Jump to content

Why Hardpoint Limitations Are The Answer


54 replies to this topic

Poll: Hardpoint limitations are the answer to all our problem (87 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you want to see HP Limitations as detailed

  1. Yes (52 votes [59.77%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 59.77%

  2. No (32 votes [36.78%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.78%

  3. Dont know/Unsure (3 votes [3.45%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 3.45%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 816 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:32 AM

I think that many of us would agree that even with the heat penalty system, MWO still revolves around the 2 PPC/Gauss Meta.

Why is that an problem? Simply because every single mech that can carry that load out does to be competitive. Our units official builds use this as a basis and many pugs have worked out it is the most efficient loadout.

This is a pity because one thing Mechwarrior games should be about is variety and choice. Currently we only have an illusion of choice. The mech lab promises almost unlimited customisation, but anyone who has taken the time to work it out will simply fit the above and be done with it.

Another issue is that being able to carry 2 PPCs is a feature of a number of cannon builds and isnt actually OP. You cannot nerf PPCs further without making them useless, and similarly the Gauss Cannon already has drawbacks.

Therefore to encourage more variety in builds and therefore encourage different play styles we need to drastically rethink the hardpoint limitations.

Its been mentioned before by many, but I really really think that this is the only way to gain a semblance of balance. Of course their will always be superior builds, but hopefully the gap between them will be lessened and the meta opened up.

So what limitations should there be specifically?

In addition to the harpoint types we already have, we need a slot system, where in you can only change out a weapon for a similar size. So for example you could replace a Large Laser with a PPC but not a medium laser with a PCC.

You could of course install multiples of smaller weapons into the same spot, but it would limit the amount of large weapons you can fit.

This means that the variants of each chassis will still remain true to their concept but still allow customisation without everyone defaulting to the PPC/G layout. Furthermore this has to be a incredibly easy system to introduce and also for new players to understand.

I really hope Paul strongly considers this.

Please vote.

#2 RG Notch

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,467 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:39 AM

You might want to read the ATD where they said they aren't looking at hardpoints limitations. Plus, your unit and the ilk would just find the best variant and only run that. Competitive people give lip service to wanting variety but really only want the "best" min max build. Nothing will save min maxers from themselves. :D

#3 Joseph Mallan

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 25,905 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:42 AM

Since more variants of PPCs are coming(eventually), why not just separate PPCs from Energy Weapon Hard points. It would instantly kill 6 PPC Stalkers. Yes you could have 6 Large but that is not as OP as 6 PPCs.

So I would think making PPC Hard Points would be the cure to whats binding peoples under garments.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 04 August 2013 - 09:42 AM.


#4 MrTarget

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 242 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:46 AM

Agreed, I would love to see a decent hardpoint system but like people have said PGI have no interest in doing such thing.

Even if they did, min/max players will crawl through glass on fire while laying on there belly's with there flys open and todgers out to pilot a dual ac20 Jager.

Edited by MrTarget, 04 August 2013 - 09:48 AM.


#5 Tennex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,171 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:46 AM

hardpoint size limit will make the variants/chassis more distinct.. so i'm all for that.

first thing people think of when they see these eagerly anticipated mechs, is how they can make them another cookie cutter. 2ERPPC 1Gauss etc; see victor

really waters down the experience.


but realy all is needed for hradpoint size limitation is to add a size to each hardpoint. Small Medium large etc. Large energy hardpoint can use small/medium/large energy weapons.

Edited by Tennex, 04 August 2013 - 09:53 AM.


#6 FupDup

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • Phoenix Overlord
  • 8,947 posts
  • LocationNowhere.

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:50 AM

I prefer a hardpoint system proposed by somebody who I can't remember the name of. Basically, it combines both slots and a set number of hardpoints within those slots. The slots decide how big of something(s) you can shove in there, and the hardpoints decide the total number of weapons you can shove within those slots.

For example, a Battlemaster might get 5 energy slots with 3 energy hardpoints in each side torso. This allows for a decent number of possible combinations of up to 3 energy weapons (i.e. 3 ML, 2 LL + 1 ML, PPC + LL, PPC + 2 ML, etc. etc.), while also preventing excessive boating of tiny weapons like MW3 saw or excessive boating of large weapons like what we see now (no mech should be able to carry 7 PPCs and a Gauss Rifle!).

If we go by slots alone, then we would have silly things like 10 MG Hunchbacks running around. If we limit by hardpoints alone, then we get what we have now: a race to shove in the biggest possible weapons. A hybrid system would probably get the best of both worlds while preventing the issues faced by either system used alone.

Edited by FupDup, 04 August 2013 - 09:56 AM.


#7 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 816 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:52 AM

Quote

You might want to read the ATD where they said they aren't looking at hardpoints limitations.


The devs position on this has always been the same. Their answer is that they don't want to limit customisation as they feel that players prefer the freedom of the current system.

My argument is that we don't have any freedom due to their being a clear choice of what to load. Look at the chassis and consider the builds you could make with the hp limitations. That is more variety not less.

Of course players will try to field the best builds, but because there is now more limitations the choice wont be as easy (or even possible). This would have a knock on effect of encouraging people to take different variants and try different play styles. At the very least things could then be balanced further from there more easily.

#8 Joseph Mallan

    Member

  • Elite Founder
  • 25,905 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:53 AM

View PostMrTarget, on 04 August 2013 - 09:46 AM, said:

Agreed, I would love to see a decent hardpoint system but like people have said PGI have no interest in doing such thing.

Even if they did, min/max players will crawl through glass on fire while laying on there belly's with there flys open and todgers out to pilot a dual ac20 Jager.

Sorry I don't see a problem with dual AC20's other than Convergence. I have Mechs with a Alpha 50% higher than dual AC20s. Its not the Alpha its the pin point.

#9 Tennex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,171 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 09:54 AM

View PostRG Notch, on 04 August 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

You might want to read the ATD where they said they aren't looking at hardpoints limitations. Plus, your unit and the ilk would just find the best variant and only run that. Competitive people give lip service to wanting variety but really only want the "best" min max build. Nothing will save min maxers from themselves. :D


they'v given mixed answers inthe ATDs.

in one they mentioned that its been thought about.

#10 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 816 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:07 AM

Under the proposed system only 2 mechs would be able to hold 3 PPCs (Awesome 8Q/9M) and I don't think anyone would say they were OP.

Similarly only the Atlas K would be able to carry 2 PPCs/Gauss and again it has its limitations (Low arms, lack of JJs, huge target). Everything else would have to be a mixture. This would make the game more about pilot skill than the "right build" than it currently is.

#11 Waking One

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:08 AM

Limitations yes, but not the MW4 system you're describing. Still needs to be 1 weapon per hardpoint, just limited in size.

#12 RG Notch

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 2,467 posts
  • LocationNYC

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:10 AM

View PostSquid von Torgar, on 04 August 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:


The devs position on this has always been the same. Their answer is that they don't want to limit customisation as they feel that players prefer the freedom of the current system.

My argument is that we don't have any freedom due to their being a clear choice of what to load. Look at the chassis and consider the builds you could make with the hp limitations. That is more variety not less.

Of course players will try to field the best builds, but because there is now more limitations the choice wont be as easy (or even possible). This would have a knock on effect of encouraging people to take different variants and try different play styles. At the very least things could then be balanced further from there more easily.

And they've heard that argument (100X) and this was a recent answer. I'm not against hard points limits for variety for the non "competitive" set. I would love more differences amongst the models, but min maxers don't care.
The "competitive" people will just wait until people experiment and tell them what's the "best" just like they do now. They act like they individually figured this out, when in fact they are the biggest sheep just following what someone else actually worked on to discover. It might take a little longer until they decide what variants are "best" and that's all they will play.
The best way to get real variety is for the weapons to be balanced, all the rest of these ideas are band **** of differing worth trying to patch the awful balance disparity.

#13 Tennex

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,171 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:10 AM

View PostWaking One, on 04 August 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Limitations yes, but not the MW4 system you're describing. Still needs to be 1 weapon per hardpoint, just limited in size.


yup. the MW4 system made mediums and lights useless. because they had fewer slots.
in MWO all weight classes have the same relative number of hardpoints.


So just make each hardpoint in MWO have large/medium/small restrictions.

Edited by Tennex, 04 August 2013 - 10:11 AM.


#14 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 816 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:11 AM

Quote

Still needs to be 1 weapon per hardpoint, just limited in size.


Thats exactly what I am suggesting, the current hp type limitations along with the weapon size limitations. (Can only fit a same size weapon or smaller)

#15 Hellcat420

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,390 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:15 AM

will never happen. pgi likes their innersphere semi-omnimechs.. for all of their talk about role warefare, the truth is they do not want anything like that in the game, as they have said they want you to be able to make any mech you want fit any role.

#16 ArmandTulsen

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:16 AM

View PostSquid von Torgar, on 04 August 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:


The devs position on this has always been the same. Their answer is that they don't want to limit customisation as they feel that players prefer the freedom of the current system.

My argument is that we don't have any freedom due to their being a clear choice of what to load. Look at the chassis and consider the builds you could make with the hp limitations. That is more variety not less.

Of course players will try to field the best builds, but because there is now more limitations the choice wont be as easy (or even possible). This would have a knock on effect of encouraging people to take different variants and try different play styles. At the very least things could then be balanced further from there more easily.

Bit of a catch-22 there, though, isn't it?
You give people freedom of choice, they all choose the same, one thing. You give them limited choice, and they complain (rightly so) that they don't have much choice.

#17 Waking One

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:19 AM

View PostSquid von Torgar, on 04 August 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:


Thats exactly what I am suggesting, the current hp type limitations along with the weapon size limitations. (Can only fit a same size weapon or smaller)


yes but you also said you could fit multiple smaller weapons into the slot :D

#18 General Taskeen

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 5,590 posts
  • LocationCircinus

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:21 AM

They could just separate the customization between specific game modes... HP sizes, from MW4, in combination with current MWO HP customization would be nice. I suspect it would be a lot of work though, and thus PGI could come up with different ways to approach the whole 'customization' issue.

Current Customization -> Solaris Mode
Limited Customization -> CW or Hard Core Mode (I.E., more restriction on max engine and/or weapon sizing limitation or some sort of 'stock' mode)

#19 Squid von Torgar

    Member

  • Legendary Founder
  • 816 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:25 AM

I'd be happy with that

Edited by Squid von Torgar, 04 August 2013 - 10:25 AM.


#20 Waking One

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 426 posts

Posted 04 August 2013 - 10:29 AM

makes me wish for an actual ffa solaris mode :D





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users