Jump to content

Sized Hardpoints


78 replies to this topic

Poll: Sized Hardpoints (59 member(s) have cast votes)

What do you think of the OP?

  1. I want sized hardpoints and this is the plan. (30 votes [50.85%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.85%

  2. I want sized hardpoints but have my own idea. (5 votes [8.47%])

    Percentage of vote: 8.47%

  3. I don't want sized hardpoints of any kind and like it as it is today. (22 votes [37.29%])

    Percentage of vote: 37.29%

  4. Obligatory "other" suggestion posted below. (2 votes [3.39%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.39%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 06 October 2015 - 05:57 PM

View PostJaeger Gonzo, on 06 October 2015 - 05:31 PM, said:

The reason is Battletech flavor. Some people including me, don`t want to see K2 on gauss in they freaking MG slots.
But Sized HP are lost tech by now, its just too late for it. Far more realistic is HP located quirks, that would have similar end effect.

Sorry, but "battletech flavor" isn't a real thing. Stock mech flavor is. Even in BT customization is a real thing, and as long as you have the tonnage, and slots, you can fit whatever you want, into a mech. Do remember that it is canon in BT to design your own mechs, and field them, so long as they fit the construction and customization rules. That's why we have construction, and customization rules.

#22 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 06 October 2015 - 06:09 PM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 06 October 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

Sorry, but "battletech flavor" isn't a real thing. Stock mech flavor is. Even in BT customization is a real thing, and as long as you have the tonnage, and slots, you can fit whatever you want, into a mech. Do remember that it is canon in BT to design your own mechs, and field them, so long as they fit the construction and customization rules. That's why we have construction, and customization rules.


If I may chime in, I think it's a "half and half" statement.

While customization has always been a thing for BT, it doesn't mean that customizing is a "BT thing to do" either. Then again, there are some customizations that people have made that reflect a mechs stock like build.

Basically, there is customization to get the best out of something, and then there is customization that follows the spirit of the design and just makes some small alterations or follows many of the lore friendly concepts.

It's like the Spirit of the rules vs Letter of the law. Sometimes, you have to follow the spirit and the perceived intent of a rule, and not play by the exact letter of the rules. (AKA: Sometimes, you may be able to do something because the rules say you can, but the spirit of the rule implies that you shouldn't and it shouldn't be possible. When in doubt, I always try to follow the spirit of the rule, rather than just the letter of it.)


In this case here, most any customization is against the spirit of BT, but some customizations actually follow the spirit of it. It's a fine line, and mostly determined by the individual's sense of what is and isn't BT.

#23 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 06 October 2015 - 06:25 PM

View PostTesunie, on 06 October 2015 - 06:09 PM, said:

In this case here, most any customization is against the spirit of BT, but some customizations actually follow the spirit of it. It's a fine line, and mostly determined by the individual's sense of what is and isn't BT.


See, this is where I disagree. I don't see it against the spirit of BT. Why? We have Ravens with large lasers, we have ravens with ECM, and no ballistics, and we have ones with ballistics. So yes, while the Firestarter is packing flamers, there is no reason I can't replace the flamers with literally any weapon I want. It's in the lore. What happens is that they literally rip out the internals, and shove new ones in.

I think the main problem is that the mechs still carry their original designation. Because people see the CPLT-K2 as packing MGs. So if it's got gauss, it shouldn't be called the K2, and I agree with that part.

However, I think that has more to do with PGI trying to implement some restrictions on customization (since otherwise, we'd only need a base chassis, and that's it.) MWO is already following the "spirit" of a mech's design by implementing a hardpoint system in the first place, and letting us do some of the "modify for max" aspects, by letting us mount any weapon for that hardpoint. It's a decent middle point between pure stock, and real BT customization.

#24 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 06 October 2015 - 06:32 PM

Quote

This is exactly the problem - people have a strong status quo bias, that makes rational analysis of options impossible.


I dont think thats it at all.

Most people seem recognize the game is unbalanced as all hell right now and needs changes. So the status quo argument doesnt really work.

the reality is hardpoint sizes dont address any of the actual balance problems the game has. the game already has limitations on large weapons in the form of ghost heat. there is no need to punish large weapons more. its beating a dead horse.

#25 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 06 October 2015 - 07:24 PM

Why do you think ghost heat is an effective limitation?

#26 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 06 October 2015 - 11:31 PM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 06 October 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

I think the main problem is that the mechs still carry their original designation. Because people see the CPLT-K2 as packing MGs. So if it's got gauss, it shouldn't be called the K2, and I agree with that part.

This goes on - a AS7-D with endosteel and DHS is not an AS7-D any longer. Its a complete new Mech - and you need a "factory" to change it. It should not be possible to do it.

The problem is when mix Mechs using an ES frame and those that don't have one. Well you already can see those balancing issues with the current Clan Implementation. If i can make a guess - even the last Novas will meet their inevitable destiny when the Hunchback IIC is "invented" - i can't see anything but the 12 Laser boat - the Hunch could not do better.
It could be faster: 275, it can mount ES and FF - it has jump jets but can reduce it - and of course has a very good mix of energy, energy/missile, ballistic hardpoints.

the question is - would a hard point size keep the Nova in game? No i don't think so - only if the ERPPC got its own size (MW4) - so that a Hunch can't mount a ERPPC or a heavy LRM rack. but i don't think that would be enough.

Another problem to think hardpoint sizes are good for balance: the Annihilator

So i stay with my opinion: hard point sizes only because of the look and feel.....

#27 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 07 October 2015 - 09:19 AM

View PostIaldabaoth, on 06 October 2015 - 07:24 PM, said:

Why do you think ghost heat is an effective limitation?

How many dual, triple, or quad UAC 20 DWFs do you see running around? For the record, that 28 heat per alpha (without ultra mode, for 80 damage btw, 160 with ultra), the DWF comes with 15 DHS, allowing it to cool down 30 heat per turn. (If we're talking TT terms), without ghost heat, a DWF can alpha, and ultra without shutting down, in MWO. Because the total heat spike would have been 56 heat, and the DWF stock has a heat threshold of 57. So you'd be at 99% heat, and need almost 21 seconds to cool back down to zero (or 10 to go to 50%, enough for a single non-ultra alpha), but that wouldn't really matter, because whatever was in front of you is reducing to a smoldering heap of scrap.

So yes, Ghost heat actually helps. Remember the 6 PPC stalker days (well the 4PPC one was actually better, but 6 is more dramatic)? Ghost Heat was literally the one thing that put a stop to that.

At the end, I think sized hardpoints don't solve the real issue that is instant, pinpoint convergence down to the pixel.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 07 October 2015 - 09:28 AM.


#28 Rebas Kradd

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,969 posts

Posted 07 October 2015 - 09:13 PM

This idea is still a non-starter.

Implementing hardpoint restrictions would suddenly and permanently invalidate 80% of the mechs in everyone's hangar, including loadouts that people have paid cold hard cash for. There would be a riot the likes of which have never been seen - even for this game. It would be PGI's very own "New Gaming Experience" or whatever the hell SWG's death knell was called. They aren't stupid enough to try that.

It might have been a good idea at the outset, but now it's a customer satisfaction issue. Genie is out of the bottle.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 07 October 2015 - 09:14 PM.


#29 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 07 October 2015 - 10:30 PM

View PostRebas Kradd, on 07 October 2015 - 09:13 PM, said:

It might have been a good idea at the outset, but now it's a customer satisfaction issue. Genie is out of the bottle.

Not just for HPs even for a working heat system or convergence issues, maybe even RnR.
The last big change were only possible because of those Clans
- maybe MWO need another rough cut - something new.... well you might guess i have an idea

#30 Ialdabaoth

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 329 posts

Posted 07 October 2015 - 10:43 PM

View PostRebas Kradd, on 07 October 2015 - 09:13 PM, said:

This idea is still a non-starter.

Implementing hardpoint restrictions would suddenly and permanently invalidate 80% of the mechs in everyone's hangar, including loadouts that people have paid cold hard cash for. There would be a riot the likes of which have never been seen - even for this game. It would be PGI's very own "New Gaming Experience" or whatever the hell SWG's death knell was called. They aren't stupid enough to try that.

It might have been a good idea at the outset, but now it's a customer satisfaction issue. Genie is out of the bottle.


Well, have you seen my idea? It creates something like 'sized hardpoints' without violating any designs - basically by allowing any weapon to be mounted, but only size-appropriate weapons can get weapon modules applied to them.

#31 Jaeger Gonzo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,219 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 02:56 AM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 06 October 2015 - 05:57 PM, said:

Sorry, but "battletech flavor" isn't a real thing. Stock mech flavor is. Even in BT customization is a real thing, and as long as you have the tonnage, and slots, you can fit whatever you want, into a mech. Do remember that it is canon in BT to design your own mechs, and field them, so long as they fit the construction and customization rules. That's why we have construction, and customization rules.

While this is true that BT have rules for building new mechs for some custom RPG, BT lore is not about it. Take a closer look what is needed for "customization" in BT. Factory, massive money, time and work. Resulting that there are only few customized mechs in whole galaxy and those we call hero mechs.
Anyway if you put dual gauss in to Catapult is not catapult anymore, if you put PPC in to Hollander, is not Hollander anymore.
From any design you can make something totally different in BT mechlab in 5 min.
The thing is that weapons set is a major flavor characteristic for a mech, is a reason for look of mechs. Take Hunch, Cata, Hollander, Panther. Why Hunch have its Hunch? if I can put little AC20 on Treb. Why Cata have its huge LRM20 ears?
So if you take out weapon set as a flavor what will stay on the table? Just skins and hit boxes.
That`s why in Full Custom, all mechs are more about hit box and size then on about mech itself.
In the process mechs just loss they souls, all mechs feels the same, running same weapon sets on every chassis.

Take a look at this doc. This is real attempt to compromise BT flavor and customization.
http://www.mechlivin...es-Concept2.pdf

While this is true that Sized HP are not dealing directly with PPFLD and is not a salvation for all MWO problems, it helps. I still think MWO would be a better game with some sort of similar Mech Lab rules to presented in MWLL concept doc.

#32 IraqiWalker

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 9,682 posts
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 08 October 2015 - 02:36 PM

View PostJaeger Gonzo, on 08 October 2015 - 02:56 AM, said:

While this is true that BT have rules for building new mechs for some custom RPG, BT lore is not about it. Take a closer look what is needed for "customization" in BT. Factory, massive money, time and work. Resulting that there are only few customized mechs in whole galaxy and those we call hero mechs.
Anyway if you put dual gauss in to Catapult is not catapult anymore, if you put PPC in to Hollander, is not Hollander anymore.
From any design you can make something totally different in BT mechlab in 5 min.
The thing is that weapons set is a major flavor characteristic for a mech, is a reason for look of mechs. Take Hunch, Cata, Hollander, Panther. Why Hunch have its Hunch? if I can put little AC20 on Treb. Why Cata have its huge LRM20 ears?
So if you take out weapon set as a flavor what will stay on the table? Just skins and hit boxes.
That`s why in Full Custom, all mechs are more about hit box and size then on about mech itself.
In the process mechs just loss they souls, all mechs feels the same, running same weapon sets on every chassis.

Take a look at this doc. This is real attempt to compromise BT flavor and customization.
http://www.mechlivin...es-Concept2.pdf

While this is true that Sized HP are not dealing directly with PPFLD and is not a salvation for all MWO problems, it helps. I still think MWO would be a better game with some sort of similar Mech Lab rules to presented in MWLL concept doc.


Our upgrades cost a lot of money, ludicrous amounts. It's just assumed we have access to the factory. Or do you want to install some kind of schedule system where you can only change armor types on Tuesdays, heatsink types on Fridays, and structure on every 3rd Sunday of the month?

The entire second section of your comment makes literally no sense. So somehow, putting PPCs on a catapult are okay, but Gauss isn't? What arbitrary system is this?

There really is no reason for that.

Other than that, I am still unchanged on my position that it changes, or addresses no real problems in MWO, to begin with.

The only "problem" sized hardpoints address is "I don't like the set up that person is using on their mech", or "That's not how I think that mech should be run".

Bottom line is: I can have my Atlas run with an XL 400, TSM, supercharger, MASC, JJs, a Sword, and shield, with two nipple LLs, or PPCs, and it would still be an Atlas.

Edited by IraqiWalker, 08 October 2015 - 02:37 PM.


#33 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 04:11 PM

Quote

Why do you think ghost heat is an effective limitation?


Because it is effective? at least for large weapons...

If you fire one AC/20 its 6 heat. If you fire two AC/20s its 26.4 heat! For the most part that forces dual AC/20 mechs to chain fire their AC/20s rather than firing them both simultaneously

Ghost heat works perfectly fine to limit large weapons. There is no need to limit large weapons even more with absurd hardpoint size limitations. Thats overpunitive and dumb.

Hardpoint sizes completely fail to address the problem of small weapons being spammed. Which is the real source of imbalance in MWO right now. The builds that are carrying like 1-2 Gauss/LPLs and 4-5 CERMLs.

The truth is linking LPL and CERML together in the same group for ghost heat would do more to balance the current game than hardpoint sizes ever could.

Edited by Khobai, 08 October 2015 - 04:15 PM.


#34 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 08 October 2015 - 04:53 PM

View PostKhobai, on 08 October 2015 - 04:11 PM, said:

Ghost heat works perfectly fine to limit large weapons. There is no need to limit large weapons even more with absurd hardpoint size limitations. Thats overpunitive and dumb.


I think they mean, "this and remove Ghost Heat", but I'm not sure...

A lot of people (myself included) don't like Ghost heat (though I see what it's intended to do, and it is doing it's job decently). If we could remove it and find some other balancing system that could work as well or better, I'd be for it. Hard Point Sizes I don't think would be of any good use, and I never liked them in previous games. However, this isn't exactly a new concept, and this isn't the first time it's been brought up as a "it will solve all the problems" solution.
Personally, I'm happy PGI did not go this way.

#35 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 04:57 PM

i dont like ghost heat either.

ghost heat was a lazy way to try and fix the problem

plus ghost heat has loopholes and plenty of ways to circumvent it

but ghost heat is better than hardpoint limits...

#36 Tesunie

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Seeker
  • The Seeker
  • 8,575 posts
  • LocationSeraphim HQ: Asuncion

Posted 08 October 2015 - 05:04 PM

View PostKhobai, on 08 October 2015 - 04:57 PM, said:

i dont like ghost heat either.

ghost heat was a lazy way to try and fix the problem

plus ghost heat has loopholes and plenty of ways to circumvent it

but ghost heat is better than hardpoint limits...


No matter how much we don't like it, you have to admit it does it's job decently. Not perfect, but it does it's job.

Edited by Tesunie, 08 October 2015 - 05:05 PM.


#37 FireBlood

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Spear
  • 97 posts

Posted 08 October 2015 - 05:17 PM

Had to jump in on the OP's thought.

As stated, yes MW4 had this exact same system. It limited builds based on hardpoints and tonnage, which does make each mech unique. However, this uniqueness comes at a cost, no meta player will take anything but the best mech ever again (Not that they do so nowdays but to a greater extreme).

Playing MW4 online was terribly boring, nothing but jump snipers made out of Highlanders and Executioners mounting 3 ERPPC's and Gauss Rifle becuase their sized hardpoints allowed such builds. You might see an occasional Novacat and Atlas but that was it. I really do not want to see this game fall to such a low point.

#38 Jaeger Gonzo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,219 posts

Posted 09 October 2015 - 05:09 AM

View PostIraqiWalker, on 08 October 2015 - 02:36 PM, said:


Our upgrades cost a lot of money, ludicrous amounts. It's just assumed we have access to the factory. Or do you want to install some kind of schedule system where you can only change armor types on Tuesdays, heatsink types on Fridays, and structure on every 3rd Sunday of the month?

The entire second section of your comment makes literally no sense. So somehow, putting PPCs on a catapult are okay, but Gauss isn't? What arbitrary system is this?

There really is no reason for that.

Other than that, I am still unchanged on my position that it changes, or addresses no real problems in MWO, to begin with.

The only "problem" sized hardpoints address is "I don't like the set up that person is using on their mech", or "That's not how I think that mech should be run".

Bottom line is: I can have my Atlas run with an XL 400, TSM, supercharger, MASC, JJs, a Sword, and shield, with two nipple LLs, or PPCs, and it would still be an Atlas.

The thing is that you want to play Robocraft, and some of us want to play Battletech.
Did you miss part that there is just very few custom meks in whole Galaxy? So arguing about lore is very missed, as the thing that you really want is Robocraft.
You answered yourself already as well.

View PostIraqiWalker, on 06 October 2015 - 06:25 PM, said:

(...) we'd only need a base chassis, and that's it (...)


But of course is much too late for such a revolution regarding mech lab. Mistake was taken at the very beginning and probably can`t be undone at this state. It would give people a reason to own more meks, resolving in better financial success of game, not to mention just better more diverse game. But we got what we got now.
So our only salvation from this Full Custom thing is Stock Mode, that I believe is still possible.
If we will have Stock Mode, would be impossible for me to care less about your happy Full Custom.

That thing, that you call Atlas would not be an Atlas, but you always can have Atlas skin in MWO.
To portrait maybe better, you can have what ever mek with exactly same load out as in your example, just with different skin and call it what ever you wish. So you take Berserker give it exactly same load as your "Atlas" and what you will have at the end? You really think that you will have Atlas and Berserker?

Edited by Jaeger Gonzo, 09 October 2015 - 05:21 AM.


#39 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 09 October 2015 - 05:24 AM

I really like the concept of MWLLs weapon - as said it has nothing to do with balance but aesthetic - and that is the problem i have with the current MWO game -
take for example the good old K2....Say 4 MLAS 2 UAC 5s--- wouldn't it look neater if those UAC5s are mounted in the ears - while the lasers are in the torso?

And of course the min - max size is also important: look at the Centurion or LA of the Zeus. (as example)
- LACs and MACs (2 and 5s) look really ugly - shouldn't the Zeus only have a Medium Pod that allows: 1 AC5 or 1 PPC or 1 UAC5 - while the arm of the Centurion can hold nothing below a UAC5?

I can imagine a almost free mechlab that does not break the aesthetic - seriously i will get hurt when i see the first Quad UAC5 Warhammer - the fact is it would not hurt if that Warhammer could have 4 decent looking AC 2s in its arms - or 2 Gauss Rifles even 2 AC 20 if you like - as long as they are not mounted in the chest but the arms - virtually creating a Hammerhands

Edited by Karl Streiger, 09 October 2015 - 05:26 AM.


#40 Vellron2005

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Blood-Eye
  • The Blood-Eye
  • 5,443 posts
  • LocationIn the mechbay, telling the techs to put extra LRM ammo on.

Posted 09 October 2015 - 05:24 AM

Sized hardpoints make some sence, but only when it comes to light mechs..

This would then prohibit some light mech to field unnaturaly large weapons that weigh as much as half the mech or more (somebody mentioned a Kitfox with a gauss riffle which I think is absurd).

People need to keep in mind, that just cose something appeared in BT lore, does not mean it's balanced, or that is should be commonly available.

When we grow in size category, the sized hardpoints start to make less and less sence..

Why wouldn't a timberwolf field a gauss riffle? Its a 75 ton mech!

The real balance problem is boating you say... well, that would not happen if the heat was not what it is..

The way it is now, it is much more efficient to take that timberwolf, and fill it with 7 Small lasers than 2 Large lasers.. you get better damage and overall heat efficiecy, dps, and you don't really need the range cose you'v got LRM's to boot..

And why do you do it? To deliver max damage in min time.. before somebody else does the same to you..

If you introduce sized hardpoints, the meta would change dramatically, but only for small mechs.. large mechs would still do the same old thing, and the overall meta would shift, but would still exist..

This would only penalise small mechs and prevent that kitfox from fielding that gauss..





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users