43 replies to this topic

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Hard points was an idea that came up over a decade ago to fix boating. It didnt work then and its NOT working now. Now instead of every mech boating you have a few mechs that can boat and had advantages that are becoming more and more obvious. Remove all hard points and hard code limits on setups. Something like :

only 1 ac 20 per mech
only 1 gauss per mech
2 max lrms per mech
4 med lasers max per mech
2 srms max per mech
2 max Ultra AC5 per mech


I'm sure some testing would bring it into focus.

Next the maps sizes are TOO SMALL. Thats why heavies and brawlers are doing so well. Apline should be the standard map size.

SSRM's are TO powerfull. Even lrms dont always hit and there many ways to aviod them. Not so with SSRM's. Change their tracking to something more akin to LRMS were they adjust flight but dont track.

Last any mech with ECM should be unable to load weapons that have any type of flight adjustment, ie LRMS or SSRM's. This would solve almost all your problems, its easy to do and your still in beta so do it before its to late and your game quickly becomes WOT were everyone knew the problems but they werent fixed, and its basically a dead game.

[Stormwolf]

I think that I know a way to fix most problems:

1. Make Guardian ECM like it is in the TT.
2. Include a critsize maximum for weapons (you can't fit a gauss where there once was a MG)
3. Include the stratops quality system + maintenance, custom mechs are more expensive and can have equipment failures (stratops page 166).
4. Disallow factory level customization unless you have a adequate refit kit, this will make the chassis more unique (factory level is the ability to install endo, case and different engines).
5. Revise XP system so you don't have to level 3 different chassis anymore (leads to annoyance among the fans)
6. In a later stage limit the amount of available mechs to each faction (must have atleast 25 different mechs ingame for this). Every faction has strong designs in atleast 2 weight classes while others are only slightly suboptimal.
7. Create a stock only mode for the people who are sick and tired of the MW4 multiplayer retread we've gotten forced down our necks.
8. Allow for IS weapons in Clan chassis, that way we can have IS players with Clan mechs. IS players will need to salvage Clan weapons, they can't buy them. A simple solution here is to allow IS weapons on Clan chassis for replacement parts. Also observe the maintenance costs as described in StratOps.
9. Introduce a tech crew system based on the one in stratops, Clan tech should break down without a properly schooled crew.

Edited by Stormwolf, 24 February 2013 - 12:54 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Stormwolf, on 24 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

I think that I know a way to fix most problems:

1. Make Guardian ECM like it is in the TT.
2. Include a critsize maximum for weapons (you can't fit a gauss where there once was a MG)
3. Include the stratops quality system + maintenance, custom mechs are more expensive and can have equipment failures (stratops page 166).
4. Disallow factory level customization unless you have a adequate refit kit, this will make the chassis more unique (factory level is the ability to install endo, case and different engines).
5. Revise XP system so you don't have to level 3 different chassis anymore (leads to annoyance among the fans)
6. In a later stage limit the amount of available mechs to each faction (must have atleast 25 different mechs ingame for this). Every faction has strong designs in atleast 2 weight classes while others are only slightly suboptimal.
7. Create a stock only mode for the people who are sick and tired of the MW4 multiplayer retread we've gotten forced down our necks.
8. Allow for IS weapons in Clan chassis, that way we can have IS players with Clan mechs. IS players will need to salvage Clan weapons, they can't buy them. A simple solution here is to allow IS weapons on Clan chassis for replacement parts. Also observe the maintenance costs as described in StratOps.
9. Introduce a tech crew system based on the one in stratops, Clan tech should break down without a properly schooled crew.

Yeah I agree with some of these too. But you have to ask yourself, who at the current state of the game, is staying IS? Those that do will quickly lose intrest. They cant manage the equipment they have now. I stated in the begining that a mechlab was a bad choice. To late now though. Also I feel tha PGI thinks that to many players are "invested" in the current system because of the grind. Which in turn makes them think people will leave if they change it. What I think they are missing are the number of people already leaving and that only come back when a new mech or map comes out. I'm in a pretty large clan and lots players are not playing as much. Not due to the lack of intrest but frustration at the Boating problem, ecm and strreak problem.
I'm a HUGE fan of stock only game play. It would really be a great challenge for most of us and I agree that PGI is on the same path of ruination that MW4 was on.

Edited by Zerstorer Stallin, 24 February 2013 - 04:24 PM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

NT Hackman, on 24 February 2013 - 04:23 PM, said:

Maybe if Piranha actually listened to ideas like this, the game would actually be fun and balanced.

Thanks mate! I agree they are ignoring their player base. The more players I speak to are seeing the light and even hard core ecm/streak fans are seeing the light.

[blinkin]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 24 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Thanks mate! I agree they are ignoring their player base. The more players I speak to are seeing the light and even hard core ecm/streak fans are seeing the light.

i think i will stay out of your little cult, and continue to enjoy the mech lab.

they won't get rid of the mech lab because it is one of the major selling points for the game. also if the suggestion in the OP were followed most mech variants would be entirely redundant. it also outright denies even some of the stock mech builds: hunchback - 4p, hunchback - 4j

[Zerstorer Stallin]

blinkin, on 24 February 2013 - 04:55 PM, said:

i think i will stay out of your little cult, and continue to enjoy the mech lab.

they won't get rid of the mech lab because it is one of the major selling points for the game. also if the suggestion in the OP were followed most mech variants would be entirely redundant. it also outright denies even some of the stock mech builds: hunchback - 4p, hunchback - 4j

I agree it would mean sacrificing some variants that are to much for the translation of the TT to a FPS. I do however think you've taken the word "cult" and misused it. This doesnt surprise me though in seeing how you've presented yourself here.

[Beeman]

I think they should leave our current owned mechlab alone. Let us customize our mechs all we want 'cause honestly...people expect customization when they think of giant, stompy robot games.

That said, I'd LOVE to see more restrictions enforced when they get community warfare going. They could give us a faction-based mechlab, similar to how we already have one for trial and one for mechs we own. Then we can be granted mechs based on rank in the factions. I mean, they're already planning to have rank unlock things like camo patterns and such. Just apply those to your faction mechlab and not your owned mechlab.

Use the current owned mechlab for standard matchmaking, which should always be more lax and casual(to suck people into the game) and bank off of everything they already sell for MC there...then build community warfare around strict loreplay for everyone who's into that. Hell, we might even get some casuals sucked into BT lore when they poke their noses into it just to see what's goin' on.

[Donas]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 24 February 2013 - 05:28 PM, said:

This doesnt surprise me though in seeing how you've presented yourself here.

That seems like a bit of an over-reaction. Just going on the tone and sheer volume of Blinkin's other posts, this comment was made tongue in cheek. Blinkin's posts are habitually well reasoned, thoughtful, contributive and demonstrate an appreciateion for the game and its roots.

[Donas]

Beeman, on 24 February 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

I think they should leave our current owned mechlab alone. Let us customize our mechs all we want 'cause honestly...people expect customization when they think of giant, stompy robot games.

That said, I'd LOVE to see more restrictions enforced when they get community warfare going. They could give us a faction-based mechlab, similar to how we already have one for trial and one for mechs we own. Then we can be granted mechs based on rank in the factions. I mean, they're already planning to have rank unlock things like camo patterns and such. Just apply those to your faction mechlab and not your owned mechlab.

Use the current owned mechlab for standard matchmaking, which should always be more lax and casual(to suck people into the game) and bank off of everything they already sell for MC there...then build community warfare around strict loreplay for everyone who's into that. Hell, we might even get some casuals sucked into BT lore when they poke their noses into it just to see what's goin' on.

This sounds like pretty solid reasoning all the way around.

+1 sir.

[Deathlike]

It is possible they could add more limits, but lets not make this like MW4, where it doesn't even follow any of the rules that the MW series has been consistent with. The current system is pretty much KISS for the most part, so I don't see a problem.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Donas, on 24 February 2013 - 08:19 PM, said:

That seems like a bit of an over-reaction. Just going on the tone and sheer volume of Blinkin's other posts, this comment was made tongue in cheek. Blinkin's posts are habitually well reasoned, thoughtful, contributive and demonstrate an appreciateion for the game and its roots.

Ive never read his other post and if this is true I hope to see more of them. However base on my first impression of this post it comes ove counter productive and childish. First impresions are important and everyone cant assume you know them and get their jokes. Hopefully we can continue to move forward and keep this post and others like it at the top till PGI see's the community is not happy with the current format. Thanks for the info though !

[blinkin]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 24 February 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

Ive never read his other post and if this is true I hope to see more of them. However base on my first impression of this post it comes ove counter productive and childish. First impresions are important and everyone cant assume you know them and get their jokes. Hopefully we can continue to move forward and keep this post and others like it at the top till PGI see's the community is not happy with the current format. Thanks for the info though !

it was more a reference to this VV

Zerstorer Stallin, on 24 February 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Thanks mate! I agree they are ignoring their player base. The more players I speak to are seeing the light and even hard core ecm/streak fans are seeing the light.

"seeing the light" brought images of red kool aid to mind so i had a little fun while making my point.

[Jimskiavic]

Stormwolf, on 24 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

I think that I know a way to fix most problems:

1. Make Guardian ECM like it is in the TT.
2. Include a critsize maximum for weapons (you can't fit a gauss where there once was a MG)
3. Include the stratops quality system + maintenance, custom mechs are more expensive and can have equipment failures (stratops page 166).
5. Revise XP system so you don't have to level 3 different chassis anymore (leads to annoyance among the fans)
6. In a later stage limit the amount of available mechs to each faction (must have atleast 25 different mechs ingame for this). Every faction has strong designs in atleast 2 weight classes while others are only slightly suboptimal.

These, but particularly #2.

[Max Liao]

Stormwolf, on 24 February 2013 - 12:47 PM, said:

I think that I know a way to fix most problems:

1. Make Guardian ECM like it is in the TT.
2. Include a critsize maximum for weapons (you can't fit a gauss where there once was a MG)
3. Include the stratops quality system + maintenance, custom mechs are more expensive and can have equipment failures (stratops page 166).
4. Disallow factory level customization unless you have a adequate refit kit, this will make the chassis more unique (factory level is the ability to install endo, case and different engines).
5. Revise XP system so you don't have to level 3 different chassis anymore (leads to annoyance among the fans)
6. In a later stage limit the amount of available mechs to each faction (must have atleast 25 different mechs ingame for this). Every faction has strong designs in atleast 2 weight classes while others are only slightly suboptimal.
7. Create a stock only mode for the people who are sick and tired of the MW4 multiplayer retread we've gotten forced down our necks.
8. Allow for IS weapons in Clan chassis, that way we can have IS players with Clan mechs. IS players will need to salvage Clan weapons, they can't buy them. A simple solution here is to allow IS weapons on Clan chassis for replacement parts. Also observe the maintenance costs as described in StratOps.
9. Introduce a tech crew system based on the one in stratops, Clan tech should break down without a properly schooled crew.

I agree with 100% of this, except for #8 and maybe #9. So, I guess that's actually ~80% (given that #9 isn't a full disagreement).

[hercules1981]

Problem would be solved if they made the layouts on mechs just like mw4. Cats look like they have a huge arm for missiles, u put in the 3 sized slot for missiles like in mw4. A Jenner with a smaller looking missile hard point would mayb only have a 1or 2 sized slot. Remember the ac20 in that game was a 3 sized ballistic slot. I pretty sure no mech but the fafnier could mount 2 ac20s or 2 gauss heavy gauss for that matter. Mechs at that point would b drastically different instead of a cent d with 2 of each hardpoint and the version of the dragon that has 2 of each hardpoint just being 10 tons apart. lame!
Having that size of a weapon restriction would b a huge difference maker in this game.

[Spirit of the Wolf]

While I can understand the OP's viewpoint, and respect it, that doesn't necessarily mean I also agree with it.

Honestly, I see no problem in boating, because there is always a disadvantage to doing it.

2 AC/20's?
Well, your range is terrible for optimum damage, and you have to wait a while between each shot even if you fire them in the middle of the other one's cooldown time. The lack of high amounts of ammo per ton is also a limiting factor.

2 Gauss's?
Congratulations! You now have two of the same weapon, and it's the most fragile weapon in the game! (Also, machine guns and flamers have been buffed so this is now relevent.)

LRMs were made to be boated originally. The entire idea of a missile support 'mech is to support its team with missiles. So the thing about boating LRMs here is just a bit foolish. I'll ignore any more about this one. (And no, I don't boat LRMs myself.) Also, LRM boaters have a range penalty -- they can't hit you closer than 180m, so get in their face and blast them.

Medium lasers:
Okay, this one is just silly. You selected the one energy weapon which sees the most use out of everything in the IS. It's the most efficient damage/heat/per ton for an energy weapon, (don't say TAG counts), and as such, logically (this means 'staying within common sense'), it would see the most usage. Why put a small laser when a medium works better? In addition, despite it having the best damage/heat/per ton, it still isn't perfect, so you do need to manage your heat. I have a hunchback 4P, and it isn't always easy to do that (manage your heat properly). In addition, its maximum damage is only dealt out to 270m, and it hits 0 damage at double that range, unlike ballistics, which carries out to 3x optimum range.

SRMs:
This one is similar to the AC/20, except that they deal no damage beyond 270m. And they still require ammo. In addition, they are already limited by missile ports, so you aren't guaranteed a 'buckshot' effect where they all fire at once. I see mechs that boat SRMs all the time, and all I do is either get right behind them and hit their rear armor, take out the area that houses the SRMs, or I just avoid them altogether and let my teammates kill them from far away.

Ultra AC/5:
I'll admit it; this one's a toughie -- I rarely use it myself, but I know how devastating they can be. At the same time, there is currently only ONE 'mech which can mount more than 2 of them -- the Ilya Muromets -- and that's not even a canon 'mech. PGI made it up. (So looking at it from just that, it probably won't get this nerf.)
Here are the upsides compared to a regular AC/5:
It can fire faster (doesn't make it more accurate though)
It has a higher optimum range. (600m, vs 540m)
In addition to that, however, it does have several downsides:
It puts out a lot more heat than a standard AC/5 when firing faster
It can jam, even on a single-shot. (And I've had it happen to me, which is part of the reason I avoid it.)
It eats up ammo like a machine gun.
It gets 5 shots fewer per ton. (Put this together with ammo consumption rate, and it makes it even worse)

In reality, every weapon has a downside.
And strategy trumps everything. (Especially stupidity of the opposition)

Edited by Spirit of the Wolf, 25 February 2013 - 08:16 AM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Spirit of the Wolf, on 25 February 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

While I can understand the OP's viewpoint, and respect it, that doesn't necessarily mean I also agree with it.

Honestly, I see no problem in boating, because there is always a disadvantage to doing it.

2 AC/20's?
Well, your range is terrible for optimum damage, and you have to wait a while between each shot even if you fire them in the middle of the other one's cooldown time. The lack of high amounts of ammo per ton is also a limiting factor.

2 Gauss's?
Congratulations! You now have two of the same weapon, and it's the most fragile weapon in the game! (Also, machine guns and flamers have been buffed so this is now relevent.)

LRMs were made to be boated originally. The entire idea of a missile support 'mech is to support its team with missiles. So the thing about boating LRMs here is just a bit foolish. I'll ignore any more about this one. (And no, I don't boat LRMs myself.) Also, LRM boaters have a range penalty -- they can't hit you closer than 180m, so get in their face and blast them.

Medium lasers:
Okay, this one is just silly. You selected the one energy weapon which sees the most use out of everything in the IS. It's the most efficient damage/heat/per ton for an energy weapon, (don't say TAG counts), and as such, logically (this means 'staying within common sense'), it would see the most usage. Why put a small laser when a medium works better? In addition, despite it having the best damage/heat/per ton, it still isn't perfect, so you do need to manage your heat. I have a hunchback 4P, and it isn't always easy to do that (manage your heat properly). In addition, its maximum damage is only dealt out to 270m, and it hits 0 damage at double that range, unlike ballistics, which carries out to 3x optimum range.

SRMs:
This one is similar to the AC/20, except that they deal no damage beyond 270m. And they still require ammo. In addition, they are already limited by missile ports, so you aren't guaranteed a 'buckshot' effect where they all fire at once. I see mechs that boat SRMs all the time, and all I do is either get right behind them and hit their rear armor, take out the area that houses the SRMs, or I just avoid them altogether and let my teammates kill them from far away.

Ultra AC/5:
I'll admit it; this one's a toughie -- I rarely use it myself, but I know how devastating they can be. At the same time, there is currently only ONE 'mech which can mount more than 2 of them -- the Ilya Muromets -- and that's not even a canon 'mech. PGI made it up. (So looking at it from just that, it probably won't get this nerf.)
Here are the upsides compared to a regular AC/5:
It can fire faster (doesn't make it more accurate though)
It has a higher optimum range. (600m, vs 540m)
In addition to that, however, it does have several downsides:
It puts out a lot more heat than a standard AC/5 when firing faster
It can jam, even on a single-shot. (And I've had it happen to me, which is part of the reason I avoid it.)
It eats up ammo like a machine gun.
It gets 5 shots fewer per ton. (Put this together with ammo consumption rate, and it makes it even worse)

In reality, every weapon has a downside.
And strategy trumps everything. (Especially stupidity of the opposition)

The limits are nullifed from the majority of the small maps, any monkey can close to range in a splat kat or ac 20 kat, on any maps except maybe crater, and alpine. Boating killed the mw4 online player vs player. If its not corrected here it will do the same, history is a great teacher.

Edited by Zerstorer Stallin, 25 February 2013 - 09:26 PM.

[Pht]

Hardpoints are not a bad idea. They just have to be implemented correctly.

For example:

I wonder how many times this is going to come up...








---------------------------------------------

"Blue" is mislabeled. It should be "equipment" which mostly means you can put heatsinks there, maybe ammo.

Should be pretty straight forwards.

Things that those familiar with the MW4 lab and the parent game won't see so obviously:

Don't allow internal structure type to be changed - don't allow engines to be changed (instead, look to the things in Tac Ops, like sprinting, for a wide 'Mech performance envelope). cockpit, gyro, and actuators (hip, arm joints) should not be allowed to be messed with (with the single exclusion of omnimechs with omni arms removing the hand and I think the lower actuators for using ppcs and gauss?).

Omnimechs can't modify their armor or otherwise do anything that would cross over from non-omni areas into omni-slots - otherwise, they're no longer modular, in addition to the above restrictions.

This gives a quick way to resolve penetrating hits and allows for the armor/damage behaviors to be ported with ease in a way that fits the fluidity of a VG with ease, and it stops (as much as the original mechs meant to!) munchkins from lunacy.

Omnimechs might have to be somehow restricted in number, because they'll be (as they should be and as the Lore blurbs them) scary, as far as loadouts are concerned.

One of the other things this would necessarily bring with it is that all the variant chassis of a base chassis (non-omnimech chassis, that is) would actually have to be in the game. There would be a large field to choose from - which would be even more fun if they managed to get the combat setup where they could handle the 'Mech quirks (marauder is supposed to be deadly in combat, that sort of thing).

This would stop the MW3 problem where all 'Mechs are rendered into nothing more than visually different bags full of guns - munchkin min/max Sheol misery, and still allow for a LOT of customization.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Well at least there seems to be a majority of us that agree that the current systems bends its knee to boating which is the very thing hard points was put in place to stop. maybe someone out there is listening.

[Aim64C]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 25 February 2013 - 09:28 PM, said:

Well at least there seems to be a majority of us that agree that the current systems bends its knee to boating which is the very thing hard points was put in place to stop. maybe someone out there is listening.

Hardpoints weren't put into place to prevent boating.

Hardpoints were put into place to keep each 'mech in relative line with its personality and preserve the distinction between chassis.

Why is the Hunchback a relatively noteworthy design? Because it packs an AC20 in a medium frame. There are only a few other mediums that cator to such a specialized implementation.

Similarly, some Assaults come with special designs built to 'boat' - the Yeoman, Fafnir (2x Heavy Gauss), and even clan designs like the Super Nova (and its little brother, the Nova/Blackhawk) - all were built with a certain 'personality' to them.

Theoretically, omnimechs have little/no personality and are mostly just different looking shell to pack weapons into... but what's fun on a table-top game doesn't necessarily translate into a fun multiplayer experience.

"Boating" isn't a problem. Any player that chooses to "boat" a design limits their versatility. A gauss-centered design leaves itself prone to ammunition shortages. LRMs can vary wildly in damage output (on some maps, my Catapult will hit near 900 damage when the scenario favors... on others, I'm forced to sit and look silly or fire at a bunch of fast-movers and will be doing good to hit 400 damage). Lasers suffer from no ammunition shortages (or costs - if/when they are implemented) but generate high amounts of heat (same with PPCs).

The concept of boating isn't a problem, and PGI should not take efforts to limit boating. Taking measures to preserve a 'mech's personality and reasonable use would be welcome, however (Seriously... Gausscats? ... Not on the variants available... and I'd have to check if there is any basis for a variant that utilized gauss weapons).

Removing the mechlab, completely, just goes against the spirit of Mechwarrior. I'd be fine with it if we were playing a shooter named MechAssault (even if it did play fast and loose with the lore) - but the logic behind the MechLab is that we all have access to factory-level modifications. That means we have considerable liberty in our 'mech customization, and we should.

Honestly, we'll have to wait to address balancing issues with 'boating' until we see ammunition costs, repairs, and/or maintenance tied into the game. That could drastically affect current gameplay favorites - and that could cause a lot of people who are bound to ammunition-heavy chassis to get into a tizzy (I'm not sure what ammunition would cost for my Catapult... but I'll regularly go through 4+ tons of ammunition per match...).

So - to sum it all up:

I am in favor, somewhat, of a further restriction on hardpoints aside from "missiles/ballistic/energy" - mostly to preserve the personality of each 'mech.

I am not in favor of measures against "boating" - as any form of boating is a strategic gamble that leaves one open to exploit.

If we start down this path, it's going to come down to everyone gets one weapon (in small, medium, and large flavors) and the same 'mech (without separate hitboxes) in a field without terrain... and we just mash one button while looking at each other until everyone explodes.

So, no, I'm not in favor of reducing the tactical and strategic elements of this game by arbitrarily restricting player behavior because people can't figure out how to deal with a "splat-cat" or some other such configuration.