99 replies to this topic

[Wired]

Tennex, on 03 December 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

it wouldn't have any effect on customized mechs. because instead of having to optimize heat. Now all there is to do is change weapons. And weapons are limited by tonnage much more so than heat sinks.

custom mechs will not become better because weapons cost more tonnage, and to add more weapons there is a tonnage barrier. but to add more heat sinks there is not so much that barrier.

from there, if a mech using certain weapons is overpowerd. its because of the weapon not because of taking advantage of heat optimization. because heat is already optimized

That's not how customization works.

If heat wasn't a problem anymore, it would be a matter of just putting the highest powered weapon on your mech within that low heat threshold.

Edited by Wired, 03 December 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Kilgore]

Tennex, on 03 December 2012 - 09:49 AM, said:

it wouldn't have any effect on customized mechs. because instead of having to optimize heat. Now all there is to do is change weapons. And weapons are limited by tonnage much more so than heat sinks.

custom mechs will not become better because weapons cost more tonnage, and to add more weapons there is a tonnage barrier. but to add more heat sinks there is not so much that barrier.

from there, if a mech using certain weapons is overpowerd. its because of the weapon not because of taking advantage of heat optimization. because heat is already optimized

That's why I mentioned a DPS disparity. If customized mechs could have bigger or more weapons, they'll put out more damage and maintain the same heat level.

So you're asking to trade a heat problem for a damage or range problem.

My main point is Mechwarrior isn't the game for you if you can't get past having to manage heat.

[Vlad Ward]

Lefty Lucy, on 03 December 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Double heat dissipation across the board, halve the heat cap across the board. Problem solved. Canon mechs can fire more frequently, but alpha striking will shut you down.

This only buffs low-heat weapons. High-heat weapons are limited more by maximum heat capacity than heat dissipation.

This would have worked in Tabletop because you were working with an aggregate heat after 10 seconds.

This will not work in MWO because the heatscale is a step+linear hybrid function that deals with instantaneous heat.

The AWS-9M's stock variant may as well shut down after every Alpha with these changes.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 03 December 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[QuantumButler]

Wired, on 03 December 2012 - 09:59 AM, said:

That's not how customization works.

If heat wasn't a problem anymore, it would be a matter of just putting the highest powered weapon on your mech within that low heat threshold.



I'm waiting for you to pose a real argument outside of "Your point is wrong! heres the same stuff I've been saying!"

Same to you buddy.

[Lefty Lucy]

Vlad Ward, on 03 December 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

This only buffs low-heat weapons. High-heat weapons are limited more by maximum heat capacity than heat dissipation.

This would have worked in Tabletop because you were working with an aggregate heat after 10 seconds.

This will not work in MWO because the heatscale is a step+linear hybrid function that deals with instantaneous heat.

The AWS-9M's stock variant may as well shut down after every Alpha with these changes.

I disagree. The AWS would shut down with an alpha, but it would also be able to chain fire its weapons at a faster rate. It's total DPS over a combat encounter would be increased significantly.

[Lanessar]

Lefty Lucy, on 03 December 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

I disagree. The AWS would shut down with an alpha, but it would also be able to chain fire its weapons at a faster rate. It's total DPS over a combat encounter would be increased significantly.

Lefty, perhaps a second-by-second demonstration would help them understand. But until that appears, the naysayers apparently have the idea that you can alpha non-stop with your suggestion, making low-heat weapons insignificant.

I understand the math your proposal allows, so it's puzzling why others can't. I'll see if I can throw together a second-by-second play by play.

[QuantumButler]

Lanessar, on 03 December 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Lefty, perhaps a second-by-second demonstration would help them understand. But until that appears, the naysayers apparently have the idea that you can alpha non-stop with your suggestion, making low-heat weapons insignificant.

I understand the math your proposal allows, so it's puzzling why others can't. I'll see if I can throw together a second-by-second play by play.

Why bother, people who are willfully ignorant will never be convinced of something once their mind is set.

[SteelPaladin]

Lefty Lucy, on 03 December 2012 - 09:37 AM, said:

Of course one of the first things many TT players do when allowed to customize is make their mech entirely heat neutral, as it's eminently possible to design away heat as a concern. I think MWO can and should have a happy middle ground.

If you design a mech to be totally heat neutral in MWO, you're building something sub-optimal.

Unlike TT where you get a move, a shoot, then a vent in sequence on your turn, everything is happening constantly and at the same time in MWO. You will not always be in a position to take a shot when your guns come off of cooldown, and heat sinks are venting constantly. If you do not have extra waste heat to be venting during those times when you are not shooting, then you've sacrificed damage potential.

So sure, a less skilled player could build their mech to be totally heat neutral because they know they're bad at heat management. That's not a bad thing. They're sacrificing effectiveness to make that happen. Pros will always build warm mechs because you're not getting the full potential out of the mech otherwise.

[Taryys]

Yup, it becomes a question of - A what time during an average match, do you want to start worrying about managing your heat."

SteelPaladin, on 03 December 2012 - 10:26 AM, said:

So sure, a less skilled player could build their mech to be totally heat neutral because they know they're bad at heat management. That's not a bad thing. They're sacrificing effectiveness to make that happen. Pros will always build warm mechs because you're not getting the full potential out of the mech otherwise.

[Vlad Ward]

Lefty Lucy, on 03 December 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

I disagree. The AWS would shut down with an alpha, but it would also be able to chain fire its weapons at a faster rate. It's total DPS over a combat encounter would be increased significantly.

Right. You're missing the point, though.

In your system, Low-heat weapons (already the strongest type in the game) are able to Alpha even more than they are now, putting all of their damage on the same location. This is a buff.

Conversely, High-heat weapons (already the weakest type in the game) are forced to chain-fire even more than they already are, spreading their damage out further and making them even weaker overall. This is a nerf.

There's a reason the SRM6 and the Gauss Rifle are not considered equally powerful brawling weapons despite doing the same amount of damage at close range.

Aggregate theoretical heat is not particularly useful as a metric in a real-time game.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 03 December 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Roughneck45, on 03 December 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

They didnt complicate much IMO.

All they did was let us fire our weapons at 3x the rate. Nothing is wrong with the weapons, you are just choosing to overheat yourself.

You want to fire a PPC twice in 10 seconds, you need to deal with 20 heat instead of 10.
You want to fire an AC/5 four times in 10 seconds, you need to deal with 4 heat instead of 1.

See the problem?

Quote

A heat neutral mech should not be easy to make, or too powerful, because then you run into the laserboat problem. Besides, it also makes heat an actual gameplay element instead of an afterthought once you have enough heatsinks.

Here is my super secret to you: Heat neutral mechs are never as powerful as they could be. Heat Neutrality is just a benchmark, it is not actually a mech design goal. Every moment you aren't firing your weapons because your enemy is behind cover is a moment where you could cool off. If your heat neutral, there isn't anything to gain by this firing pause.
If you take a heat neutral mech and remove one heat sink to add one medium laser, you're giving your mech more firepower in the short term - and if you now end up overheating in 20 seconds but also are able to kill your enemy in 15 instead of 20 seconds, then your "Hot" build is plain superior to your "cool" build.

Fixing the heat system or balancing it around stock mechs is not about making every mech heat neutral, it's just about making them as heat efficient as they used to be.

Quote

DPS and spreadsheets never translate into an action game, so it should not be the balancing factor.

I disagree, because I think at least my spread sheets and analyis reflect very well what we are seeing in the game.

[Lanessar]

Vlad Ward, on 03 December 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

Right. You're missing the point, though.

In your system, Low-heat weapons (already the strongest type in the game) are able to Alpha even more than they are now, putting all of their damage on the same location. This is a buff.

This is incorrect. The current boating weapon of choice (ML) wouldn't be able to alpha more than 5 or 6 in his system in a 4-second window, and would have to wait an additional 4-5 seconds before the next alpha.

Under the existing system, I can alpha 6xML for ~15-20 seconds.

Edited by Lanessar, 03 December 2012 - 10:39 AM.

[Khobai]

The solution seems pretty simple to me:

Reduce weapon damage and heat by the same percentage that the firerate is increased by. So if a PPC fires 3 times faster in MWO than in tabletop, it should do 1/3rd the damage and generate 1/3rd the heat. So a PPC with a 3.0 cooldown should do 3.0 damage and generate 3.0 heat. It would end up being exactly the same as tabletop (10 damage and 10 heat every 10 seconds).

And then just keep double armor to make up for the fact weapons can be aimed at specific locations in MWO. Because right now mechs dont have enough armor to make up for the fact you can aim at someones CT. The reason for this is because theyre using tabletop armor ratios, which assume the center torso is getting hit 20% of the time, but in reality its getting hit 60%-80% of the time in MWO. By not giving mechs enough armor, it forces players to hug terrain and play defensively, which just makes for a boring game.

Edited by Khobai, 03 December 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[Volthorne]

Lanessar, on 03 December 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

This is incorrect. The current boating weapon of choice (ML) wouldn't be able to alpha more than 5 or 6 in his system in a 4-second window, and would have to wait an additional 4-5 seconds before the next alpha.

Under the existing system, I can alpha 6xML for ~15-20 seconds.

So you're saying you can alpha your x6 MLas 4-5 times before overheating? I'm assuming you're using an AWS-8Q or -9M, which would mean roughly 40 heatsinks (single or double, doesn't matter). If you DOUBLED heat dissipation and HALVED the heat cap, you'd still be able to Alpha without any problems... except now you hit 0% heat before your laser battery comes off CD. Yep, totally a fix....

Edited by Volthorne, 03 December 2012 - 10:50 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

Lanessar, on 03 December 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

This is incorrect. The current boating weapon of choice (ML) wouldn't be able to alpha more than 5 or 6 in his system in a 4-second window, and would have to wait an additional 4-5 seconds before the next alpha.

Under the existing system, I can alpha 6xML for ~15-20 seconds.

Sigh. Example problems.

Okay, let's whip them out.

My current Laser Boat de jour is the AWS-9M with 23DHS, 6MPLs and Master-level efficiencies.

Under the current system that translates to:

[(2 * 10) + (1.4 * 13) + 30] + 2C (heat containment perk constant) > 68.2 heat capacity

and

[(0.2 * 10) + (0.14 * 13)] * 1.15 = -4.40 dH/dT

Under the proposed system that translates to >34.1 heat capacity and -8.80 dH/dT

Current System Alpha potential:

+30 heat, -13.2, +30, -13.2, +30, -13.2, +30 -- shutdown @ 4 Alphas

Current System Max DPS: 12 DPS @ 12 seconds

Current System Sustainable DPS: 4.33 DPS

Proposed System Alpha Potential:

+30 heat, -26.4, +30, -26.4, +30 -- shutdown @ 3 Alphas

Proposed System Max DPS: 13.09 DPS @ 8.25 seconds

Proposed System Sustainable DPS: 8.66 DPS (derp fixed)

You really don't see a problem with this? =/

Short version: Any Low-Heat Weapons config with a small enough heat profile to Alpha once without shutting down in the proposed system will receive a massive boost to overall DPS while High-Heat weapons configs receive a massive nerf to damage precision as they're forced to switch to Chainfire.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 03 December 2012 - 11:11 AM.

[Volthorne]

Hey Vlad, would you mind doing the math for regular MLas now too? I seem to have misplaced my calculator.

[SteelPaladin]

Vlad Ward, on 03 December 2012 - 10:53 AM, said:

Sigh. Example problems.

Okay, let's whip them out.

My current Laser Boat de jour is the AWS-9M with 23DHS, 6MPLs and Master-level efficiencies.

Under the current system that translates to:

[(2 * 10) + (1.4 * 13) + 30] + 2C (heat containment perk constant) > 68.2 heat capacity

and

[(0.2 * 10) + (0.14 * 13)] * 1.15 = -4.40 dH/dT

Under the proposed system that translates to >34.1 heat capacity and -8.80 dH/dT

Current System Alpha potential:

+30 heat, -13.2, +30, -13.2, +30, -13.2, +30 -- shutdown @ 4 Alphas

Current System Max DPS: 12 DPS @ 12 seconds

Current System Sustainable DPS: 5.28 DPS

Proposed System Alpha Potential:

+30 heat, -26.4, +30, -26.4, +30 -- shutdown @ 3 Alphas

Proposed System Max DPS: 13.09 DPS @ 8.25 seconds

Proposed System Sustainable DPS: 122.72 DPS (somehow this feels too high, rechecking calculator input)

You really don't see a problem with this? =/

Short version: Any Low-Heat Weapons config with a small enough heat profile to Alpha once without shutting down in the proposed system will receive a massive boost to overall DPS while High-Heat weapons configs receive a massive nerf to damage precision as they're forced to switch to Chainfire.

I didn't even get into the rest of the math. I saw 122.72 DPS and flipped.

That's mathematically impossible. An MPL does 6 damage per shot and recycles in 3.75 seconds ("recycle" is 3 seconds, but it doesn't start until the .75 second beam duration is complete). If heat were completely ELIMINATED as a concern, the max possible sustained DPS for 6 MPLs is 9.6 (6 x 6 / 3.75).

[Vlad Ward]

SteelPaladin, on 03 December 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

I didn't even get into the rest of the math. I saw 122.72 DPS and flipped.

That's mathematically impossible. An MPL does 6 damage per shot and recycles in 3.75 seconds ("recycle" is 3 seconds, but it doesn't start until the .75 second beam duration is complete). If heat were completely ELIMINATED as a concern, the max possible sustained DPS for 6 MPLs is 9.6 (6 x 6 / 3.75).

Right. I definitely mistyped a key into the calculator. Values should be correct now.

Edited by Vlad Ward, 03 December 2012 - 11:18 AM.

[Vlad Ward]

Volthorne, on 03 December 2012 - 11:01 AM, said:

Hey Vlad, would you mind doing the math for regular MLas now too? I seem to have misplaced my calculator.

I don't mind, but I need to go proctor a lab for now. The only real differences should be the total cycle time (4.0 instead of 3.75 seconds) and the heat per volley (24 instead of 30).

[Volthorne]

Vlad Ward, on 03 December 2012 - 11:16 AM, said:

I don't mind, but I need to go proctor a lab for now. The only real differences should be the total cycle time (4.0 instead of 3.75 seconds) and the heat per volley (24 instead of 30).

So then, if we use your x6 MPLas simulation (which would be entirely viable, with room to spare for a potential 6 more tons of HS), x6 MLas would then be able to alpha non-stop, correct?