213 replies to this topic

[Pht]

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.

Actually, the mw4 guys were on to a decent idea ... they just didn't do it right.

http://mwomercs.com/...dpost__p__54497

They did it as if hardpoints could simulate ALL possible builds of any given base chassis ... when hardpoints make that impossible.

If you use a slightly modified form of hardpoints AND put in a "new base chassis" for every non-omnimech variant, the hardpoint dumbing-down that happened in mw4 goes away.

[HeckobA]

Another good thing about this is that it would bring more variety to the game - why would I rather buy 'mech A if 'mech B has about the exact same or slightly better slots or tonnage? I know each 'mech is different in its own way, but say now maybe 'mech A could mount a heavier type weapon than 'mech B in one place, makes A a viable option again.

[Big Giant Head]

Pht, on 07 June 2013 - 03:02 PM, said:

Actually, the mw4 guys were on to a decent idea ... they just didn't do it right.

Yes!

[Lord of All]

I agree that throwing AC20 on anything smaller than a Hunchie (which was the entire reason for that design) is a joke.

But I would suggest a good (And easily implemented) build rule would be to have a ratio balance on each chassis (or all the same?).

For instance A mech cannot have more that 2/3 more tonnage on one side than the other. I would base it on the original hunchie which I'm not gonna do the math but you get the idea.

[Funky Bacon]

Combine the Harpoints we have now with limited weapon critical slots for each Hardpoint based on the mechs role and base configuration.

[Lord of All]

Funky Bacon, on 26 June 2013 - 08:36 AM, said:

Combine the Harpoints we have now with limited weapon critical slots for each Hardpoint based on the mechs role and base configuration.

I just can't agree with forcing a ROLE. If we did that then Every Chassis would be typecast and easy to defend against. It would take alot of fun out of the game. Trying to design something unexpected is a blast!

[Torquemada]

Lord of All, on 26 June 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

I just can't agree with forcing a ROLE. If we did that then Every Chassis would be typecast and easy to defend against. It would take alot of fun out of the game. Trying to design something unexpected is a blast!

That's the point I was trying to make at the start, it wont be every hard point, or even every chassis. It is merely a tool to enable balance to be introduced where required. For small mechs it may almost be required to restrict ballistic hard points to prevent builds like my Gauss Raven. For assault mechs however, there will be few instances where restrictions have to be imposed.

There are obvious exceptions like the Atlas AS7-D-DC, the addition of electronics into the chassis is supposed to prevent the ballistic hard points from being able to house as big a range of weapons as the similar Atlas AS7-D chassis. So in this instance these hard points would be restricted. This way you could opt for an Atlas AS7-D with more versatile weapons, or an Atlas AS7-D-DC with slightly fewer weapons choices but a wide array of more electronic warfare available.

[Pht]

Lord of All, on 26 June 2013 - 04:42 PM, said:

I just can't agree with forcing a ROLE. If we did that then Every Chassis would be typecast and easy to defend against. It would take alot of fun out of the game. Trying to design something unexpected is a blast!

I disagree.

Making every mech into nothing but a differently visually outlined and proportioned amount of space that's otherwise a bag of guns RUINS the game. MW3 did this, and it was horrible.

Besides, ... um... many of the 'mechs were designed and built with "role" in mind.

Archer = missile 'mech, flashman = energy boat, etc. There's nothing, IMO, wrong with this... besides being the way the setting works.

Besides which, there's a class of 'mech built for the role "gunbag." They're called omnimechs.

[Lord of All]

Pht, on 07 July 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

I disagree.

Making every mech into nothing but a differently visually outlined and proportioned amount of space that's otherwise a bag of guns RUINS the game. MW3 did this, and it was horrible.

Besides, ... um... many of the 'mechs were designed and built with "role" in mind.

Archer = missile 'mech, flashman = energy boat, etc. There's nothing, IMO, wrong with this... besides being the way the setting works.

Besides which, there's a class of 'mech built for the role "gunbag." They're called omnimechs.

So your saying every chassis has a role and no-one else can modify it for a better role? Damn we must be a bunch of morons. guess we should just play cannon mechs period.

[Big Giant Head]

Lord of All, on 07 July 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

So your saying every chassis has a role and no-one else can modify it for a better role? Damn we must be a bunch of morons. guess we should just play cannon mechs period.

No
He says that those limits or restrictions are out there so that we dont make mess, so if you enable any weapon to go on any mech there is no point for other variants to exist
and plus people would buy mechs that have the best hitbox configuration like centurion and choose them instead hunchback for example...
Right now you can just put gauss rifle or AC/20 into cents arm like its huncbacks right torso - this is where MWO devs failed, they were trying to fix and balance weapons for over 7 months and they still dont see the problem,
Maybe they do, but they said its to late for such change, humph!?

Edited by Big Giant Head, 07 July 2013 - 07:25 PM.

[Lord of All]

I don't think the voters understand the connotations between size and weight restriction.

[Big Giant Head]

1 SLOT - 1 WEAPON

If you decide to put more weapons in 1 slot you will receive pushback:
(if you dont respect given rule)

*Just so everyone know these slots are the slots inspired by MW4 system
There can be more slots per component
Slots can have more segments from 1 to 4
Example:
1(slot)x 1(segment)
1(slot)x 2(segments)
1(slot)x 3(segments)
1(slot)x 4(segments)



2(slot)x 1(segments)
2(slot)x 2(segments)
2(slot)x 3(segments)
2(slot)x 4(segments)

And so on...

• Ballistic weapon will get increased cooldown:

It will punish player


When:
when player fires the other ballistic weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 50% of the fired weapon cooldown.
How:
the weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 30% of the fired weapon cooldown will get increased cooldown: 25% of the initial cooldown ( both percentages can be tweaked)
Meaning:
that "dakka-dakka" that ballistic weapons from the same slot outputs, will get slower with time
Exceptions:
Like jagermechs, they will have 2x 1 ballistic slot in both of their arms,
DD variant will have 1x 1 plus 1x 2 in both

• Energy weapon will get increased heat output:

When:


when player fires other energy weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
How:
weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
will get increased heat output: 40% of the initial heat output ( both percentages can be tweaked )
Meaning:
player will be forced to chainfire and will have better sense for firing lasers and their heat generated
Exceptions:
Like Hunchback 4P, they will have 2x 2 plus 2x 1 slots (which makes it 6), enabled to fire up to 4 med las size in alpha without pushback, rest two will have to go in sub-alpha chainfire if player doesnt want to have pushback on those two weapons

• Missile weapon will get increased heat output and cooldown but both will be weaker than energy and ballistic:

When:


when player fires other energy weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 45% of its cooldown
How:
weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 45% of its cooldown
will get increased heat output: 25% of the initial heat output ( all percentages can be tweaked )
Meaning:
Player will be forced to hold lock-on longer

Edited by Big Giant Head, 11 July 2013 - 05:46 AM.

[Pht]

Lord of All, on 07 July 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

So your saying every chassis...

Did you miss the comment about omnimechs?

Quote

...has a role and no-one else can modify it for a better role?

No. I'm saying that without limits in the 'mechlab, all mechs become nothing more that differently looking differently sized walking bags of guns.

The only reason to choose one over another at any given weight without restrictions is purely it's outline and volume. MW3 did it this way, and it was horrible.

MW4 was too restrictive in some ways, and not properly restrictive in other ways. There is a balance that can be had that promotes fun gameplay and creativity that dosn't render the 'mechs into gunbags on legs.

Quote

guess we should just play cannon mechs period.

I'm not for using canon/stock mechs only.

[Big Giant Head]

Pht, on 09 July 2013 - 04:10 PM, said:

Did you miss the comment about omnimechs?



No. I'm saying that without limits in the 'mechlab, all mechs become nothing more that differently looking differently sized walking bags of guns.

The only reason to choose one over another at any given weight without restrictions is purely it's outline and volume. MW3 did it this way, and it was horrible.

MW4 was too restrictive in some ways, and not properly restrictive in other ways. There is a balance that can be had that promotes fun gameplay and creativity that dosn't render the 'mechs into gunbags on legs.



I'm not for using canon/stock mechs only.

Yeah its just becomes like piece of metal, there wouldnt be variants and mechs would differ by their hitbox and turning and twist rate which is not the only thing about mechs
You have to realize there was always and there will be mechs that are allowed boating - thats okay - they are special
but you cant allow boating on lets say... dragon
Dragon is unique by his hardpoints and variants but in MWO you can boat anything.

Currently in MWO
In Dragon 5Ns right arm you can put 3 AC/2
Or in 1C 3-4 PPCs
??

And yes MW4 system wasnt well shaped but the core idea was great

Edited by Big Giant Head, 10 July 2013 - 01:22 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Big Giant Head, on 09 July 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

1 SLOT - 1 WEAPON

If you decide to put more weapons in 1 slot you will receive pushback:
(if you dont respect given rule)

This
The stock layout for a BattleMech shouldn't be much more as a blue print. how many interfaces are in current location for pluggin into the battlecomputer, how many ammunition feeds are current available - are there modifications necessary to press 3 AC 2 into the place of a single UAC 5 - or does the ammo fed supports 3 recievers.

As said only blueprints... with given weight and crits for each torso location.
for example 15t for the Stalker with 8 critical slots and 5 plugins -
optimized for missile 2 missile feds with a total of 5,18(dmg) per sec
and energy converters for a energy output of 4,6(dmg) per sec

So if the player like - he can place 2 PPCs there. with a potential energy output of 5(dmg) per 4sec efficiency reduction of ~ 10%.
If he like he can place 2 LRM 15 - with 7,76(dmg) per sec - LRMs loose efficency of ~ 30%

Or if he like he can even place a GaussRifle into his side
- neighter energy nor missile weapon - so it is necessary to rebuild the complete torso - with a loosing efficiency of ~30%

Another additional option is to include a structural stress factor... if you have 15t weapons available and you mount more weight your Mech losses speed for twisting - reduce weihgt - factor is increased (even the angle)

As you see there are hundreds of good possibilitys to keep true to a Mech and still allow every player to create a Mech oh his choice.

[Big Giant Head]

In mwo case you can put any ballistic weapon
So I have this build: AC/10 , LL and srm6 on Dragon 1C
How the hell other variants like Dragon 5N are going to force me to use different loadout!
There is no point in other variants to exist!!! And yet we have to buy it and play it so that we can fill our pilot tree.
WHAT!??


If they dont wanna mess with hardpoints they should just increase PPCs crit size it will fix CURRENT problem


I mean its projectile, every projectile has large crit size
has no ammo the only flaw is heat.
To reduce Heat you put DHS
To put DHS you need crit slots


Another thing
Why are all components same crit size?

Problems
Hunchback
Catapult
Stalker
Dragon
Atlas
Awesome
Raven
Almost every mech

*but I would still like to change hardpoints, variants would be more different¨*

Edited by Big Giant Head, 10 July 2013 - 04:40 PM.

[Postumus]

If you agree with restricting weapons to sized hardpoints, drop a vote in my thread.

http://mwomercs.com/...be-implemented/

We have already come up with a list of all weapons and the type of hardpoints that they would fit in, as well as graphical tables showing hardpoint distribution on all current mechs. The hardpoints would be tiered, with Small, Standard and Heavy hardpoints, based on the stock loadout of the mech variant.

[Big Giant Head]

Examples:

Dragon 1C:




Dragon 1N:




Dragon 5N:




Stalker:




Awesome 8Q:



Hunchback 4G:




Hunchback 4H:

Edited by Big Giant Head, 11 July 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Are the black rectangles reserved?

For example - the Awesome my have only 3 crits available for not weapon slot in his right arm?
I really think that we need more variants... even if PGI didn't developed some kind of technology yet.

For example the 9Q Awesome - I think a lot of players will die to have it
or the Caesar Catapract -> looks like the 1X - and you nearly can create it from the 3D. But that is not enough.

A hardpoint restrictions will made it necessary to have more mechs - however every new mech has the danger of breaking the balance.

[Big Giant Head]

Karl Streiger, on 11 July 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

Are the black rectangles reserved?

For example - the Awesome my have only 3 crits available for not weapon slot in his right arm?
I really think that we need more variants... even if PGI didn't developed some kind of technology yet.

For example the 9Q Awesome - I think a lot of players will die to have it
or the Caesar Catapract -> looks like the 1X - and you nearly can create it from the 3D. But that is not enough.

A hardpoint restrictions will made it necessary to have more mechs - however every new mech has the danger of breaking the balance.

The reason why variants exist is hardpoint rule
The reason why hardpoint rule exist is variants


Black rectangles are nospace. without crit slots
I thought that there are uneven distributions of critical slots on all mechs
I made mistake - I substracted but I didnt add on other parts for example:
I deleted 2 crit space from awesomes arms but didnt add any to side torsos ( I should probably head back to photoshop and fix it somehow )
The reson why I did this is change in weapons crit spaces
Dont worry there is plenty of space
Endo steal covers (FF as well) up to 16.6666% of the total crit space currently
If that is percent everything is scaled


There, I think its kinda better but I still shouldnt be doing that

Dragon 1C:




Dragon 1N:




Dragon 5N:




Stalker:




Awesome 8Q:



Hunchback 4G:




Hunchback 4H:

Edited by Big Giant Head, 11 July 2013 - 08:43 AM.