115 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

For how long will I still hear cries about damage and heat numbers?

For how long will PGI develop additional layers of balancing mechanics in order to emulate stricter hardpoint restrictions?

Hardpoints restrictions wont solve anything. It will just force everyone to use the mechs with good hardpoints. While the mechs with bad hardpoints never get used.

[MustrumRidcully]

There is nothing to realize. Hard points are not the problem.

Battletech supports and actually contains Quad PPC mechs, Dual AC/20 mechs, Triple Gauss Rifle mechs, and LRM boats and what not. They work reasonably well there and are no more overpowered or underpowered than mixed weapon configurations (not to be confused with "versatile" mechs, mechs that utilize weapons with vastly different range and roles. Those aren't really all that great in TT either).

If such weapon configurations are imbalanced in M:WO, then that is a problem of practical changes between MW:O and TT. Restrictions might be an attempt to "hide" such issues, but what if you actually want to import table top mechs to M:WO that would break such restrictions?

What do you do with Omnimech technology? Just say: "Oh, it's okay if Omnimechs are used to build overpowered boats, as long as the regular mechs can't be used for it, all is good!". That should obviously be an idoitic take, if mechs are overpowered now and unfun now due to such weapon combinations, they don't turn to become fun just because they are "supposed to be broken".

[DeadlyNerd]

PGI isn't going to wake up and realize their mistakes any time soon so yeah...gif.

[Mechteric]

Khobai, on 27 August 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Hardpoints restrictions wont solve anything. It will just force everyone to use the mechs with good hardpoints. While the mechs with bad hardpoints never get used.

I agree with this thought here, the problem is that if you limit big weapon slots to big weapons, those mechs might find it difficult to mount anything other than that particular big gun and that limits their choices too much. I don't think people fully think through all the ramifications of this and how it would wind up hurting more mechs than helping.

Besides, picking on the dual AC20 mechs is a bit premature still, jump sniping meta is still the insanely good config out there. I have run across a 12man with 10 Cataphracts, each with 2 PPC 1 Gauss and let me tell you it was flat out crazy. While I don't necessarily agree with how they're going to be handling the Gauss, its a good sign that doing so will likely help.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 27 August 2013 - 06:14 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

CapperDeluxe, on 27 August 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

I agree with this thought here, the problem is that if you limit big weapon slots to big weapons, those mechs might find it difficult to mount anything other than that particular big gun and that limits their choices too much. I don't think people fully think through all the ramifications of this and how it would wind up hurting more mechs than helping.

Besides, picking on the dual AC20 mechs is a bit premature still, jump sniping meta is still the insanely good config out there. I have run across a 12man with 10 Cataphracts, each with 2 PPC 1 Gauss and let me tell you it was flat out crazy.

If you want more hard point restrictions, you must ensure there is wiggle room up and down. If you can only go up, you can't really change anything, because where would you get the weight? If you can go only down, what would you do with the weight?

That means a weapon like the AC/20 should definitely not be its own category, it must have others in its group. Once you allow that, you are more flexible.

That doesn't change that you can still do all the horrible things that hard point limitations fan want to stop.

But that's okay, hard point limitations are not the answer to these balance issues in the first place. They are only the answer to "what makes this chassis unique and special"? And it's debatable if we even want that, if you really like a mech's look but don't like its possible loadouts, you have no good choices.

I really prefer the attempt of PGI to add variable geometry to all mechs and have them adapt their looks to their loadout. Ony remaining problem is that many "geometric" aspects affect balance, too - hit box size, weapon position (high is good, low is bad) and all that.

[JudgeDeathCZ]

so long tittle

[Roadbuster]

And I always thought nine out of ten issues sit in front of the PC. Silly me.

[zorak ramone]

Roadbuster, on 27 August 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

And I always thought nine out of ten issues sit in front of the PC. Silly me.

LOL nerds, MIRITE?

[Braggart]

actually.

If alpha strike was removed from the game. I don't think balance would be off at all. A small rework of weapon groups is all we need.

Large weapons cannot be group fired, must be chain fired. Smaller weapons can be grouped in 3-4 and the different groups then must be fired .5 seconds apart.

Bam balanced. Alpha warrior online is absolutely boring, and goes entirely against lore. The fact is PGI only partially fixed the problem by giving lasers a duration. Before people even touched the game, they knew that alpha warrior was not the game they wanted, thus laser duration times were born, but they didnt expect the meta to shift to the bigger weapons. As all previous games in the series has been laser alpha warrior.

[Sprouticus]

The OP is right, although is is silly to think that he is saying something we all don't realize.


The simple fact of the matter though is that PIG has stated repeatedly and firmly that hardpoint size restrictions are not going to happen. So those of us who support it (I have been pushing for a combined crit slot/hardpoint restriction system since BEFORE closed beta) have simply moved on.

PGI has made their design choice and both they and the players must live within that system. I disagree with it. Vehemently. But it is what it is....(see beating dead horse gif above)

[Felbombling]

Put a .5 second delay into the weapon groups and forget about all this instant fire of every weapon at the click of the mouse. As to the premise of this topic, there are ten or more things wrong with MechWarrior: Online, not just one. Some are subtle, some are glaring, but they all play into each other to brutal effect. They honestly have zero chance to balance this game out, so long as some of their core game mechanics are considered untouchable or set in stone.

[Gallowglas]

90% of statistics are made up.

[Sybreed]

I've always thought of hardpoint sizes as a tool to bring mech character and distinct roles. It is not making much sense that a scout mech like the Raven can be fit to use a long range sniping tool like the Gauss Rifle. There's the Hollander for that.

In some way, hardpoints are the sole reason Awesomes are such in a bad spot right now. Remove the ability to other assaults to fit a lot of PPCs or LLs and Awesomes will become a lot more interesting to use. Its bigger size will be the main drawback to using so many PPCs.

There's also another issue with hardpoints that no one dared mention (perhaps it kinda kills the whole "hardpoints aren't the issue" argument?)

Don't give enough hardpoints to a mech, like an assault mech, and all you will fit are the big weapons.

Got 2 Mlasers into that highlander? Now it's 2 PPCs or LL. 2 machine guns in a battle master? Nope, they just transformed into 2 AC/5. And finally, the Shadow Hawk will turn into a 55 tons Hunchback 4G before I can say "stupid hardpoint system".

The number of hardpoints given directly influence what you will fit. If you have a big mech with not many hardpoints, you'll always go for the big guns. Why would you waste your precious hardpoint for a mlaser if you could fit a LL or a PPC in there? That's bad design at its core.

edit: I know convergence is the biggest culprit for the lack of balance in MWO. But, the actual hardpoint system isn't helping either. It needs to get tweaked, at least, or completely reworked.

Edited by Sybreed, 27 August 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

Gallowglas, on 27 August 2013 - 08:29 AM, said:

90% of statistics are made up.

But 60% of the time, they're right every tiiiime.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Give people total flexibility and they make cardboard cutout copies of the most effective build possible.

We need Hardpoint Sizes

Kitane, on 27 August 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

A limited hardpoint system would prevent us from deviating too far from stock builds.

It would give mechs more unique flavor, but it would also make the current balance worse as the gap between good mechs and bad mechs would grow larger.

If PGI spends more than 20 minutes on each chassis' variants, they can intelligently design a way to make every one of the 3-6 variants each mech has viable

[Sybreed]

it could also be a balancing tool. If a mech is deemed to strong or has too big of an alpha potential, PGI could revert a large slot to a medium slot.

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 27 August 2013 - 02:39 AM, said:

Correct.

Limiting hardpoints does not fix convergence. It simply makes it so only certain mechs can use convergent loadouts. And those would be the only mechs players would use.

The best way to fix pinpoint alphas is simply to eliminate convergence.

I would like to try the Test Server with no "Group Fire" allowed. You can group weapons but they only Fire in Chained mode and see how that spreads things around.

[AntiCitizenJuan]

Khobai, on 27 August 2013 - 05:59 AM, said:

Hardpoints restrictions wont solve anything. It will just force everyone to use the mechs with good hardpoints. While the mechs with bad hardpoints never get used.

This is under the assumption that Hardpoint Sizes are done really hodor-like. It is very possible to make every variant of a chassis viable.

[3rdworld]

AntiCitizenJuan, on 27 August 2013 - 09:12 AM, said:

This is under the assumption that Hardpoint Sizes are done really hodor-like. It is very possible to make every variant of a chassis viable.

Are you implying the entire game isn't hodor-like?

And every variant viable is completely wrong. Even with hardpoint restrictions, engine restrictions, missile tube restrictions, JJ restrictions, ECM restrictions, torso movement restrictions, etc, already butcher many variants. But sure, adding another restriction is going to totally make the game better.(that was sarcasm)

Edited by 3rdworld, 27 August 2013 - 09:21 AM.

[Almond Brown]

Sybreed, on 27 August 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

it could also be a balancing tool. If a mech is deemed to strong or has too big of an alpha potential, PGI could revert a large slot to a medium slot.

Yup, and who decides? The "Whine and Cheesers" or the "We know best ELO" Leet crowd.