213 replies to this topic

[Karl Streiger]

Doxylicious, on 06 March 2013 - 03:45 PM, said:

You sir are one of those guys that dont like fun. i DONT like your suggestion, it removes the fun off a game

And you Sir seems to be one of the guys that removes the fun of a good battle... point klick kill is the real fun killer

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 March 2013 - 04:30 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

focuspark, on 05 March 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

Something like this could work too. There's no perfect solution until the devs balance the weapons properly.

Yes, this (sugg that I made and most of the players suggested similarly) is one of the ways to do it.

IRONxPagan, on 06 March 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

Another option that could work with the current system would be adding some sort of recoil system. Give each weapon a set recoil which requires a set amount of mech tonage to mount and use. Example being an AC2 requires 10 tons to use, so 3 AC2 would require a mech that ways 30 tons, or an AC20 requires 40 tons to use so you would need a mech that weighs 40 tons to use it.

IMO, i would put restriction on it, but i would also implement some of the modules that allows you to do it (e.g. right arm module...), and plus if you enable it, then some physical risk like lower health of that AC/20 in Ravens 4X left arm e.g. 12 instead of 18 or just making it more expensive to repair (in future, i hope so =D)

There is just a lot of ways to combine gameplay, its crazy...

Edited by Big Giant Head, 07 March 2013 - 05:33 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Someone in another post had a brilliant idea regarding missile hardpoints. It was to keep the hardpoints, but to have the total # of missiles able to be fired dependent on the # of missile tubes on the 'mech.

[Weatherman]

Hotthedd, on 07 March 2013 - 06:45 AM, said:

Someone in another post had a brilliant idea regarding missile hardpoints. It was to keep the hardpoints, but to have the total # of missiles able to be fired dependent on the # of missile tubes on the 'mech.

That is an interesting idea, but I don't like it. I think it is better to have a fixed size to each hardpoint, which is more flexible. Limiting missile systems by number of tubes can be far more limiting and only addresses one problem, not the whole of the issue.

Example: A MW4 hardpoint limitation system can do the same thing. The Atlas D has an LRM-20 and an SRM-6 stock. If I remember correctly (it has been a while since I used LRMs in my Atlas) the LRM-20 fires in two salvos of 10 missiles. I think the SRM-6 fires all 6 missiles in a salvo. So in an MW4 system, you represent this by having a Large Missile slot (the LRM-20) and a Medium Missile slot (the SRM-6). You aren't going to be putting two LRM-20s on your mech, but you might be able to put a 20 and a 15 or 10. Or you drop the LRM-20 and replace it with an SRM-6, which is fine since the SRM-6 fits nicely in that Large Missile slot.

I truly believe that this is a workable solution to some issues that have been bothering what I think is a large group of players.

[Joker Two]

Torquemada, on 06 March 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

@ Joker Two

I think that mechanism would be too simplistic. By giving much finer control, as was the intention of my idea, it means that each mech can be very easily tweaked as needed to balance load out issues. Also for some future weapons, like the TomTom or the PPC+Capacitors or Heavy Gauss, these are huge weapons, that in canon, only a very few select mechs could use. If a system is in place which allows easy refinement of existing mech load out options then it becomes much simpler to add new weapons like these into the game. If the system is simply a small or large hardpoint then that will lead to future issues where suddenly a wide range of Mech chassis' can equip very large weapons that should actually be quite chassis specific.

A more detailed system is better, but I was trying to strike a balance between accuracy, balance, and ease of implementation. Purely basing the hardpoint limitation on weapon crits could be very problematic, as energy, ballistics, and missiles all have different patterns of crit slots, meaning that the size of a hardpoint would mean different things for different weapon types. I'd like to see something closer to Zyllos's idea, but remember that tens of thousands of people have invested a lot of time and in many cases money to acquire the 'Mechs and equipment they have. Any system would have to tread a fine line between cutting back the worst exploits (CPLT-K2's ballistic hardpoints, STK-?? energy hardpoints) and invalidating dozens of moderate builds that people have created.

[Sybreed]

I support this idea... I actually suggested this myself in closed beta forums but got textually lynched for it. Now, people are perhaps realizing MW4's system wasn't so dumb after all.

Also, to those thinking you could only downgrade weapons with MW4's system, I'll give these examples:

- Instead of an AC/20, you can put a Gauss, and vice versa.
- Instead of a LLaser, you could try fitting a PPC or ER PPC or ER LLaser, etc.
- Instead of a machine gun, you could fit an AC/2.

It would actually let people be as creative as they want.... but PGI would need to make some lighter weapons (MGs, Flamers) a lot more useful than they are now.

[Dirus Nigh]

Customization is apart of canon. If it was not there would not be any characters with customized mechs. The mech construction/customization rules would not exist.

The construction system in MWO is working very well. Just because you do not like another persons build does not justify changing the game in order force people to play the way you think it should be played.

[Weatherman]

Dirus Nigh, on 07 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Customization is apart of canon. If it was not there would not be any characters with customized mechs. The mech construction/customization rules would not exist.

The construction system in MWO is working very well. Just because you do not like another persons build does not justify changing the game in order force people to play the way you think it should be played.

I am not on this bandwagon simply because I dislike certain builds (though that does tend to irk me). I am here because I believe in staying close to canon. A GaussCat is not close to canon, it isn't even in the same galaxy. I would like the Devs take a good look at the current hardpoint system and how it lends itself to abuse. This quasi-fettered customization we have now is definitely better than an entirely unfettered customization model. But that doesn't mean this current model is good, it just means there are worse ways to go. If the Devs really want to (and I figure if enough players talk about it) then they can institutes some limits on what can be assigned to a hardpoint. I don't think that detracts from the game, all it does is annoy people who like trying to find ways around the rules and canon to be as OP as they can.

Edited by Weatherman, 07 March 2013 - 07:22 PM.

[IRONxPagan]

Another idea would be to redo some of the free slots by reducing the total number of free slots on some mechs and moving more to the legs and possibly head. With this you would also need to scale the number of slots required for armor and structure upgrades based on class of mech.

[ice trey]

Personally, I think that in losing the Repair/Reload costs mechanic, a potentially effective balancing tool was lost as well.

Had they kept the R&R system, they could have done like Battletech fiction does and make it prohibitively expensive to customize a 'mech - first of all for the initial cost (That's actually pretty balanced right now), but also for the maintenance costs. The costs for major customizations (like the 6PPC Stalker and AC20 Ravens that are commonly discussed) would have very harsh upkeep costs, while "Field Refits", such as swapping a medium laser for a Medium pulse laser or two Smalls, or an LRM15 for two SRM6'es with an extra ton of ammo, or pulling the torso-mounted medium laser for a spare heat-sink or extra armor... those sort of minor refits would have a much less prohibitive upkeep. Likewise, R&R would also inspire players to be a little less overzealous with the reliance on stuff like XL engines and Artemis equipped missiles, as too much of said gear could cost players more C-bills in repair bills and upkeep than they could earn in a given match.

Honestly, I highly disagree with the move to abandon the R&R system and mourn it's removal.

Edited by ice trey, 07 March 2013 - 10:07 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

Dirus Nigh, on 07 March 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

Customization is apart of canon. If it was not there would not be any characters with customized mechs. The mech construction/customization rules would not exist.

The construction system in MWO is working very well. Just because you do not like another persons build does not justify changing the game in order force people to play the way you think it should be played.

the mech construction rules... are some what of a simple theoretical tool.
newer rulebooks gives you a good idea what you can do and what you can not.
All the builds we can do in MWO means that some were in a manufactering hall machines have to be configured... in some orbital facility they have to create a complete new endo steel chassis and that goes on and on.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 March 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[Void2258]

This would make a lot more sense, and give heavier mechs a reason to exist. RIght now I am running all light and medium mechs, because I can fit whatever I want in them and the speed and maneuverability more than makes up for having less armament, when I can mount whatever I want for that armament. I have an ER PPC in a Raven, which should not be possible. Same with Gauseappults, etc.

[Weatherman]

IRONxPagan, on 07 March 2013 - 09:16 PM, said:

Another idea would be to redo some of the free slots by reducing the total number of free slots on some mechs and moving more to the legs and possibly head. With this you would also need to scale the number of slots required for armor and structure upgrades based on class of mech.

That wouldn't work because the mech design format is a well established canon format. I don't see any way of changing that (though if you notice, some mechs give up their hand and lower arm actuators to open slots in their arms, this is canon). As for scaling down the slots needed for FF armor and ES internal structure, let me paint you a picture:

I have a ECM Raven, I only use half the normal amount of slots to lighten my armor and internal structure than an Assault mech, now I have the extra weight AND plenty of crits to put in a gauss rifle or some other ridiculous load out. Lowering the amount of slots for FF and ES would OP all light and medium mechs to insane new levels.

@ice trey: Absolutely agree with you, the R&R system was an effective management system in keeping OP builds reasonable. Especially with the new fragility of the Gauss, and the expense of replacing Artemis missile ammo, it would help curtail, to some extent, the prevalence of some of the common "OP" builds. Seriously, for those of us that played in the R&R system, remember how much it cost to rearm LRMs and repair a gauss? Not to mention that the gauss does extra damage to your mech when it explodes.

@Void2258: Thank you for seeing the reason behind this. Limiting the number of slots associated with a hardpoint as determined by the weight and original load out of weaponry makes role warfare very important again. Instead of playing a dozen Ravens with gauss rifles and ECM, you have to mix in some heavier models to have access to that extra firepower.

[IRONxPagan]

Weatherman, on 08 March 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

That wouldn't work because the mech design format is a well established canon format. I don't see any way of changing that (though if you notice, some mechs give up their hand and lower arm actuators to open slots in their arms, this is canon). As for scaling down the slots needed for FF armor and ES internal structure, let me paint you a picture:

I have a ECM Raven, I only use half the normal amount of slots to lighten my armor and internal structure than an Assault mech, now I have the extra weight AND plenty of crits to put in a gauss rifle or some other ridiculous load out. Lowering the amount of slots for FF and ES would OP all light and medium mechs to insane new levels.

My comment about scaling required slots for armor and structor based on weight class was ment to be in conjuction with lowering and moving the number of free slots in the mech. I'm aware that scaleing with the current free slots would make Light Mechs more out of wack than they already are.

[Foster Bondroff]

Please no. Not more restrictions.

What most people do not realise is that hardpoints never where and never will be a real balancing factor. They where not in MW4, they wont be in MWO. They are a limiting factor. They simply limit the number of viable chassis, based on the current weapons & equipment balance or imbalance.

If you now even put more restriction on by limiting HP size, the number of viable chassis will further decrease, thus forcing the players into certain FOTM-chassis.

BT has its limits that would be totaly sufficient, internal space and tonnage.

Edited by Foster Bondroff, 08 March 2013 - 03:01 PM.

[Big Giant Head]

Foster Bondroff, on 08 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Please no. Not more restrictions.

What most people do not realise is that hardpoints never where and never will be a real balancing factor. They where not in MW4, they wont be in MWO. They are a limiting factor. They simply limit the number of viable chassis, based on the current weapons & equipment balance or imbalance.

If you now even put more restriction on by limiting HP size, the number of viable chassis will further decrease, thus forcing the players into certain FOTM-chassis.

BT has its limits that would be totaly sufficient, internal space and tonnage.

I agree with in some way tho, because who says that I cant have e.g.: AC/10 in my Awesome build? There is chassis and structure in it - why would I wanna limit my weapon load to certain weapon types (energy, missiles, balistic)?
How to balance that?
Let there be stock hardpoints on every chassis/variant. It would cost less to just buy stock hardpoint mech than doing it manually to set your build to your desire which would cost more to buy and to repair.... (ofc there is no R&R, not any version of it...)
Plus dont forget AC/20 req 3 hardpoints on top if that I would add current crit system

Edited by Big Giant Head, 08 March 2013 - 04:19 PM.

[Dirus Nigh]

Karl Streiger, on 07 March 2013 - 11:50 PM, said:

the mech construction rules... are some what of a simple theoretical tool.
newer rulebooks gives you a good idea what you can do and what you can not.
All the builds we can do in MWO means that some were in a manufactering hall machines have to be configured... in some orbital facility they have to create a complete new endo steel chassis and that goes on and on.

You make no sense. The argument that because you need a factory and there is no factory in this video game you cant customize your mechs. That is a ******** argument. Its a video game get over yourself. Creating customized mechs is part of the game.

However because you need to be all realistic about this. Maybe we need to have real time travel when CW is implemented. The MWO time line is 1 to 1. That is one day real life one day in game. So if you ever want to go fight another house you need to travel that distance in real time. Have fun being stuck on a drop ship for three months. Because its canon.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 08 March 2013 - 06:14 PM.

[Weatherman]

Foster Bondroff, on 08 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Please no. Not more restrictions.

What most people do not realise is that hardpoints never where and never will be a real balancing factor. They where not in MW4, they wont be in MWO. They are a limiting factor. They simply limit the number of viable chassis, based on the current weapons & equipment balance or imbalance.

If you now even put more restriction on by limiting HP size, the number of viable chassis will further decrease, thus forcing the players into certain FOTM-chassis.

BT has its limits that would be totaly sufficient, internal space and tonnage.

I am not advocating restrictions, I am advocating a change designed to help balance the game. It's common sense, you can't simply give a 6 year old a 12 gauge shotgun and not expect him to blow his self backwards, I don't see why we shouldn't look at putting a Gauss Rifle on a Raven in the same way. This is an effort to keep some physics based realism in the game (look at how they do lasers if you want an example).

For that matter if you simply look at the design of mechs you can see that hardpoints were designed around the stock weapon they carried, which means an MG hardpoint shouldn't be able to hold anything larger than an MG or an AC/2. A medium laser hardpoint shouldn't be packing a PPC because it is NOT designed for that, regardless of the critical slots available.

Honestly, the most common argument I keep hearing against this is "because we should be able to do whatever we want" and that should NEVER apply to a game, especially a game that wants to stick close to a huge amount of canon material. Those of you who see these restrictions as constraining your "creativity" seem to really be mad at the fact that some of us want to restrain your unrealistic, non-canon builds and restore some balance to the game. As to reducing the amount of viable variants: I think this would make a variants even more vital. Take the Atlas, the RS downgrades the AC and the missile launchers, so it would have smaller slots there than the other Atlas variants. But the RS has an two energy hardpoints in each arm that can house a Large Laser (the K also has a single large energy hardpoint in each arm that can house a Large Laser). With the D and the D-DC you only have Medium Lasers in the arms which means you can't up-size them, ergo, variants become more viable based on what you want to run.

[Torquemada]

Weatherman provides sound logic. As in my original post something does need doing because it's too easy to build a Mech that just makes no logical sense. When I started this post I didn't want to advocate restricting every hard point, but that it should be added as a second layer of balancing so that PGI can further refine chassis' so they can no longer fit oversize weapons where they shouldn't be, or too many of a given weapon type e.g. 6 x 6 SRM's for the Splatcat. Weatherman is a great advocate of some sense of 'realism', or basically preventing Mechs using something that under canon they simply should be unable to.

MWO really does need some form of balance implemented and this was simply my suggestion to fit in a better system than hard points all without critical slot restrictions. I am very much open to hearing alternative workable suggestions and encourage anyone who has a different option to please post it so we can debate it.

[Zyllos]

Foster Bondroff, on 08 March 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Please no. Not more restrictions.

What most people do not realise is that hardpoints never where and never will be a real balancing factor. They where not in MW4, they wont be in MWO. They are a limiting factor. They simply limit the number of viable chassis, based on the current weapons & equipment balance or imbalance.

If you now even put more restriction on by limiting HP size, the number of viable chassis will further decrease, thus forcing the players into certain FOTM-chassis.

BT has its limits that would be totaly sufficient, internal space and tonnage.

Your suggestion means there is no difference between ANY 50t mech (except for the silhouette). This means the Raven would always be played over the Jenner (because both are 35t).

This is why hardpoint limits need to exist. But they are not restrictive enough because of how much liberalization is allowed in customization.

The reason why mechs became FotM with high restrictiveness is because of weapon convergence. Players always wants the easiest way to kill a mech. So they find mechs that allow all their weapons to hit a single point because it is much easier to kill a target when all your weapons hit a single point. Remove weapon convergence and you will begin to see a much more balanced MWO.

Dirus Nigh, on 08 March 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

You make no sense. The argument that because you need a factory and there is no factory in this video game you cant customize your mechs. That is a ******** argument. Its a video game get over yourself. Creating customized mechs is part of the game.

However because you need to be all realistic about this. Maybe we need to have real time travel when CW is implemented. The MWO time line is 1 to 1. That is one day real life one day in game. So if you ever want to go fight another house you need to travel that distance in real time. Have fun being stuck on a drop ship for three months. Because its canon.

Love the strawman argument. Because someone wants balanced mech customization because the CBT limited mech builds by other external factors, which feel "realistic", that everything else in the game must hamper gameplay because someone wanted it to be balanced.