, and not as an individual, and the match will be fair, because you know your opponants have the exact same tonnage limit.

So basically.... your wrong,(Byran Ekman) basing matchups by tonnage is more fair (and fun/interesting)than matching mech for mech. I have played both tonnage limits(MW4 NBT, and mech for mech(MWO) And I still say tonnage matchups were better.

Hmmm I seem to be talking about premade vs premade, and I totally forgot about pugs... Perhaps you can just make premade vs premade limited by tons, and pugs matched by mech for mech.. Then, when, if pug players ever transition to team vs team premades, itll be like a new game mode, and a new learning curve... skill curve. Itll be like playing 2 different games in one... Plus, you make everyone happy.

I should make this a poll....

Edited by Teralitha, 23 November 2012 - 04:50 PM.

[Rejarial Galatan]

The Cheese, on 22 November 2012 - 11:50 PM, said:

Heat is fine. You just need to learn to play the game you've got, rather than the game you want.

learn to play, thats cute. its akin to trying to learn to drive where only HALF the rules you knew about prior to getting in the car now apply. gravity now pulls UP, the brake pedal now accelerates you and the accelerator is now your brake. THAT is what is going on here. It is NOT a good meld of TT vs Real Time calculations. They tripled <basically> our heat by making weapons fire faster, but give us what is tantamount to a negative upgrade for swapping to tier 2 gear. putting on bigger, more expensive stuff should have a positive net gain, not a minimal net gain, which, is what .4 is.