119 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

So I'm seeing a lot of hot topic threads around Tiered Hardpoints, which would restrict the size of weapons that could be put in specific slots. However, I'm seeing a couple major trains of thought that are way off the rails:

• That this is purely to nerf-bat boats. I absolutely disagree on this point. Boats should continue to exist in this game, on the variants and chassis known for boating. 4 PPC Awesomes absolutely should be a powerhouse, though balanced in other ways to make it fit in.
  
• This is primarily to greatly improve the strategy both 'mech design and team composition.
  
• This is not about limiting personal freedom, but giving the game a great deal more depth overall.

Why is this an issue? Because tiered hardpoints are vital to the concept of role warfare, with 'mechs having different jobs to fill on the Battlefield. It is NOT a cure all towards pinpoint damage problems, which requires a multi-pronged approach (including the quirk system and changes to locking reticles). However, it would see every 'mech and variant in the game having a potential use, each featuring a different (still highly customizable) play style.

The problem is without tiered hardpoints, you only need to find a 'mech with high gun mounts that have one of the "types" you want. That is all there is to picking a good meta 'mech. At the height of PPC/Gauss meta, did I worry about anything else other than "Does it have 1 ballistic and a 2 energy at least, and are they on the same side of the 'mech?" That's where my thoughts stopped, and finished. Every 'mech meeting those qualifications was a top tier design.

The problem is, sooner or later, that became a huge bloat of 'mechs doing the same thing. Ghost Heat came in and knocked out a ton of alternate viable builds using a lot of small weapons, but PGI also became scared to put a lot of, say, ballistic hardpoints on a 'mech for machine guns due to the room for abuse with other weapons instead.

The reason the 4 PPC Stalker took hold - which is traditionally a beam & missile boat - is because it these factors effectively made it superior to the Awesome for the same role.

While the quirk system is a huge step in the right direction, I would like to see a reason for 'mech diversity return to this game. I want an Awesome to be known for boating a handful of large energy weapons. I want the Jaggermech to be known for boating a large amount of light ballistics, and the Stalker to be recognized as a great medium range beam-and-missile boat, etc.

Obviously there's some room to play with these factors here. I'd be OK with the Dragon, which sports an AC/5 typically, packing enough hardpoints for a Gauss Rifle instead. If every mech with a ballistic hardpoint couldn't just drop a Gauss Rifle on it, it'd be something special and have an absolute role on the battlefield.

--

For anyone who hated MW4's hardpoint systems, or brings it up as a negative, I will say this: I had a reason to have variants for every chassis in that game, and I had dozens and dozens of variants at any given time for any specific 'mech, often flipping it's role considerably. The same would happen here, if the 'mechs were even more different from one another.

Combined with the quirk system to offer the most powerful hardpoint loadouts other offsetting disadvantages, and you really have a chance to add a TON of depth to the game with this, not take it away.

[Asmudius Heng]

Agree, but I think a hardpoints change may be a step too far for PGI due to so many being so poisonously against it.

I am willing to see if the quirks make a difference first but I would support hardpoints and quirks together in a heartbeat.

Until weapons themselves find a better sense of balance though it's always going to confuse the issue with most.

[Salvag3]

I still think the problem is in maps and game modes more than mech hard points, I for one do not want get any farther away from pen and paper mech building. I want to build mechs from the ground up and have the freedom to build what I feel like building. I also don't want to end up with mechs I would never have used c-bills on now that I can't mount the weapons I like to use anymore.

I think that the biggest problem is a lack of reason to fill a role on a map, what's the point of lights in conquest when it's a muh safer play to group up and destroy half the other company then park your heavies on points. What's the role of meds in cities when almost all the streets and places you can go any mech can fit though.

I think addressing the issue that no one really plays the game modes for the game mode. Think about this, have your ever seen a team in battlefield win conquest by focusing on killing the other players ? Have you ever seen a attacking team is rush in battlefield win by killing the other team ? No ? Why not ? Because if you don't play the objective then you are not going to win. 8 man maps with 3 lights 3 meds and two Heavies would be fun for conquest, the smaller mechs would not be cannon fodder and would serve a role needed to cap points and protect the few hevey hitters on the team. What good are you going to do with a light mech with no ECM in the current drops in seeing with a 40% assault mech an 25-30% hevey mech in the q ? I'm seeing games with 5? Assault mechs on each side. Lights have no place in that kind of a fight ? Why do you see so many assaults ? Because the game play on almost every map is the same for the best chance of victory, group up into one large ball of metal and then smash your enemy. I see almost zero games won by objectives it's always due to the other team getting wiped out.

[Dock Steward]

Hardpoint RESTRICTIONS would be a nerf. I hate nerfs in general. I'm much happier that they decided to go with the new Quirk System. Buffs. Buffs are better. Giving incentives for certain builds is much better than axing others because some people don't like them.

[Victor Morson]

Salvag3, on 10 October 2014 - 02:43 PM, said:

I for one do not want get any farther away from pen and paper mech building. I want to build mechs from the ground up and have the freedom to build what I feel like building.

I see this argument come up a lot, and it baffles me pretty badly, in particular coming from a TT background.

You don't have the "freedom to design 'mechs from the ground up" in TT in general; you're supposed to buy and modify stocks at most. Even then, the build rules are utterly broken, and it is possible to make the most atrocious boats in the universe in TT.

Have you ever seen pen & paper BattleTech tournaments that went for custom equipment (not stock?) Holy hell.

18 Streaks rear facing for half the BV (and full rear armor). 5 LPLs with targeting computers that can soak all the heat. TAG boats with 15+ TAG lasers syncing with Arrow IV artillery. Tripple Gauss, no problem. I could on, and on, and on. And on.

Pen & Paper, if anything, needs restrictions. Badly. Most people GM'ing any kind of BattleTech campaign will limit what CAN be done to a 'mech, forcing it to stay with the spirit of the 'mech - i.e. if you are modifying a Swayback and loading it full of AC/2s, you'll probably get told that it's not happening.

Sadly, there's no common sense GM keeping 'mechs living up to their spirit in a game like this, and thus, it needs hardpoint rules - and again, I think CBT would benefit greatly for introducing modification restrictions. With full modifications on tabletop, 'mechs are nothing more than a tonnage, and a skin.

Dock Steward, on 10 October 2014 - 02:48 PM, said:

Hardpoint RESTRICTIONS would be a nerf. I hate nerfs in general. I'm much happier that they decided to go with the new Quirk System. Buffs. Buffs are better. Giving incentives for certain builds is much better than axing others because some people don't like them.

If it is across the board and leaves each mech with a shining role, no, it is not a nerf. Not at all.

Yes, I'd say, Stalkers could no longer sport large numbers of PPCs, but as a trade-off, it would sport large numbers of smaller weapons that other assaults couldn't match. So it now has a shining reason to exist.

The Awesome being the go-to IS PPC boat and the Masakari on the Clan side being the ying to it's yang, makes both of them suddenly attractive and worthwhile for that niche, even if they are not as good at running a lot of beams.

Etc, etc. It goes for every 'mech. Just using two of the bigger examples. This "nerf" could utterly repair 'mechs like the Kintaro, Quickdraw, etc. by giving them a role that cannot be matched by others in their class, instead of just being a new skin on and old idea.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 October 2014 - 02:54 PM.

[Eddrick]

You have the right idea for the use of it. However, Quirks and Mech Skill Tree revision can accomplish the same thing, without forcing it.

Lets save Hardpoint Tiers as a last resort. Because, it forces it instead of encourages it. Like, Quirks and a Mech Skill Tree revision.

[Rebas Kradd]

1. I prefer positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement (i.e. buffs rather than nerfs). Hardpoint restrictions would be a negative reinforcement; the quirk system buffs variants up rather than pushing them all down to be equal.

2. Taking builds out of the game just seems like an unacceptable move got PGI from a customer satisfaction point. I get that balance adjustments always piss off a few people, but hardpoint restrictions would be a sweeping, unprecedented action that would literally take away people's beloved mechs. That's a basic gaming principle you just don't step on. It may be that after years of wide-open customization, PGI has no choice but to stay on its current path and look for alternatives within it.

I'd rather wait to see the quirk system in action before any further balance changes are discussed, myself.

[Dock Steward]

Like Eddrick said, you can accomplish the same thing with Quirks that don't eliminate builds. Give the Stalker a quirk that encourages small lasers. Give the Awesome a quirk that rewards multiple PPC's. Easier, simpler. IMO better.

[Victor Morson]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

1. I prefer positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement (i.e. buffs rather than nerfs). Hardpoint restrictions would be a negative reinforcement; the quirk system buffs variants up rather than pushing them all down to be equal.

As I just explained above, this is absolutely not true. This is in no way a nerf.

The important factor is to make sure each chassis, each variant, has it's place to shine. If they all have something special about them, some kind of build setup that works better on them than any other, then you've improved the chassis even if you've taken away it's ability to drag-and-drop a single weapon configuration on every 'mech more or less.

This makes it more useful in a role, more fun to play, and leaves more room for other play styles.

Again: This is not a nerf, or a buff. It's neither.

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

2. Taking builds out of the game just seems like an unacceptable move got PGI from a customer satisfaction point. I get that balance adjustments always piss off a few people, but hardpoint restrictions would be a sweeping, unprecedented action that would literally take away people's beloved mechs. That's a basic gaming principle you just don't step on. It may be that after years of wide-open customization, PGI has no choice but to stay on its current path and look for alternatives within it.

Let's talk reality for a moment: PGI has outright bungled game balance, and let it fester too long. It needs a dramatic ground-up re-examining, and redesign. I'm sorry if this might upset some people, but truth be told, they've lost a lot of people over this period - people that want to hear something radically different happened to the game, to make them consider coming back.

This is also about the new people off the impending Steam release.

tl/dr: Game balance has been broken and let fester for years, and it's time to hold nothing sacred.

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:01 PM, said:

I'd rather wait to see the quirk system in action before any further balance changes are discussed, myself.

I'm 100% behind quirks. I think they would combine very, very well with a system like this.

Dock Steward, on 10 October 2014 - 03:02 PM, said:

Like Eddrick said, you can accomplish the same thing with Quirks that don't eliminate builds. Give the Stalker a quirk that encourages small lasers. Give the Awesome a quirk that rewards multiple PPC's. Easier, simpler. IMO better.

I think people need to let go of this "don't eliminate builds" mindset. The problem is the game balance is already busted, and has been busted. And after years, I think having to redesign some builds around a chassis strength rather than just cut & pasting the same ones you've probably used for years is a very, very good thing.

Burn all the current meta builds to the ground. It's time to start over.

Edited by Victor Morson, 10 October 2014 - 03:08 PM.

[Dock Steward]

What you're talking about is waaay worse than a nerf. It's a big "VOID" stamp.

How can you not concede that? Even if you do think the results are worth it?

Not to mention it does nothing to add role warfare. Even if every mech had something it was the best at, how does that make role warfare exist? Role warfare absolutely requires intelligence, and right now, scouts can't communicate to their team without coming to a dead stop and getting blasted (assuming we're talking about solo games). With TS, role warfare is alive and well.

Edited by Dock Steward, 10 October 2014 - 03:22 PM.

[terrycloth]

It greatly restricts the strategy for mech building by putting it in the hands of whoever decides what weapons go on the mech, which is no longer you. You have no mech building strategy choices anymore, or at best vastly restricted ones.

Either you eliminate the existing roles, which is bad, or the roles that no one uses because they're ineffective will continue to not be played even though there are mechs that can only use them, which is bad because now you have unusable mechs.

It eliminates a lot of personal freedom and reduces the depth of the game significantly. It's like taking dungeons and dragons and only letting people play pre-built characters -- you have 'more options' because instead of choosing feats and magic items for your elven ranger, you can choose from three different elven rangers with different sets of feats and items!

No one wants to play D+D this way. Why would people want to play MWO this way?

[Dock Steward]

You can play with my ball. Just don't bounce it. Or throw it. You can't roll it either.

You know what, there comes a point where I don't want to play with your ball anymore.

[Victor Morson]

Dock Steward, on 10 October 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

What you're talking about is waaay worse than a nerf. It's a big "VOID" stamp.

How can you not conceed that? Even if you do think the results are worth it?

Because people will still own mechs, still own guns, and can now set them up with new gear.

I would be OK with throwing a big fat VOID on every popular config for the last 4 years, to be honest. Obviously there will be some mechs that can run them still. But we lose nothing by making people redesign some 'mechs. They might even have fun actually having to think about design again for the first time in months.

Dock Steward, on 10 October 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

Not to mention it does nothing to add role warfare. Even if every mech had something it was the best at, how does that make role warfare exist?

Because right now every 'mech is just a smaller/bigger version of every other 'mech with the same hardpoint setup, short of little things like gun placement. That's why.

Planning on running long missiles? You'll want some Trebuchets/Catapults in the mix. Want a fire support 'mech? Bring a Jagermech. Do you want an midrange assault like the Stalker excells at, or an Awesome boating LPLs or PPCs? Maybe this calls for a real knife fight, so time to look at a King Crab..

All things you will never, ever, ever say with the way things are.

Dock Steward, on 10 October 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

Role warfare absolutely requires intelligence, and right now, scouts can't communicate to their team without coming to a dead stop and getting blasted (assuming we're talking about solo games). With TS, role warfare is alive and well.

Role warfare should be something more than "Scout tells people on TS where X is." That if anything is a failure of Information Warfare.

Role Warfare is about giving every single mech a viable place on the battlefield, with a role to play.

.... So tell me, what is the role of a Dragon exactly, as it stands?

[Rebas Kradd]

Victor Morson, on 10 October 2014 - 03:06 PM, said:

Let's talk reality for a moment: PGI has outright bungled game balance, and let it fester too long. It needs a dramatic ground-up re-examining, and redesign. I'm sorry if this might upset some people, but truth be told, they've lost a lot of people over this period - people that want to hear something radically different happened to the game, to make them consider coming back.

This is also about the new people off the impending Steam release.

tl/dr: Game balance has been broken and let fester for years, and it's time to hold nothing sacred.

This is probably the underappreciated heart of the matter.

I can't agree with you on this. I remember hearing similar arguments right before Star Wars Galaxies got its "ground-up reexamining", and once the NGE came out, everyone repented of it. "Oh ****, maybe they should have just stuck to tweaks after all".

Now, of course, the NGE really wasn't so much player-oriented redesign so much as a lame-ass attempt to ape the dynamics of other MMOs while bribing people with lightsabers, but it didn't matter - SWG had just undone everyone's hard work. The new system could have been breathtakingly brilliant and people still would have left. They don't want to start over. When you step on basic gamer empowerment like that (or like removing gamemode choice, or like removing 5-11 man groups), you lose people. The fact that the NGE flawed only helped seal SWG's fate. Suddenly, SOE could see just how many people had actually been content with mediocre balance all along, and just how badly they'd thrown those babies out with the bathwater. The return didn't match the risk.

I'm resistant to change. I'll fully admit it. But I think PGI needs to look at the conservative approaches. As far as the people who left, I still simply do not buy that KaoS, your Blazin Aces, and the other ultra-competitive teams comprise an irreplaceable chunk of SWG's fan base. The game is always going to lose people over design decisions. That's probably how PGI sees you, honestly, and have to give equal weight to those who stayed and weren't driven away by their own hyper-analytic judgment of a design decision. I think most of the people who left did so because of non-balance-related problems (performance, stability, pricing, opacity, lack of maps/modes

I hope you can appreciate how "burn it all down and start over" is not something game designers will listen to until the game is truly financially dead.

Victor Morson, on 10 October 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

Role warfare should be something more than "Scout tells people on TS where X is." That if anything is a failure of Information Warfare.

Can you tell me what you envision by that?

I'm asking honestly. Because when I first saw those four pillars, I saw a bunch of utterly abstract concepts that had no realistic interpretation on the battlefield. Like "defensive" mechs. WTF does that look like?

[Victor Morson]

Dock Steward, on 10 October 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

You can play with my ball. Just don't bounce it. Or throw it. You can't roll it either.

You know what, there comes a point where I don't want to play with your ball anymore.

I really don't think you have an open mind on this subject at all. You've been crusading across several threads against it. Did you play in NBT4, out of curosity? Or no?

I'm saying what I am from direct experience with witnessing the impact of tiered hardpoints on a MechWarrior title.

[carl kerensky]

Victor Morson, on 10 October 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

So I'm seeing a lot of hot topic threads around Tiered Hardpoints, which would restrict the size of weapons that could be put in specific slots. However, I'm seeing a couple major trains of thought that are way off the rails:

• That this is purely to nerf-bat boats. I absolutely disagree on this point. Boats should continue to exist in this game, on the variants and chassis known for boating. 4 PPC Awesomes absolutely should be a powerhouse, though balanced in other ways to make it fit in.
  
• This is primarily to greatly improve the strategy both 'mech design and team composition.
  
• This is not about limiting personal freedom, but giving the game a great deal more depth overall.

Why is this an issue? Because tiered hardpoints are vital to the concept of role warfare, with 'mechs having different jobs to fill on the Battlefield. It is NOT a cure all towards pinpoint damage problems, which requires a multi-pronged approach (including the quirk system and changes to locking reticles). However, it would see every 'mech and variant in the game having a potential use, each featuring a different (still highly customizable) play style.

The problem is without tiered hardpoints, you only need to find a 'mech with high gun mounts that have one of the "types" you want. That is all there is to picking a good meta 'mech. At the height of PPC/Gauss meta, did I worry about anything else other than "Does it have 1 ballistic and a 2 energy at least, and are they on the same side of the 'mech?" That's where my thoughts stopped, and finished. Every 'mech meeting those qualifications was a top tier design.

The problem is, sooner or later, that became a huge bloat of 'mechs doing the same thing. Ghost Heat came in and knocked out a ton of alternate viable builds using a lot of small weapons, but PGI also became scared to put a lot of, say, ballistic hardpoints on a 'mech for machine guns due to the room for abuse with other weapons instead.

The reason the 4 PPC Stalker took hold - which is traditionally a beam & missile boat - is because it these factors effectively made it superior to the Awesome for the same role.

While the quirk system is a huge step in the right direction, I would like to see a reason for 'mech diversity return to this game. I want an Awesome to be known for boating a handful of large energy weapons. I want the Jaggermech to be known for boating a large amount of light ballistics, and the Stalker to be recognized as a great medium range beam-and-missile boat, etc.

Obviously there's some room to play with these factors here. I'd be OK with the Dragon, which sports an AC/5 typically, packing enough hardpoints for a Gauss Rifle instead. If every mech with a ballistic hardpoint couldn't just drop a Gauss Rifle on it, it'd be something special and have an absolute role on the battlefield.

--

For anyone who hated MW4's hardpoint systems, or brings it up as a negative, I will say this: I had a reason to have variants for every chassis in that game, and I had dozens and dozens of variants at any given time for any specific 'mech, often flipping it's role considerably. The same would happen here, if the 'mechs were even more different from one another.

Combined with the quirk system to offer the most powerful hardpoint loadouts other offsetting disadvantages, and you really have a chance to add a TON of depth to the game with this, not take it away.

Yes I'm all for hard point restriction because as Victor stated better than I could it's essential for battlemech diversity. This is sorely needed in MWO. So those up in arms about it really think about it. This and quirks will align MWO as a Mechwarrior not some action shooter with mech skins. Who wants that garbage. You are either buying mechs or earning Cs for them. Make it worth your time. No gimmicks but lots of depth. Let's not have FrankenWarrior please.

[DocBach]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 03:28 PM, said:

This is probably the underappreciated heart of the matter.

I can't agree with you on this. I remember hearing similar arguments right before Star Wars Galaxies got its "ground-up reexamining", and once the NGE came out, everyone repented of it. "Oh ****, maybe they should have just stuck to tweaks after all".

Now, of course, the NGE really wasn't so much player-oriented redesign so much as a lame-ass attempt to ape the dynamics of other MMOs while bribing people with lightsabers, but it didn't matter - SWG had just undone everyone's hard work. The new system could have been breathtakingly brilliant and people still would have left. They don't want to start over. When you step on basic gamer empowerment like that (or like removing gamemode choice, or like removing 5-11 man groups), you lose people. The fact that the NGE flawed only helped seal SWG's fate. Suddenly, SOE could see just how many people had actually been content with mediocre balance all along, and just how badly they'd thrown those babies out with the bathwater. The return didn't match the risk.

I'm resistant to change. I'll fully admit it. But I think PGI needs to look at the conservative approaches. As far as the people who left, I still simply do not buy that KaoS, your Blazin Aces, and the other ultra-competitive teams comprise an irreplaceable chunk of SWG's fan base. The game is always going to lose people over design decisions. That's probably how PGI sees you, honestly, and have to give equal weight to those who stayed and weren't driven away by their own hyper-analytic judgment of a design decision. I think most of the people who left did so because of non-balance-related problems (performance, stability, pricing, opacity, lack of maps/modes

I hope you can appreciate how "burn it all down and start over" is not something game designers will listen to until the game is truly financially dead.

As someone who also played SWG -- the NGE changed everything -- not just character builds, but the entire combat engine, quest interface, etc etc.

Some MechLab restrictions are just that -- some restrictions. You'd still have the ability to tinker and create loadouts, you just might not be able to do them all on one chassis or be forced to make critical decisions like if you are willing to take that 'Mech with the big CT that can hold the guns you like, or are you more willing to not take so many of a certain weapon to use the 'Mech that has features that you do like?

Using the JagerMech as an example -- every single one can be a Gauss jager with the current system. What if only one of the variants could do so? What if I had to use other builds to master the skill for my Gauss jager that I wanted to master? Would that increase the amount of diversity on the field? What if every other 'Mech variants had unique hard points? Even if I eventually settled on one build, while I master that 'Mech, I'm going to be bringing different flavors of 'Mech to matches rather than just copy-pasting the same loadout between variants.

[Dock Steward]

Victor Morson, on 10 October 2014 - 03:30 PM, said:

I really don't think you have an open mind on this subject at all. You've been crusading across several threads against it. Did you play in NBT4, out of curosity? Or no?

I'm saying what I am from direct experience with witnessing the impact of tiered hardpoints on a MechWarrior title.

Yes, as you've said across MULTIPLE threads.

You asked what we would lose with this change: How about players. Many Players. But since you don't seem to see that as a problem...

EDIT: Also, you're confusing me with someone else. I haven't been at all vocal on this topic...Let alone "crusading"

Edited by Dock Steward, 10 October 2014 - 03:44 PM.

[Joe Mallad]

I agree that we need boats as part of role warfare. The 3-4 PPC awesome is and always was a recognized mech. But mechs like Stalkers, battle masters and dire wolves with 5, 6 and 7 PPCs should not be allowed. The same goes for weapons like AC-20s, gauss rifles, streaks and LRMs. PPCs should be hard capped at 4 regardless of number of energy hard points. No more than 2 gauss or AC-20s on any mech and no more that 3 streaks of any kind or 2 to 3 LRMs of any kind. If you can manage a LRM 60 mech, I call that boating enough. The same for streaks. If you can fit 3 streak 6 packs. I'd call that enough.

Edited by Yoseful Mallad, 10 October 2014 - 03:41 PM.

[Asyres]

There's a lot of potential for any significant change for the hardpoint system to break more than it fixes. I'd rather have inter-weapon balanced tightened significantly - in combination with the forthcoming tweaks - before we look at overhauling the whole mech building system.