101 replies to this topic

[AV 4 T 4 R]

Hi Guys,

The experience we collected about the game right now tells us that whatever new mech PGI could put inside the roster, they cannot surpass the efficency of the actual "top mech".
This is bad becuase you can have several 50 tonns or 60 or 65 tonns, but you see people playing only with the same chassis becuase you equip them in the same way (boating them with some weapon) and so only ONE particular chassis is the best one.

To avoid this and so to bring more sense to the other variants what do you think about adding a "Tech level" to the Mech Hardpoint? in order to allow particular weapons to be mounted only on particular chassis?

For example

balistic hardpoint tech 1: ac2 - ac5 - uac5
balistic hardpoint tech 2: ac10 - ac20 - gauss

energy hardpoint tech 1: small - medium
energy hardpoint tech 2: large - ppc

So maybe a Catapult can mount energy lvl 4, but balistic lvl 2
A jagermech can mount energy lvl 2 but balistic lvl 4 (for gauss)

So you can split the tatical choices between more mechs

etc.etc.

What's your idea about this?

[Death Mallet]

I've thought they needed to do this for a while.

[Braggart]

an interesting concept.

Anything to fix AlphaWarrior Online is good in my opinion.

I don't think PGI has any plans to change it. Considering in the announcement of the Jagermech, they promoted people tossing double AC20s on the mech, and then added Torso/Arm lock. I think the route the game is gonna stay with high damage alpha pinpoint damage that let an enemy team cripple you in moments because you stepped out of cover.

That being said, the game is free to play, and i'll continue to play it for a bit, but I know it will never satisfy me as a mechwarrior game.

The suggestions you put out though, simply keep the AlphaWarrior mentality though. Great lets let the Jagers and cats keep their killer pinpoint alpha damage, and what are you gonna do for the Dragon, bone it even more by limited to lvl 1 lasers?

Edited by Braggart, 01 April 2013 - 08:57 AM.

[Dr Killinger]

A sized hardpoint system will also add value to certain mechs, ie. the Awesome. It may have few energy hardpoints for it's size, but when they can all hold the largest energy weapons in the game, they're valuable.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Yep, they should've done this. But this train has long left the station I'm afraid. We're at 95% omnimechs and they will have a hard time to different clanmechs from the current mechs. The concept was flawed right from the start, when they were just thinking about how to appeal to the most players. A liberal approach to the hardpoints was the solution. And now it's the cause of present and future problems.

[xhrit]

Dr Killinger, on 01 April 2013 - 09:00 AM, said:

A sized hardpoint system will also add value to certain mechs, ie. the Awesome. It may have few energy hardpoints for it's size, but when they can all hold the largest energy weapons in the game, they're valuable.

It already can do this though. Think about it; the awesome has the same energy hardpoints as a spider, but the awesome can mount the largest energy weapons in the game, while the spider can't.

[verybad]

Just combine MW4's sized hardpoints with Battletech and previous Mechwarrior's critical space.

EG An Awesome might have muliple size 3 energy Hardpoints while a Stalker would have several size 2 energy hardpoints and lots of size 1 energy hardpoints.

[Lukoi Banacek]

AV 4 T 4 R, on 01 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Hi Guys,

The experience we collected about the game right now tells us that whatever new mech PGI could put inside the roster, they cannot surpass the efficency of the actual "top mech".
This is bad becuase you can have several 50 tonns or 60 or 65 tonns, but you see people playing only with the same chassis becuase you equip them in the same way (boating them with some weapon) and so only ONE particular chassis is the best one.

To avoid this and so to bring more sense to the other variants what do you think about adding a "Tech level" to the Mech Hardpoint? in order to allow particular weapons to be mounted only on particular chassis?

For example

balistic hardpoint tech 1: ac2 - ac5 - uac5
balistic hardpoint tech 2: ac10 - ac20 - gauss

energy hardpoint tech 1: small - medium
energy hardpoint tech 2: large - ppc

So maybe a Catapult can mount energy lvl 4, but balistic lvl 2
A jagermech can mount energy lvl 2 but balistic lvl 4 (for gauss)

So you can split the tatical choices between more mechs

etc.etc.

What's your idea about this?

Until we see how CW is implemented and whether it incorporates scenarios that limit tonnages, or chassis types etc through other driving mechanics, I think this isn't an issue.

In 8v8, you see a preponderance of the most optimized chassis but not so much in regular matches. Until we know what CW means to the game this is all largely moot. You're focused on the micro portion of the game (matches where players are unfettered and can bring any Mech they choose to bring) but the macro portion of the game will determine if we need a change to hardpoint systems etc. (although personally I think they are fine as is).

[BladeSplint]

verybad, on 01 April 2013 - 09:43 AM, said:

Just combine MW4's sized hardpoints with Battletech and previous Mechwarrior's critical space.

EG An Awesome might have muliple size 3 energy Hardpoints while a Stalker would have several size 2 energy hardpoints and lots of size 1 energy hardpoints.

This might sound good on paper but then you will have every variant directly shoehorned into its role

[Ryokens leap]

Agree! Why PGI didn't see the min/ max boat problems a mile away is beyond me. Current game has none of the spirit of mechwarrior or Battletech, and as long as exploit builds are the norm I see no fun. That's just the way I see things from my balcony.

[Pupecki]

I like this idea, if anything I think its best to try it out while the game is in beta because once it goes live it will be hard to change things such as this.

[keith]

by the time it is tested and put it, it will be 3-4 months. how about we go with MW3 style? this is an off shot to give the sim game balance.

[LauLiao]

When I used to play a lot of TT we had house rules about changing loadouts that basically went by crit slots, (i.e. you could only swap out a weapon for another that was within a certain number of crit slots of the original, I think it was something like 1 for lasers, 2 for missles and 4 for balistics or something along those lines).

[AC]

The hard points have needed a change for a long time. And by long, I mean EARLY closed beta.... People have brought up hard point changes before, but it falls on PGI's deaf ears mostly. And they need to listen because.....


Chassis are starting to become the same. When you can put any weapon size in the designated slot, it really makes some chassis pointless. The Phract 2x and the new Jagger are perfect examples. I have seen these run the same basic loadouts. I don't understand why PGI is resistant to change here. They are shooting themselves in the foot financially too. People are going to stop buying mechs because the new mechs will have identical possible loadouts as the current ones.

Heck, we can already do that with many of the mechs. I have a Cicada - 2C "hunchie" that runs an AC20 and MPL. All it loses to a mech 50 tons heavier is a MPL and a bit more armor, but it gains not having a huge hump to shoot off. Same with the Phract and Jagger, Phract and K2 as well, and all the stalkers are so close it is almost silly.

Having slot size limitations would work wonders to give chassis unique characteristics again.

[WardenWolf]

Your idea, OP, is almost exactly like what I have suggested in several threads on this topic. It would have made for more differentiation between mech variants, and well as between different mechs at the same tonnage. However, I think we are far enough along now in development that it is unlikely to happen: it would break many existing designs people use, and deprecate a lot of work the art team has put in on customizing mech models.

For the record, I had always just gone by weapon 'size' (physically speaking) rather than 'tech level' - but the ideas appear similar.

Edited by WardenWolf, 01 April 2013 - 02:41 PM.

[FupDup]

keith, on 01 April 2013 - 01:53 PM, said:

by the time it is tested and put it, it will be 3-4 months. how about we go with MW3 style? this is an off shot to give the sim game balance.

MW3 style let you put anything, anywhere so long as you had the crits and tonnage to handle it (with some exceptions like no weapons in the legs)...that would be bad.

[OneEyed Jack]

I think the OP and people agreeing with him really don't understand what min-maxing is.

There will always be a "best." Period.

Whether it's actually the best or just perceived that way, there will always be a certain build within any group of builds that is considered "the best." Changing the limitations doesn't change whether there is a "best" or not. It might change exactly what that "best" is, but that changes regularly, anyway. It's often referred to as FOTM.

The reason is that perfect balance and diversity are mutually exclusive. They cannot exist together, and even if they did, there would still be a perceived imbalance as better players were emulated, the perception being that their success was due to the build as much as, or more than, to skill.

So your concept is flawed because it doesn't change the nature of balance, just the rules the min-maxers would be working within. Anyone with a clue about customization knows that min-maxing can be done in any system that allows any variety at all. In addition, I fail to understand why people keep posting these ridiculous threads. The game has moved way to far for such a core mechanic to change now.

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 01 April 2013 - 03:00 PM.

[xhrit]

AC, on 01 April 2013 - 02:22 PM, said:

People are going to stop buying mechs because the new mechs will have identical possible loadouts as the current ones.

I have one word for you.

Omnimech.

20 IS mechs, 20 Clan omnimechs, then 20 assorted non-omni clan mechs and post invasion IS mechs like the IIC, kodiack, bushwaker and mauler.

At one mech a month, that gives mwo 3+ years of constant content. with each new mech being better then the last.

[Stoicblitzer]

if this will imrpove the balance of the game as some predict then i'm all for it.

[p00k]

no
i like being able to put large lasers where there were once medium lasers
i see no problem with putting an ac10 where there was once a uac5
i see nothing wrong with putting an lrm15 where there was an lrm10, etc etc

this is basically the same as the dozens of times someone has suggested that there be "big" and "little" hardpoints for each weapon type, only instead of calling it "big" and "little" you've called it "tech 1" and "tech 2". and why doing this is inane and capriciously arbitrary has also been mentioned in those dozens of threads, so i won't recapitulate them here.