213 replies to this topic

[Jimskiavic]

I'm in favour of this, but only as a 'light touch'. i.e. it should really only be used to restrict which Mechs can take the very largest weapons (of each type), and occasionally to limit a Mech's hardpoint in a particular spot to very small weapons only. Most Mechs should be able to take most weapons (of the relevant type of course) on their hardpoints, irrespective of how big the default weapons the Mech comes with are.

[Torquemada]

Jimskiavic, on 10 March 2013 - 05:59 PM, said:

I'm in favour of this, but only as a 'light touch'. i.e. it should really only be used to restrict which Mechs can take the very largest weapons (of each type), and occasionally to limit a Mech's hardpoint in a particular spot to very small weapons only. Most Mechs should be able to take most weapons (of the relevant type of course) on their hardpoints, irrespective of how big the default weapons the Mech comes with are.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say from the start, only you put it much clearer! This is a balancing tool I'm suggesting, not something that has to be applied to every single hard point on every single mech. I generally see this mostly being used on light and medium mechs with fewer cases on heavy mechs and very few instances where an assault mech needs limiting (although this may change when very large weapons like Long Tom's are added).

[zverofaust]

Yes, this is the only rational way to do this. It's kind of boring that almost every Mech can perform almost every function -- really there are only 3 types of Mechs in MWO at the moment. ECM boats, LRM boats, everything else. Take something like the Nova Cat, one of my favorite Mechs and one designed specifically around fielding a ridiculous number of PPCs -- it's already far outclassed by pretty much any other Mech with 5 or more energy slots. So what's the point of it? Not even going to bother bringing up the K2 and its Gauss/AC/20.

[Therrinian]

To me its clear that a machine gun rig is not the same as a gauss riffle rig, and should not be interchangeable as is currently the case. The MW4 system I think was very clear and obvious and followed a logic that seems realistic.

The current level of customization also negates the need for a lot of mechs and their variants.
For example the Hollander, a light mech specifically built around the fact that it could carry a gauss with a huge barrel sticking out of its side torso. It feels a bit silly that a raven can equip something tis structure was not intended to carry.

To me its clear that a machine gun rig is not the same as a gauss riffle rig, and should not be interchangeable as is currently the case. The MW4 system I think was very clear and obvious and followed a logic that seems realistic.

The current level of customization also negates the need for a lot of mechs and their variants.
For example the Hollander, a light mech specifically built around the fact that it could carry a gauss with a huge barrel sticking out of its side torso. It feels a bit silly that a raven can equip something tis structure was not intended to carry.

[Big Giant Head]

Therrinian, on 11 March 2013 - 03:28 AM, said:

To me its clear that a machine gun rig is not the same as a gauss riffle rig, and should not be interchangeable as is currently the case. The MW4 system I think was very clear and obvious and followed a logic that seems realistic.

The current level of customization also negates the need for a lot of mechs and their variants.
For example the Hollander, a light mech specifically built around the fact that it could carry a gauss with a huge barrel sticking out of its side torso. It feels a bit silly that a raven can equip something tis structure was not intended to carry.

To me its clear that a machine gun rig is not the same as a gauss riffle rig, and should not be interchangeable as is currently the case. The MW4 system I think was very clear and obvious and followed a logic that seems realistic.

The current level of customization also negates the need for a lot of mechs and their variants.
For example the Hollander, a light mech specifically built around the fact that it could carry a gauss with a huge barrel sticking out of its side torso. It feels a bit silly that a raven can equip something tis structure was not intended to carry.

Correct.This is what I was pointing to.
check my post at bottom page 3 ...

[Attalward]

I support this as well.

We need a bit more personality for each mech. More differentiation among them.

[Vincent Lynch]

Half the fun of MWO is from modifying Mechs.
Reducing the options will drive players away.
OP, you want MWO to die, right?

[Featherwood]

Vincent Lynch, on 13 March 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Half the fun of MWO is from modifying Mechs.
Reducing the options will drive players away.
OP, you want MWO to die, right?

That's very ridiculous view on variety of Mechs configurations, IMO. Current HardPoint system is illogical and tend to lead to boating, which in turn makes MWO tough playground for new players and has other negative impacts on gameplay experience - how long ago have you stayed against A+LRM showers or got shot by 6xPPC Stalker?

Edited by Featherwood, 13 March 2013 - 06:42 AM.

[Vincent Lynch]

Featherwood, on 13 March 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

That's very ridiculous view on variety of Mechs configurations, IMO. Current HardPoint system is illogical and tend to lead to boating, which in turn makes MWO tough playground for new players and has other negative impacts on gameplay experience - how long ago have you stayed again A+LRM showers or got shot by 6xPPC Stalker?

First, I think there's nothing illogical about the current hardpoint system. While I would like some chassis of the same Mech to be more different (e.g. Stalker), overall I like the system. Suggestions like yours would make it overly complicated and difficult to understand for many players, which means then it would be illogical.
Also, all these cheesebuilds are just walking clusters of weakpoints. The two you mentioned, for example, have both minimum range exceptions. I can walk straight up to them with a medium Mech, stand right in front of them, and cut them into small pieces with M-lasers while they fire, and fire, and fire, and do no damage to me. That's not theory, I even once did that with a 6-PPC Stalker while driving a trial Hunchback, and the dead stalker player spent all the rest of the game spitting insults at me on ingame chat, which was hilarious.
Splatcats on the other hand, if anybody on your team is worth her or his salt, will die in a LRM-hailstorm before coming close enough to even fire, in many cases.
I should also add that "boats" are not a cheesy MWO thing. The AWS-8Q or the HBK-4P are boats stockwise, also a lot of Mechs not yet added to MWO are boats, like the Yeoman, Viking, Annihilator, ... not even talking about Clan Mechs like the Warhawk Prime, Nova Prime, or Arctic Wolf.
No matter what build i'm driving myself (I currently have 8 chassis, none of them do boat anything exclusively), any balanced build is always a much tougher foe than any boat.

On a related note:
While personally I don't give a bloody XXXX, you should think about calling other people's opinions ridiculous. You might get problems with the forum admins.

[Torquemada]

Vincent Lynch, on 13 March 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Half the fun of MWO is from modifying Mechs.
Reducing the options will drive players away.
OP, you want MWO to die, right?

Actually the opposite. The fastest way for an MMO to lose players if there are grave imbalances in the game which result in a situation where only a few (in our case specific builds) options lead to by far the highest win/kill ratio. With the current system this is already the case, just browse through the General forum and see how many complaints there are regarding 'cookie' builds and other examples of builds that are effectively game breaking / OP due to the inability to balance the game as it stands. If the second layer I suggested was added by PGI they could use it very easily to balance the game by enabling specific hard points to also be sized restricted where required.

[Vincent Lynch]

Torquemada, on 13 March 2013 - 05:49 AM, said:

Actually the opposite. The fastest way for an MMO to lose players if there are grave imbalances in the game which result in a situation where only a few (in our case specific builds) options lead to by far the highest win/kill ratio. With the current system this is already the case, just browse through the General forum and see how many complaints there are regarding 'cookie' builds and other examples of builds that are effectively game breaking / OP due to the inability to balance the game as it stands. If the second layer I suggested was added by PGI they could use it very easily to balance the game by enabling specific hard points to also be sized restricted where required.

My opinion is that boats are NOT the best builds, simply.

Also, I repeat, that customisation is the soul of any Mechwarrior game. You would remove what makes people play it.

[Featherwood]

Vincent Lynch, on 13 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

customisation is the soul of any Mechwarrior game.

I could sign that as well, but with small addition, that customization must have rational mechanics=limits behind it. I saw no reasonable enough limitations in MW2/MW3 MechLab and still see them not in MWO.

As for your attempt for bullying me:

Vincent Lynch, on 13 March 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

On a related note:
While personally I don't give a bloody XXXX, you should think about calling other people's opinions ridiculous. You might get problems with the forum admins.

you seems to be quite adequate person to choose that way, so there is PM to regulate any personal questions if you'd like it. Moreover, I had no intention to insult or whatsoever, just was irritated by your statement, making farce of all opinions opposite to yours.

[Big Giant Head]

Vincent Lynch, on 13 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

Also, I repeat, that customisation is the soul of any Mechwarrior game.

You are getting it wrong. We are not trying to dumb customization. There are boundaries, but we dont want to narrow them we want to reshape them so that it makes sense. If you would look around this thread and actually see what the players are suggesting, your opinion would be different.
Thats why this thread is created, because we hate the current system and a lot of players cant see the problem in the current hardpoint restriction, new players will get it wrong.
Do you know what a "cookie-cutter" means? Even WoW balanced talent system by now...

Vincent Lynch, on 13 March 2013 - 05:58 AM, said:

You would remove what makes people play it.

How?

Edited by Big Giant Head, 13 March 2013 - 10:18 AM.

[Nate O]

I say don't alter the ECM the way it is now, just buff or create other things that counteract it.

[Eddrick]

I prefer the kind that lets you mount the same number as stock. But, you can't the weapon out for a bigger one. Same size as stock weapon or smaller. Not, bigger.

I'm not sure about combining the hardpoints to allow a bigger weapon then the stock. Either way. Probably still better then what we have now.

Also, on the idea of limiting hardpoint size.

Eddrick, on 13 March 2013 - 12:21 PM, said:

This could also give a reason to allow critical slot splitting for large weapons without it being abused (Thinking of the AC/20 in the BattleMech King Crab's arm and the Sniper Artillery Piece mounted on the Helepolis BattleMech).

[Attalward]

Still supporting this added limitaitons to hardpoints. MORE PERSONALiTY FOR MY HUNCH G!

[MrTarget]

I Like the OP's take on this, I think that it will stop a lot of cheese builds that we see and bring balance to this game.

I know that it Will affect me as I will loose two of my more cherished builds (UAC5 Ilya and my AC20 CTF-2X), but the cheese is getting out of hand.

Its either This or bring back Premade versus pugs back, I'm bored of trying to communicate with "lone wolf's".

Edited by MrTarget, 14 March 2013 - 09:02 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Please vote...if you mind:

http://mwomercs.com/...st-discussions/

[Torquemada]

Have updated the thread with a second poll. Given this idea could be achieved with either restricting slots and / or restricting weight per hard point I thought it best to ask which people would prefer.

As before though, this idea is not designed to 'nerf' all Mechs or even likely to be applied to many Mechs if implemented. It's there as a tool to enable Mech's to be better balanced and differentiated by making it possible (if needed) to restrict some hard point locations. As an example, the Atlas D and the Atlas D-DC can mount identical ballistic options. However the D-DC could potentially be prevented from using AC20's by either restricting the maximum ballistic hard point slot number to 9 or fewer criticals or weight per slot of under 14t. This could be justified due to all of the extra internals the D-DC requires to make use of extra modules and advanced electronics. This is the sort of situation I see this idea being used.

If you've previously voted 'No' please take this opportunity to rethink why you voted that way and if you still agree with your initial thought or if the arguments and counter-arguments presented by many people in this thread have persuaded you to change to a 'Yes' or stick with a 'No'.

One last point, to vote in the new poll you must 'delete vote' and then re-vote.

Edited by Torquemada, 16 March 2013 - 09:47 PM.

[Xenok]

This is the single worst idea I have ever seen on this forum

What makes mechwarrior fun is building out a raven with an AC20 on it, or some other interesting build. If you limit the hardpoints further it will make the game cookie cutter and destroy it. Who wants to play a game where every mech ends up the same. We see to much of that all ready and limiting what weapons can go on what mounts by weight or by criticle slots is a horrible idea that would ruin much of the fun this game offers.

I for one am looking forward to getting OMNI hardpoints that can have anything on them to provide greater flexibiliy and more awsome builds to watch out for. I love needing to check out that raven for an ac20 and adjusting my playstyle for it. Or needing to adjust for a splat cat, dual gauss snipper....

Quit compaining about ballance and figure out how to addapt to the game. I do not want ballance I want rock sizzor paper. I want to make choices and min/max and I want other players to do the same. If I make a splat cat (probably the most Min/Max mech right now) it has serious drawbacks. Short range, fire that is spread all over the attacker. Its strength is in a backstab attack, and in most other situtations its not effective. Situational awareness is its counter and a very effective one. Such builds need to exist to make the game fun.