152 replies to this topic

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Mr Blonde, on 06 March 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

I find that most of the Munchkin builds (6 streaks, 6 SRM 6's, 6 PPC's) are the easiest to kill. Just long-range the SRM cats, and go around the slow PPC shots in a spider, get inside his minimum range, and shred him. My little spiders will kill those slow SRM cats too. I did a cheesy Stalker build just to see if I could (4 LRM 20's with Artemis, a couple of pea-shooter side weapons). It's devastating except when someone gets close and then it's dead. Hardly one I rely on regularly. A K-2 with 2 AC20's is just a small King Crab, so these builds do exist in TT. 2 Gauss builds abound in TT. 4 LPL's? I tried it with a stalker, but TT has our friendly Rifleman IIC. Lest we forget TT's LRM and SRM carriers, the ultimate in cheese except when the Clans gave us the absurd Hunchback IIC. Common theme among all these mechs and vehicles? They have gigantic weaknesses, and as a maxed out build are usually targeted first and annihilated before they can do serious damage. Bottom line, I lick my chops when I see these builds and prepare to rack up stats. At the same time, they can be fun to play if you get lucky or have a good coordinated team.

And while your dancing around doing this his teammates are doing what ?!? watching in awe... PLEASE.

[Pihb]

Colonel Pada Vinson, on 05 March 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

I totally agree.

We really need a stock mech only game mode option.
c6 is already getting pretty predictable.

Have you played the stock mechs? They are terrible. The ability to customize a mech is one of the foundations of this game. I say, keep customization, just keep it reasonable through hard point sizes.

[Corvus Antaka]

Pihb, on 06 March 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Have you played the stock mechs? They are terrible. The ability to customize a mech is one of the foundations of this game. I say, keep customization, just keep it reasonable through hard point sizes.

I spent 6 years playing in a stock mech only league.

Eventually open mechs just becomes too easy, and stock is the only true challenge left. Ammo actually matters, and pilots have to deal with many more issues, like lack of full armour, machine guns as secondary guns, and only 2 tons of ammo.

Stock mechs are not terrible against other stock mechs, and open class is quite frankly a lot easier than any stock mech matchup.

[Sybreed]

well, back from work. Read pretty much every comments but I'll respond to a few:

1. Hashishin, while I respect that you find imbalances in the game, you have no right to say I promote my "own" agenda (I don't have one) any more than you do your own. I simply don't think nerfing weapons is the answer.

2. Stock mechs should be viable, plain and simple. The fact that they need to be tweaked heavily is a sign that something is inherently wrong with balance.

3. A lot of you are defending customization like the holy grail of MWO, but I ask this : Is it really "customization" if everyone's using the same builds? That's not diversity we're seeing here, but wasn't this the objective of custom mechs?

4. I don't have a problem playing against boats myself, although a 6 PPC stalker does scare the hell out of me every time I see one.. The rest of the boats... I can manage. So, stop accusing me of being bad and crying over boats killing me, which doesn't happen very often. That's not the point of my argument.

I want customization to be in the game, but if all mechs end up with the same loadout... we should perhaps call it "cookie cutting" mechs instead?

And a question about LRMs: does anyone find normal that the single LRM-10 coming stock on some mediums/heavies are completely ineffective and can be shut down by a single AMS?

Edited by Sybreed, 06 March 2013 - 06:53 PM.

[Royalewithcheese]

Sybreed, on 06 March 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

2. Stock mechs should be viable, plain and simple. The fact that they need to be tweaked heavily is a sign that something is inherently wrong with balance.

Not sure (for instance) stock A1 is ever gonna be viable with its 2xLRM15, ECM or no. Some stock mechs are just kinda terrible haha.

Sybreed, on 06 March 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

3. A lot of you are defending customization like the holy grail of MWO, but I ask this : Is it really "customization" if everyone's using the same builds? That's not diversity we're seeing here, but wasn't this the objective of custom mechs?

You see all sorts of weird stuff outside of comp. Inside of comp, if there wasn't customization ppl would be using the handful of stock mechs that don't suck instead of the handful of best builds.

[Sybreed]

Royalewithcheese, on 06 March 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

Not sure (for instance) stock A1 is ever gonna be viable with its 2xLRM15, ECM or no. Some stock mechs are just kinda terrible haha.



You see all sorts of weird stuff outside of comp. Inside of comp, if there wasn't customization ppl would be using the handful of stock mechs that don't suck instead of the handful of best builds.

True, some stock mechs are just terrible. But the standard stock mechs (CN9-A, CN9-D, other stock mechs with the standard stuff) should be viable, I'm sure you get my point anyway...

and yeah, I'm always glad to see some very weird builds, especially when they're successful. But, right now, it's often the same 2-3 builds per mechs that we see and that's what I find deplorable.

Edited by Sybreed, 06 March 2013 - 07:13 PM.

[Critical Fumble]

I agree with you for the most part, but fiddling with individual mechs because they're the most effective boats is less than helpful, as the focus will then shift to the ones that were the second-rung boats. For instance the A1 SSRM/LRM boats. They've been rendered effectively extinct because when ECM was introduced, the meta changes were unfavorable. The SSRM and LRM boats moved to mechs that could assure some kind of effectiveness with the weapons (Raven and Commando for SSRMs, anything with 2+missile hard points and a TAG for LRMs). A better solution would be to have some kind of diminishing return for stacking weapons together.

Sybreed, on 06 March 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

2. Stock mechs should be viable, plain and simple. The fact that they need to be tweaked heavily is a sign that something is inherently wrong with balance.

As cool as this would be, it won't happen through direct means. Most mechs benefit from Endo-Steel and DHS, but very few come with it. Which means you have to upgrade the mech for it to be actually competitive directly, unless everything is nerfed down until everyone is on a soft, foamy level. There are ways around that, though, like some form of in-game effect for having a less expensive team of mechs than the other side. Such as AI vehicles, off-map support, or slightly easier objectives. It would also make building the mech require thinking, "Is this upgrade worth the cost?" rather than just, "Is this better?"

[Weatherman]

I have read a lot of interesting viewpoints on this thread (this does not include the less than helpful "stop whining" posts). I think that some people may not understand the difference between what I think PGI is trying to do (and unfortunately is not working).

1. PGI is trying to stay true to TT rules and the existing BT universe. Problem is that by turning this into a FPS you remove one of the key components of TT: the random hit chart. In an FPS you are going place your cross hairs over the target and that is where your ordinance is going to go. In TT every shot you fire rolls a random hit chart, with SRMs each missile is rolled (that is up to six missiles randomly hitting various parts of the mech) and LRMs are placed into groups of 5 for each role on the random hit chart. So since we don't have that random hit chart, instead your SRMs are going to hit in a tight group the closer you get to the target, which means a LOT of damage in a small area with little to no splash. This is a flaw in the game that probably does need to be addressed in the vein of looking at SRMs, their respective spread, and even their damage.

2. PGI recognized that being able to fully customize a mech was a BAD idea. As someone who played TT with no restrictions, I designed incredibly dangerous mechs. Without the hardpoint system you could have Atlas D-DCs with 12 SRM-6s and a couple of Large Lasers. That shows that the hardpoint system is absolutely vital to the game (also in allowing different variants to have different hardpoint layouts makes variants viable). Unfortunately they didn't pay attention to the lesson learned between MW3 and MW4. In MW3 you had unlimited customizing, which by its very nature is OP. In MW4 they actually did something I think is brilliant. They made the hardpoints variable size to represent the actual framework of the mech and the stock weapon mounted.

Example: a Jenner is a light mech with 2 energy hardpoints in each arm. The stock model of this mech comes with a Medium Laser in each hardpoint so taking into account the mech's small size and the stock weapons mounted, we limit each hardpoint to ONE critical slot that could be combined for a two slot weapon (like a Large Laser). That meant no mounting PPCs.

Example: An Atlas D mounts a single Medium Laser in each arm, so MW4 only gives the player single slot hardpoints in each arm. But the Left Torso mounts an LRM-20 and an SRM-6, which means 2 slots and 5 slots, and possibly more considering the size of the mech and it's role (so a Catapult might have an extra slot or two for its missile hardpoints as it is designed around that, but its energy hardpoints are limited to single slot weapons).

If PGI adopted this model it wouldn't destroy customizing, it would place realistic limits on boating and mounting unrealistic weapons on mechs (GaussCat or GaussRaven anyone?). Note: this would NOT stop Splatcats from being built as the A1 is currently hardpointed for 3 missile in each arm so I can reasonably imagine 5 or 6 slots being available. While this is an FPS, the Devs have talked about wanting it to feel somewhat like a simulation. Applying this hardpoint model would be a big step towards this.

I know there are people that are going to disagree with me, but this answers a number of issues AND stays close to canon (as fully customized mechs were actually INCREDIBLY RARE!) which is why Omni-Mechs were so powerful.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

CYBRN4CR, on 06 March 2013 - 06:26 PM, said:

You want to stop boating? No customization.

You might as well just stop playing right now, and go install MW:LL. In fact, I truly suggest you all do so.

MWO's biggest distinguishing factor is the MW3 esque mechlab but with hardpoint limiters. And certain chassis have different combos vs others. Can't handle that? Do the above, and go away.

And a year from now when everyone does leave, you'll be playing yourself. Great suggestion.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Weatherman, on 06 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I have read a lot of interesting viewpoints on this thread (this does not include the less than helpful "stop whining" posts). I think that some people may not understand the difference between what I think PGI is trying to do (and unfortunately is not working).

1. PGI is trying to stay true to TT rules and the existing BT universe. Problem is that by turning this into a FPS you remove one of the key components of TT: the random hit chart. In an FPS you are going place your cross hairs over the target and that is where your ordinance is going to go. In TT every shot you fire rolls a random hit chart, with SRMs each missile is rolled (that is up to six missiles randomly hitting various parts of the mech) and LRMs are placed into groups of 5 for each role on the random hit chart. So since we don't have that random hit chart, instead your SRMs are going to hit in a tight group the closer you get to the target, which means a LOT of damage in a small area with little to no splash. This is a flaw in the game that probably does need to be addressed in the vein of looking at SRMs, their respective spread, and even their damage.

2. PGI recognized that being able to fully customize a mech was a BAD idea. As someone who played TT with no restrictions, I designed incredibly dangerous mechs. Without the hardpoint system you could have Atlas D-DCs with 12 SRM-6s and a couple of Large Lasers. That shows that the hardpoint system is absolutely vital to the game (also in allowing different variants to have different hardpoint layouts makes variants viable). Unfortunately they didn't pay attention to the lesson learned between MW3 and MW4. In MW3 you had unlimited customizing, which by its very nature is OP. In MW4 they actually did something I think is brilliant. They made the hardpoints variable size to represent the actual framework of the mech and the stock weapon mounted.

Example: a Jenner is a light mech with 2 energy hardpoints in each arm. The stock model of this mech comes with a Medium Laser in each hardpoint so taking into account the mech's small size and the stock weapons mounted, we limit each hardpoint to ONE critical slot that could be combined for a two slot weapon (like a Large Laser). That meant no mounting PPCs.

Example: An Atlas D mounts a single Medium Laser in each arm, so MW4 only gives the player single slot hardpoints in each arm. But the Left Torso mounts an LRM-20 and an SRM-6, which means 2 slots and 5 slots, and possibly more considering the size of the mech and it's role (so a Catapult might have an extra slot or two for its missile hardpoints as it is designed around that, but its energy hardpoints are limited to single slot weapons).

If PGI adopted this model it wouldn't destroy customizing, it would place realistic limits on boating and mounting unrealistic weapons on mechs (GaussCat or GaussRaven anyone?). Note: this would NOT stop Splatcats from being built as the A1 is currently hardpointed for 3 missile in each arm so I can reasonably imagine 5 or 6 slots being available. While this is an FPS, the Devs have talked about wanting it to feel somewhat like a simulation. Applying this hardpoint model would be a big step towards this.

I know there are people that are going to disagree with me, but this answers a number of issues AND stays close to canon (as fully customized mechs were actually INCREDIBLY RARE!) which is why Omni-Mechs were so powerful.

well put and dead on!

[Sybreed]

Weatherman, on 06 March 2013 - 07:41 PM, said:

I have read a lot of interesting viewpoints on this thread (this does not include the less than helpful "stop whining" posts). I think that some people may not understand the difference between what I think PGI is trying to do (and unfortunately is not working).

1. PGI is trying to stay true to TT rules and the existing BT universe. Problem is that by turning this into a FPS you remove one of the key components of TT: the random hit chart. In an FPS you are going place your cross hairs over the target and that is where your ordinance is going to go. In TT every shot you fire rolls a random hit chart, with SRMs each missile is rolled (that is up to six missiles randomly hitting various parts of the mech) and LRMs are placed into groups of 5 for each role on the random hit chart. So since we don't have that random hit chart, instead your SRMs are going to hit in a tight group the closer you get to the target, which means a LOT of damage in a small area with little to no splash. This is a flaw in the game that probably does need to be addressed in the vein of looking at SRMs, their respective spread, and even their damage.

2. PGI recognized that being able to fully customize a mech was a BAD idea. As someone who played TT with no restrictions, I designed incredibly dangerous mechs. Without the hardpoint system you could have Atlas D-DCs with 12 SRM-6s and a couple of Large Lasers. That shows that the hardpoint system is absolutely vital to the game (also in allowing different variants to have different hardpoint layouts makes variants viable). Unfortunately they didn't pay attention to the lesson learned between MW3 and MW4. In MW3 you had unlimited customizing, which by its very nature is OP. In MW4 they actually did something I think is brilliant. They made the hardpoints variable size to represent the actual framework of the mech and the stock weapon mounted.

Example: a Jenner is a light mech with 2 energy hardpoints in each arm. The stock model of this mech comes with a Medium Laser in each hardpoint so taking into account the mech's small size and the stock weapons mounted, we limit each hardpoint to ONE critical slot that could be combined for a two slot weapon (like a Large Laser). That meant no mounting PPCs.

Example: An Atlas D mounts a single Medium Laser in each arm, so MW4 only gives the player single slot hardpoints in each arm. But the Left Torso mounts an LRM-20 and an SRM-6, which means 2 slots and 5 slots, and possibly more considering the size of the mech and it's role (so a Catapult might have an extra slot or two for its missile hardpoints as it is designed around that, but its energy hardpoints are limited to single slot weapons).

If PGI adopted this model it wouldn't destroy customizing, it would place realistic limits on boating and mounting unrealistic weapons on mechs (GaussCat or GaussRaven anyone?). Note: this would NOT stop Splatcats from being built as the A1 is currently hardpointed for 3 missile in each arm so I can reasonably imagine 5 or 6 slots being available. While this is an FPS, the Devs have talked about wanting it to feel somewhat like a simulation. Applying this hardpoint model would be a big step towards this.

I know there are people that are going to disagree with me, but this answers a number of issues AND stays close to canon (as fully customized mechs were actually INCREDIBLY RARE!) which is why Omni-Mechs were so powerful.

Great post and I remember suggesting something akin to MW4's hardpoint system... I was basically lynched on the forums for that

But indeed, I thought a system similar to MW4 would have been much better than what we currently have...

[Corvus Antaka]

Mech4 hardpoints would be perfect here.

Now, my hunchbacks massive AC20 port means something, instead of me grabbing a trebuchet and sticking an AC20 into ITS ballistic port, which is way harder to hit. both are 50 ton mechs, so really, in competitive play the trebuchet wins hands down. if it instead had the one ac 5 slot it actually appears able to hold..well...personality for each mech is MUCH more diverse.

This applies to all mechs.

we are infact seeing less diverse builds, and less battlemech variety than we rightly should/could. Ideally each individual mech in this game would have strengths and weakneses, and the mech4 hardpoint system was a thing of beauty.

In mech3 I just stuffed my thors torsos with AC20's, arms werent even needed. MWO system is better, its a go between from mech3- mech4, but really, mech4 had the best hardpoint system, every single mech and variant had a unique personality.

MWO is close to this, I'm not sure why they dont adopt it, especially when you consider the attention to detail like the 1 NARC port on the trebuchet. if the MWO missile port system could be applied to the energy and ballistics ports, we wouldnt really have this issue so much, but then again, streaming an LRM 20 from that NARC port can be fun too

Really if I think about it though, the most significant issue right now remains the 6 large laser boat, the 4-6 ppc boat in pairs or more focus firing, and outside the dual gauss kitty all are bound by heat, if the heatcap was brought down 50% mechs would have to take more heatsinks to raise it & need to think a lot more about dissapation and not "build a mech that can kill a guy in 3 shots, then shutdown, rinse, repeat" which is still something of an issue at the moment, esp with pop-tarts doing this from cover.

The games playing pretty well these days, but I could still see mech4 type hardpoints giving a lot of benefit and personality to mechs, and making every variant much more viable again, not just the cheese builds. Heck, half the time, the minute a mech comes out, I can tell from the hardpoints which variants the best just by looking at it.

[Mad Pig]

Instead of nerfing damange, what about nerfing accuracy? The more that are grouped, the more the penalty for accuracy... which in turn could be negated by some type of future targeting module... and then we'll be back to the same complaints.

I think it's a damned if you do, damned if you don't proposition.

For me, the best option is speed, AMS, and some friends to mass fire on the boater.

[Weatherman]

The MW4 hardpoint system really doesn't detract much from the game, unless you like being able to break the game with crazy and unrealistic builds (like a great deal of FPS/MMORPG players today). I really wanted PGI to put together something that was a good mix of FPS and Sim, and they are trying, but there are some areas that NEED to be addressed if they want to find that balance.

I really believe that most of the players complaining are only interested in the most optimized builds, not in maintaining the story. I don't think there are many BT core fans that are happy with the idea of a GaussCat or GaussRaven, I know I am not.

I don't feel sticking closely to canon limits the game in anyway. In fact, I would prefer a game with a set of canon standards that doesn't just devolve into a twitch shooter spammed with whatever is the optimized build of the month. Limiting what can be placed in a hardpoint won't entirely stop people from finding OP builds, but at least they will be within the canon and likely not as OP as some of what we see out there now.

[Sybreed]

my main issue with the current hardpoint system is that it makes all the diversity BT created over the years, useless.

Why use the Hollander? Just go with a Raven and stick a gauss rifle on its machine gun ports

Hence why the MW4 system fixes most problems

[Sybreed]

Weatherman, since you're better at writing stuff in English than I am, perhaps you could one day create a thread suggesting a hardpoint system à la MW4, I would gladly support it

[Weatherman]

I would hope someone already did that, but let me look around and if I don't see it maybe I will.

*Edit*

I did find a thread started a few days ago talking about this issue. For those of you interested in going over and showing your support for this idea, please do. If we make enough noise the Devs will pay attention. There is no guarantee that this will actually change anything, but it is better to try and fail than simply give in.

http://mwomercs.com/...21#entry2019921

Edited by Weatherman, 06 March 2013 - 10:23 PM.

[Xandralkus]

By removing narrowly defined weapon roles, bringing weapon values in terms of alpha per ton, DPS per ton, damage per heat, and DPS per heat stable tonnage to within a predictable and narrow range, and loosening hardpoint restrictions, something really really awesome happens:

Boats no longer rock at one thing and one thing only.

Why? Because having an AC-10, a few lasers, and some SRM's on a Dragon would be equally useful alongside a Catapult with ALL the SRM's.

If the devs ever figure out that transversal velocity acceleration needs to go up as tonnage goes down, then we would finally achieve the singularity of game balance where Atlas = Commando. Mech = Mech.

The problem really is the weapons. Their narrowly defined roles are exploitable.

EDIT: Absolutely perfect gameplay balance hurts only one very narrow group of people: Those that want to gain an unfair advantage by transcending gameplay through metagame analysis of broken mechanics. No player deserves that much power.

We don't need exploitable roles in order to make weapons fun or unique either. The absolutely flawless calibration of mech to playstyle accomplishes that. Weapons can be made to be perfectly equal, and still incredibly diverse. It requires math and spreadsheets.

Edited by Xandralkus, 07 March 2013 - 01:24 AM.

[sarkun]

The mw4 hardpoint system could work, if we got a ready game, released with all the content - not with what we have now - slow trickle of new mechs.

I could see implementing it when we have lots of different mechs, but right now, it would MASSIVELY limit the available builds. And there would be a huge uproar if all of peoples mechs were suddenly nerfed, so it will probably never happen in the future too.

Sybreed, on 06 March 2013 - 09:01 PM, said:

Why use the Hollander? Just go with a Raven and stick a gauss rifle on its machine gun ports
Hence why the MW4 system fixes most problems

At least now you can make a Hollander by modifying a Raven. If we move to a mw4 hardpoint system, you will still have no Hollander, and no means of making one. How is that better?

[Sybreed]

sarkun, on 07 March 2013 - 02:12 AM, said:

At least now you can make a Hollander by modifying a Raven. If we move to a mw4 hardpoint system, you will still have no Hollander, and no means of making one. How is that better?

Well, PGI can now create the Hollander and bring more mechs to the table with very different roles and won't overlap over other mechs...