213 replies to this topic

[Ialdabaoth]

Heck, even just flagging a *few* hardpoints as 'small' (example: the Catapult torso energy weapons, the Raven and Spider arm ballistic weapons, etc.) would go a long way towards fixing some of this silliness. Just have a 'small' hardpoint able to mount any one-crit ballistic or energy weapon, and you're gold.

[tenderloving]

Sybreed, on 07 March 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

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.

Man I remember those closed beta threads. *shudders*

It saddens me to think all the damage the TT nerds did to this game by screaming bloody murder whenever ANY restrictions were placed on customization. Thankfully as the game grows their stupid is being diluted by people who want a good game experience and not masturbation fodder for their fantasies about characters in the novels.

[Sybreed]

tenderloving, on 03 April 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Man I remember those closed beta threads. *shudders*

It saddens me to think all the damage the TT nerds did to this game by screaming bloody murder whenever ANY restrictions were placed on customization. Thankfully as the game grows their stupid is being diluted by people who want a good game experience and not masturbation fodder for their fantasies about characters in the novels.

I know. You know, there was some stuff from TT that I defended, but I never wanted the customization that is permitted here. Tonight, I played 5-6 matches with my brother and we always ended up getting 1 or 2 shot from huge alphas. Against a coordinated team, you don't last long, believe me.

We're now talking about not playing the game anymore, cause we're really not enjoying it. Perhaps I'll come back in a few months and play from time to time between here and then, but I'm seriously disappointed in the direction the game is taking. PGI cattered to the CoD crowd.... and I talked to Garth about it and it doesn't look like PGI has any intention of changing their hardpoint system.... anyway, look at how slowly they're doing balance changes, do you really think they would overhaul the mechlab? Imagine the screaming from the high alpha kids...

Also, the fact that they're customizing each mechs so their weapons are shown (see K-2) also shows they're keeping the same direction...

edit: If they were constant, they would remove the K-2's freaking ears if there are no weapons there..... but yeah, armor and all...

Edited by Sybreed, 03 April 2013 - 06:35 PM.

[Sybreed]

also, do you remember how flamed we got for suggesting such heresy?

[Theodor Kling]

I think the best sollution is the already suggested assignment of multible hardpoints to larger weapons

[Dimitry Matveyev]

I think, that hardpoint should have size limitations. It very logical - if a chasis is designtd to have big guns, than it's ok for big guns. If not - than only small/medium.

[Karl Streiger]

Dimitry Matveyev, on 06 April 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

I think, that hardpoint should have size limitations. It very logical - if a chasis is designtd to have big guns, than it's ok for big guns. If not - than only small/medium.

The concept is simple - and as you said logical.

Hollander = Gauss
Raven = Machine Gun at best...

[MasterErrant]

Renthrak, on 01 March 2013 - 04:49 AM, said:

You seem to be mistaken regarding several facts. The Stalker 5M can carry a maximum of 4 PPCs. The fifth energy hard point is in the center torso. The Stalker 3F, 4N, and 5S can carry 6 PPCs, with two energy hard points in each arm, and one in each side torso. I would vastly prefer the existing arrangement rather than your suggestion, which would allow a Stalker to carry a dozen medium lasers. Which, by the way, is exactly the same alpha strike damage as the 6 PPC build, but with a higher rate of fire.

As for an AC20 Raven, the only possible way to core a big 'Mech from behind in 2 shots would involve an ammo explosion. Assuming you aren't firing at something that has already taken a beating from someone else, which ceases to be anything worth talking about.

I personally despise MW4's weapon slot system. Taking the customization that has been the staple of MechWarrior from the beginning and dumbing it down to color-coded blocks was just plain insulting. I was quite relieved to find that MWO has returned to the critical slot system, and I think that weapon hardpoints are a perfectly reasonable way to impose some limitations without throwing away the system that has been used for so long.

in what way does this resemble TT? the MW$ system was far closer and in fact was Cannon...all mechs in TT are infinitely adaptable but the books are full of optional rules that limit this. minor variations in mech design are simple but changing a base hunchie into an energy boot requires a factory lever rebuild. or you get piloting/reliability nerfs...

ThE MW4 system just enforced that.

tenderloving, on 03 April 2013 - 06:20 PM, said:

Man I remember those closed beta threads. *shudders*

It saddens me to think all the damage the TT nerds did to this game by screaming bloody murder whenever ANY restrictions were placed on customization. Thankfully as the game grows their stupid is being diluted by people who want a good game experience and not masturbation fodder for their fantasies about characters in the novels.

so they cot the most stupid restriction possible.

[Karl Streiger]

MasterErrant, on 15 April 2013 - 01:10 PM, said:

in what way does this resemble TT? the MW$ system was far closer and in fact was Cannon...all mechs in TT are infinitely adaptable but the books are full of optional rules that limit this. minor variations in mech design are simple but changing a base hunchie into an energy boot requires a factory lever rebuild. or you get piloting/reliability nerfs...

Not to mention the changes of sturcture or fusion type.
However the problem is not Alpha Boat Damage alone.

However without permiting the Boom or Gauss Jaeger..it would be nice to see a real difference...the Gaussjaeger should only be acchieved by the D replacing UAC5 and AC2. while the AC 20 could only be placed into the S repalcing AC5 and AC2.

Problem is that the Gauss is still the imba weapon it was since it "development" for tabletop

[Peiper]

I agree with the OP on principle. This is my version of a fix for alpha-warrior online. Sorry for the cut and paste, just pasting it here because it fits with the discussion and I'm a zealot like that, yo.

The problem is not speed, hitboxes, heat, damage, or whatever. The problem is frankenmeching. The Awesome is special in Battletech because its one of the only mechs that boats PPC's. The Stalkers don't have any PPC's or Gauss Rifles, and the Atlas has no more than one AC20 or Gauss and no PPC's if I recall. The Highlander has no more than one PPC/Gauss/large AC mounted on any of it's variants.

I remember a year ago when we were begging for PGI to announce the Awesome as one of the first mechs we could play with. We wanted a PPC boat.

Well, now EVERY mech has PPC's or large autocannons. Part of this is because we don't have any other targets to shoot at besides mechs, so we use mech killing weapons. We can't torch bunkers and light woods on fire with our flamers. We can't shoot down aircraft with our AC/2s. We can kill infantry with machine guns. We can't knock out in buildings and turrets indirectly with LRM's. We don't have to worry about little vehicles and battlearmor, so we don't need small, medium lasers, AC/5's, SRMs.
The other part is that despite what the mechs were designed to do lore-wise, and despite what the mechs LOOK like, we can turn them into something completely different and wreck what makes any of the mechs unique. We mind as well trash several chassis because they have no purpose when another mech can do their job better.

PGI says they want to honor classic battletech, but they missed the boat with how their hardpoints work. They are stuck thinking about weapons as ballistic/energy/missiles. Hardpoints should be based on the model of the mech their looking at, and size, rather than type.

Weapon Hardpoints should look like this:
Large bore (PPC's, Gauss, large ACs)
Medium bore (L.Lasers, medium AC's)
Small bore (S/M Lasers, M guns, AC2s, flamers)
Large missle racks (LRM 10-20)
Small missle racks (SRMs, SSRMs, LRM 5s)
-and-
Support gear like NARC and TAG should not use hardpoints.

While it's still BETA, they should redefine hardpoints. Then you'll see a much bigger variety of mech builds out there...

[Karl Streiger]

Based on this idea...i have thought about how a player could have a "free" MechLab but not without costs other than C-Bills..
so i created (maybe some were before me) this suggestion,

http://mwomercs.com/...ct-the-mechlab/

Main Idea is: you have the choice get some "XP" Skill Bonus as you know them allready...or modifiy your Mech.
You can achieve a PPC Stalker with going directly for Weapon Omni Mech....but you still need other "Skills" for updating Heatsinks and Engine, and you still would not have ...the Skill fore the increased Heat Cap and Heat Disipation.

So lets say to get a 6PPC Stalker that is not as effective as it is now after spending of 170.000 XP....means you can build 3 propper Mechs in the same time.

[Eddrick]

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

They simply limit the number of viable chassis, based on the current weapons & equipment balance or imbalance.

On the contrary. It would give the Mechs that came stock with big weapons a reason to exists. Prime examples being the Awesome for boating PPCs and the Hunchback being a Medium with a big weapon on its sholder.

[Hellcat420]

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.

not in the inner sphere. the weapon customization was really unheard of until the clans showed up with their omnimechs, and it took the inner sphere years to get even close to catching up to omnimech technology. only the richest of the rich had customized weapon loadouts on their mechs(a.k.a. royalty). the only thing inner sphere mechs could customize at this point in cannon was engine/structure/armor type. anything else costed ridiculous amount of money and a mech factory that made it out of the reach for all but an extremely select few, and that is why "hero mechs" are rare in cannon. you shouldnt speak about cannon lore of the game when you dont know much about it. to sum it up, in cannon inner sphere mechs could change engine/structure/armor but not weapons, while omnimechs could change weapons, but not engine/structure/armor. in video games they removed this restrictions because they apparently made the games too hard for people to play.

Edited by Hellcat420, 26 April 2013 - 02:55 PM.

[Funky Bacon]

So, you basically want something like this?

Giving you a max size of weapon per Hard Point. A mech could have two single slot HP and one 3 slot HP is one section, depending on mech and variant.

This stalker for example would have two 2 slot energy HP and a 5 slot missile HP in the arms.
A more energy focuses stalker might have one 3 slot energy HP and one 2 slot energy HP, with less slots for the missile launcher. Giving diversity among variants and more focused roles, while still allowing some decent customization.




I would personally prefer to just give each section a slot limitation for each weapon type that is shared for those weapon HP's in that section. Say this stalker would have 4 energy slots shared by 2 HP's. Which would mean you could fit 1 PPC and any single slot energy weapon. or two 2 slot energy weapons, or just two small energy weapons.

[Torquemada]

I had thought either way might work but personally would prefer the second choice you talk about.

Using your example I would suggest just restricting it for some weapon slots so while there are 12 slots in the arm in total, the two lasers might be restricted to 3 or 4 slots in total, which would allow two large lasers or a single ERPPC (plus a small/medium if the four option was in place). For the missiles it wouldn't need to be restricted.

[Dirus Nigh]

Hellcat420, on 26 April 2013 - 02:51 PM, said:

not in the inner sphere. the weapon customization was really unheard of until the clans showed up with their omnimechs, and it took the inner sphere years to get even close to catching up to omnimech technology. only the richest of the rich had customized weapon loadouts on their mechs(a.k.a. royalty). the only thing inner sphere mechs could customize at this point in cannon was engine/structure/armor type. anything else costed ridiculous amount of money and a mech factory that made it out of the reach for all but an extremely select few, and that is why "hero mechs" are rare in cannon. you shouldnt speak about cannon lore of the game when you dont know much about it. to sum it up, in cannon inner sphere mechs could change engine/structure/armor but not weapons, while omnimechs could change weapons, but not engine/structure/armor. in video games they removed this restrictions because they apparently made the games too hard for people to play.

NOPE

People made due with what they had. If the owner of a Griffin lost it's PPC and they could not get a new one they could just as easily put in a large laser. It was possible, it did not take a mech factory to make most of the changes player do with their mechs.

TT give rules for customizing/constructing a mech and what is required for what type of customization. If the player has access to a dropship you can do all but the most complex modifications on a mech. That is usually reserved for changing to endo steel, at which point you might as well be rebuilding a mech from the ground up. However that is IF you and your friends as a group want to play with that level of detail in an RPG style game.

MWO is not an RPG. It is a simulator type FPS. The fact that a player has to grind out C-Bills in order to buy weapons and equipment is the compromise to not having a factory in the game.

Just remember just because it did not happen in a novel does not mean it can not exist.

[Big Giant Head]

If you want to balance this, first thing you have to ask yourself:

What makes 1 mech different from another?

If you suggested low restriction customization, why are there so many mechs? because basically you can create almost any build with one chassis (if that is the case). There is no point for other mechs to exist.

I do like Funky Bacon suggestion tho, very very close to my personal

No matter what changes you make for the weapon values or hardpoints only thing that matters is team cooperation and pilot skill. So make big changes from there, for example mark yourself as assault so your mediums know where the hell they must be on battlefield. We need more improvements for the battlegrid and minimap

Edited by Big Giant Head, 28 April 2013 - 06:01 AM.

[Kivin]

I've read this thread in its entirety carefully, twice, and done my best to give serious consideration to each argument. Even the ones I despise. I am reasonably sure that instituting this change would be a very positive move for the game as a whole, and restore my personal faith and enjoyment in it.

Now, this thread has been derailed several times, so in an effort to remain on track, let's talk about the issue we're actually trying to solve:

In the current meta-game balance, players are rewarded with increased efficacy and performance by grouping many duplicates of the same weapon type.

If you don't agree with that statement, or feel like it doesn't accurately address the "issue," then we need to clarify it, or else we're just blowing around ideas without any real goal.

Assuming we can agree with the above statement, and agree that it is problematic for the health of the game, then I'll share a few thoughts. I don't profess any of this to be gospel, but I have put some considerable thought in to the issue.

(*) Imposing hard point limitations reduces choices:

This has been a common point of view, both in this thread and over the remainder of the forums. Anything that reduces the impression of player choice is a decidedly bad thing. Players feel like they're most in control when they choose to do a particular thing, and that thing leads to a successful outcome. And that makes people happy.

However, I feel like making limitations on some or all hard points in the game will actually lead to more player choices. Although players could make fewer viable kits with a particular chassis variant, they could use additional chassis variants to perform particular roles.

The Hunchback 4G has long been the ugly duckling of the Medium weight-class. And the Yen-Lo-Wang is a fairly lackluster Hero. But if (most) 'Mechs in the game were brought down a notch or two, the 4G and YLW might actually stand out in a weight class that typically fields fairly nominal weaponry like medium lasers, machine guns and streak pods.

(*) Applying the OP's change prevents desirable boating:

This is patently false. What it actually does it allow us (us: the people doing the balancing) to more finely tune the jobs of particular 'Mech variants. It could end up being perfectly acceptable for a certain variant to boat weapons. The Hunchback 4P could stand out in its weight class as a 'Mech with a fearsome number of medium lasers, or one of the few 'Mechs in the 50-tonne range which can actually squeeze the hardware of a couple large lasers in to its shoulder pod.

(*) This change could actually increase immersion and the simulation qualities of the game:

If we were to hypothetically limit the raw number of things that could go in to any given 'Mech component, then the modelers and artists would find it much more practical to implement gun-specific barrels for other chassis than the Jaegermech. You'd be able to drill down your optics on a particular foe and gauge what he's using.

(*) The "current situation" is an epidemic which is going to get worse over time:

We currently find ourselves in a situation where no sane player would willingly bring out many of the available 'Mech variants. In fact, players presently get stuck gathering XP on 'Mech variants which they don't like, just so they can use the one that is actually viable on the battlefield. By all accounts, Piranha is going to continue releasing 'Mech chassis well on in to the future. Based on simulations of the past six months, it can be hypothesized that many of these new releases will fit in to one of two categories:

(A) The chassis/variant does the same thing as what we already have, but better. Old dog gets traded out for the new puppy.

We've seen this already, when certain CTFs replaced the K2, Jaegers replaced both, Highlanders replaced all of the above. Please note: I'm not actively involved in the game right now, so if this is a colourful stretch, please give it some latitude.

( The chassis/variant does roughly the same thing as we already have, but worse. It's derided by many as a worthless addition to the game, poor use of developer resources, and the list goes on.

The Spider. Need I say more? I will: The Flea.

Adding an additional layer of limitations on the hard points would allow the developers the opportunity to bring some of these ugly ducklings back from the brink with a new lease on life. Other variants that literally have never been favoured in the meta could see use for the very first time.

In closing:

Imposing limitations on the players through hard points doesn't necessarily need to be a scary thing. The two all-important things that we should desire are:

- Enough choices that the game doesn't feel stale.
- Boundaries on choices so that we can't break the game.

These really go hand in hand. Choice without boundary will always get abused, and this leads to an unhealthy game and unhealthy player base. Some might call it "hard core," but what it typically leads to is a small, insular community which quickly rejects anything that isn't already in the game, and very high new-player retention, as beginners are unwelcomed by both players and punishing game mechanics.

I'm currently involved in three other gaming communities which are similarly symptomatic and they all suffer from exactly the same issues. Player choice is eclipsed by the fact that only a few actual options are sane in the meta. New players and open-minded vets are singled out and lynched by mobs of angry veterans who like it exactly like it is. The IP owners have difficulty holding on to new players because the game mechanics are difficult and punishing. Two of these games have been out for a fairly significant amount of time (like, out of beta for over a year) and have either had their time in the sun and lost most of their players (which is tragic) or never really reached the levels of success that they were slated for, which is really disappointing. I can't help but feel like MechWarrior Online is destined for the same fate, if the developers don't find a way to take away from us the tools of our own destruction.

Edited by Kivin, 29 April 2013 - 02:01 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Dirus Nigh, on 27 April 2013 - 05:03 PM, said:

People made due with what they had. If the owner of a Griffin lost it's PPC and they could not get a new one they could just as easily put in a large laser. It was possible, it did not take a mech factory to make most of the changes player do with their mechs.

Thanks for the assist.

Exactly a PPC could be replaced by a Large Laser - the other way is much more complicated
Some "Variants" as we know them are just Field Refit Kits (the K2 for example)

Or a AC5 could be replaced by a PPC...a vaild modification. A Modifciation that is actual not possible in MWO

Edited by Karl Streiger, 29 April 2013 - 01:53 AM.

[Bobzilla]

Isn't it just a matter of not all mechs should have the same amount of slots in each section? It seems like a jenner could almost fit in an atlas's head, yet they can hold the same volume. Or a Cat's torsos are as big as an awesome's slot wise, when clearly they are differnt sizes.

It would probably go a long way if they just changed the available slots to match what the mech would actually be capable of instead of all mech slots being cookie cutter.