101 replies to this topic

[Craftyman]

xhrit, on 01 April 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

It already can do this though. Think about it; the awesome has the same energy hardpoints as a spider, but the awesome can mount the largest energy weapons in the game, while the spider can't.

Sorry but you're wrong

[Belorion]

bad idea is bad.

[Darius Deadeye]

It truly does make perfect sense what the OP is suggesting.

Looking at the Stalker, it does NOT have 6 ppc hardpoints.

The PPC is a giant round cannon, and no mech should be able to fit so many.

- An example of a new build (same hardpoints) would be 2x t1, 4x t2 limitation.

Looking at the Hunchback, it does NOT have 9 large laser hardpoints.

- An example of a new build (same hardpoints) would be 3x t1, 6x t2 limitation.

The large laser is a LARGE laser, and you shoulnd't be able to mount so many on a medium mech.

The list goes on. A lot of these "omnimech" builds make no sense what so ever, and a system that limits which type of energy, ballistic and missile weapons you can fit would not only create a much spread in weapon variety, but also give PGI (and the player) options for making actual "judgement calls" on the various available chassis.

For instance, currently non-viable stalker, atlas, centurion, etc builds, could have the exact same hardpoint system they have now, BUT due to t1 t2 / small / big differences on those hardpoints, you would see many more, much different builds.

It would also make weapons like small lasers, small pulse, mg's, flamers viable on bigger (more importantly, ANY) mech's out there.

Most importantly: builds would be varied, and mechs in general would increase their survivability.

I predict longer, more varied games with not a single (!) outright cheese build.

HOW IS THIS BAD? HOW IS THIS A SETBACK? This solution is ******** perfect.

FURTHERMORE

In my opinion, t1 and t2 is not enough.

There should be a clear distinction between small, medium and large hardpoints.

Maybe even a "huge" hardpoint, enabling the use of LRM20's, AC/20's, Gauss Rifles.

[Joe Mallad]

AV 4 T 4 R, on 01 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Hi Guys,

The experience we collected about the game right now tells us that whatever new mech PGI could put inside the roster, they cannot surpass the efficency of the actual "top mech".
This is bad becuase you can have several 50 tonns or 60 or 65 tonns, but you see people playing only with the same chassis becuase you equip them in the same way (boating them with some weapon) and so only ONE particular chassis is the best one.

To avoid this and so to bring more sense to the other variants what do you think about adding a "Tech level" to the Mech Hardpoint? in order to allow particular weapons to be mounted only on particular chassis?

For example

balistic hardpoint tech 1: ac2 - ac5 - uac5
balistic hardpoint tech 2: ac10 - ac20 - gauss

energy hardpoint tech 1: small - medium
energy hardpoint tech 2: large - ppc

So maybe a Catapult can mount energy lvl 4, but balistic lvl 2
A jagermech can mount energy lvl 2 but balistic lvl 4 (for gauss)

So you can split the tatical choices between more mechs

etc.etc.

What's your idea about this?

i made this same suggestion a few months bak and they said it was fine as is.

[Ryvucz]

AV 4 T 4 R, on 01 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Hi Guys,

The experience we collected about the game right now tells us that whatever new mech PGI could put inside the roster, they cannot surpass the efficency of the actual "top mech".
This is bad becuase you can have several 50 tonns or 60 or 65 tonns, but you see people playing only with the same chassis becuase you equip them in the same way (boating them with some weapon) and so only ONE particular chassis is the best one.

To avoid this and so to bring more sense to the other variants what do you think about adding a "Tech level" to the Mech Hardpoint? in order to allow particular weapons to be mounted only on particular chassis?

For example

balistic hardpoint tech 1: ac2 - ac5 - uac5
balistic hardpoint tech 2: ac10 - ac20 - gauss

energy hardpoint tech 1: small - medium
energy hardpoint tech 2: large - ppc

So maybe a Catapult can mount energy lvl 4, but balistic lvl 2
A jagermech can mount energy lvl 2 but balistic lvl 4 (for gauss)

So you can split the tatical choices between more mechs

etc.etc.

What's your idea about this?

I think it would be interesting to see this in the suggestion section with the appropriate poll.

[Belorion]

It is bad because it is over complicating an already complex system.

It is bad because the current system is fine, and there is no reason for PGI to start back at step one.

It is bad because it is unnecessary.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Good idea. PGI is too pig headed to change it though.

I do love the people advocating against it. Is 6 PPCs on a Stalker realistic within the Mechwarrior universe at all?

[Darius Deadeye]

Belorion, on 01 April 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

It is bad because it is over complicating an already complex system.

It is bad because the current system is fine, and there is no reason for PGI to start back at step one.

It is bad because it is unnecessary.

Current system is anything BUT complicated. Introduce a tutorial to get through the basics, and you're set.

In terms of being complicated, how does this game compare to starcraft? civilization? eve online? It's NOT complicated.

Those games are all pretty popular.

Current system is NOT fine. It allows people to make ridiculous builds. It's NOT a step back, but a step FORWARD. Progression!

It's a necessary move forward, because it currently creates scenarios that make multiple weapons, chassis and VARIATION redundant. Essentially, it's a FIX.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Go look at Path of Exile for complicated. Jesus. The mech customization part of this game is not hard.

[SirLANsalot]

Alpha mechs have one massive drawback. Rate of Fire. All the high damage guns/builds, have very very long reload times, and usually very high heat to go with it. Case in point, SRM6, long 4 sec reload, scatter shots, and its heat is quite high when packing more then 2. PPC's, were always hot, and getting over 4 puts you as a one shot wonder. Dual AC20 is the only one without a heat drawback, which is fine, still a 4sec reload but its drawback is the massive tonnage and size of the gun.

DPS mechs do eat these other mechs up for lunch, but a DPS mech needs extremely good gunnery skills to make it work. So most people get lazy and don't do it, but those who do.....get well rewarded.

Cataphract 4X, slowest mech of the Catas, but one with the highest DPS the game has ever seen (6x AC2 jager doesn't get this high). 4 AC5 (9.7 DPS alone) and 2 ML (makes the mech 6.4 overall DPS). It never overheats unless its a REALLY long engagement on Torumaline or Caustic, and thats only if you keep tapping those ML's. This mech in essence fires an AC20 every 1.7 seconds (convergence not withholding) meaning you can get about 2 1/2 shots (all it 3) off before anyone with an AC20 or SRM6's can get there second shot off. Land those 3 shots before they land there second, and there DEAD, or missing a very important arm or torso.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...5834e7b03b19bfe

There is the build for all to see, but you MUST...MUST be good with ballistics to get it to work, it is also a good mech to LEARN them on. As you can just chain-fire the AC5's and get the best animech MG ever.







Limiting the hardpoints isn't the answer to this issue. Its heat multipliers, if a mech is meant to use only 1 of XX weapon, but you can get more then that on a mech, then the 2nd gun will generate 2 or even 4 times the heat it normally would. This would greatly DISCOURAGE boating and "alpha" mechs. The Spat cat would overheat and shut down because it would have 4 more SRM6's (and SRM's in genral) then a mech is ment to use (aka 2 SRM's of any mix). Autocannons balance themselves on this "issue" as the wight of them limits them enough, and the ligher ones are not a part of the issue (AC2 AC5 both aren't "alpha" guns now are they?) Beams would fall under this as well, but only applying to PPC's and Large Lasers (normal for a mech would be 2). Now is this perfect? No, as certain mechs do come stock with more then a said gun (Nova cat has 3 PPC if I remember). These mechs could have a "hidden bonus" to them that reduces the penalty or increases the number of XX gun before the penalty kicks in. So like the Nova Cat's limiter would be at 3 instead of 2, so anyone placing more then 3 PPC"s will find that 4th one to run quite hot.

[Darius Deadeye]

SirLANsalot, on 01 April 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Lots of text

I like how you think, but you're missing the point. It's not necessarily a questions of imbalance. The 6 PPC build as is has huge drawbacks, as does SRM6 builds. With the introduction of hardpoint sizing, you would have much greater variation in what weapons you choose. You would make medium mechs and mechs with fewer (or rather, misplaced) hardpoints more viable. Currently unused variations (of which there are quite a few!) could potentially be made viable by making clear distinctions between t1, t2 hardpoints.

Most importantly, in my opinion, it would reduce/completely remove "cheese builds", by forcing those players to THINK. It would create battlefield where currently unused weapons would become useful - in essence, it would create more REALISTIC builds and create an overall more 'balanced' feel to the game, WITHOUT having to change the weapon mechanics at ALL.

Essentially, it would be a fix to the hardpoint system and that only, which would put an end to boating "unrealistic" builds.

Edited by Darius Deadeye, 01 April 2013 - 04:53 PM.

[Mackman]

Darius Deadeye, on 01 April 2013 - 04:16 PM, said:

I predict longer, more varied games with not a single (!) outright cheese build.

If you're one of the people who subscribes to the idea of "cheese", then you're not going to be happy until every last person is playing exactly like you play. As long as there is any customization at all, there will be what you consider "cheese," some new build that you feel isn't "true" battletech, some new mech that wipes the floor with you.

SirLANsalot, on 01 April 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

Limiting the hardpoints isn't the answer to this issue. Its heat multipliers, if a mech is meant to use only 1 of XX weapon, but you can get more then that on a mech, then the 2nd gun will generate 2 or even 4 times the heat it normally would. This would greatly DISCOURAGE boating and "alpha" mechs. The Spat cat would overheat and shut down because it would have 4 more SRM6's (and SRM's in genral) then a mech is ment to use (aka 2 SRM's of any mix). Autocannons balance themselves on this "issue" as the wight of them limits them enough, and the ligher ones are not a part of the issue (AC2 AC5 both aren't "alpha" guns now are they?) Beams would fall under this as well, but only applying to PPC's and Large Lasers (normal for a mech would be 2). Now is this perfect? No, as certain mechs do come stock with more then a said gun (Nova cat has 3 PPC if I remember). These mechs could have a "hidden bonus" to them that reduces the penalty or increases the number of XX gun before the penalty kicks in. So like the Nova Cat's limiter would be at 3 instead of 2, so anyone placing more then 3 PPC"s will find that 4th one to run quite hot.

If the Dev's have demonstrated anything time and time again, it's that they don't care what a mech "should" be able to do. The fact that they recently created models and meshes just so the Catapult could equip AC20's and Gauss Rifles demonstrates this more than anything.

Now: that doesn't mean that I'm necessarily opposed to an idea like this. But your use of the term "should" demonstrates that you and the Devs are using fundamentally different value systems. The enjoyment of those who scream about the AC/20 catapult is not important in the slightest to PGI: What is important is the enjoyment of new players, more casual players who will join the game in droves and occasionally spend money on it... because that's what a F2P game needs.

And as one of those players who had never even heard of Mechwarrior before this game, I'm having a blast, because I couldn't care less what a mech "should" be able to carry.

Edited by Mackman, 01 April 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[Darius Deadeye]

Mackman, on 01 April 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

If you're one of the people who subscribes to the idea of "cheese", then you're not going to be happy until every last person is playing exactly like you play. As long as there is any customization at all, there will be what you consider "cheese," some new build that you feel isn't "true" battletech, some new mech that wipes the floor with you.

Disagree. The only builds I consider "cheese" (quotation!) are the builds that shoulnd't realistically be viable/available.

Namely: SRM6x6, PPCx6, 9XLL Hunchback and many, many others.

I am not even saying those builds are even necessarily unbalanced, as in, they "completely own my ***" every time, because they don't.

Let's pull an example out of the box using the OP's suggestion for t1 and t2.

The infamous Stalker-3F. 6 Energy points, 4 missile points. Nothing wrong with that.

Let's mix it up a bit: on the one hand you have 6 (omni) hardpoints for energy, which easily fits 6 ppc's.

On the other hand you have the t1, t2 limited (realistic) hardpoint build.

Looking at the model of the stalker (visibly), you would have 4x t1, 2x t2 energy points. You would have 4x t2 missile points.

With this you could still fit (although visibly, it still makes little sense) 4ppc, 2medium lasers and many, MANY other variations.

Next you would have the Stalker 5S. 6 energy points, 4 missile points. Same as above, slightly different.

You could have 3x t1, 3x t2 energy hardpoints. 2x t1, 2x t2 missile points. It makes for a VERY noteable difference, and suddenly makes both builds viable.

I could go on like this.



I'm not trying to limit the game to MY playstyle. I am trying to create more VARIATION in playstyle by limiting the obviously UNREALISTIC builds to make way for realistic builds that create a bigger spread in which mech's you would choose and which weapons you would fit them with. I want to make way for builds that FORCE you to use greater variation in the weapons you mount.

I would VERY much like to see bigger mech's with smaller guns. Ie. those two extra energy hardpoints you don't know what to use for, because all of a suddenly, you're forced to adhere to the laws of physics and visibly available outlets? Fit small lasers! Fit mg's! Fit flamers!

Edited by Darius Deadeye, 01 April 2013 - 05:18 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

AV 4 T 4 R, on 01 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Hi Guys,

The experience we collected about the game right now tells us that whatever new mech PGI could put inside the roster, they cannot surpass the efficency of the actual "top mech".
This is bad becuase you can have several 50 tonns or 60 or 65 tonns, but you see people playing only with the same chassis becuase you equip them in the same way (boating them with some weapon) and so only ONE particular chassis is the best one.

To avoid this and so to bring more sense to the other variants what do you think about adding a "Tech level" to the Mech Hardpoint? in order to allow particular weapons to be mounted only on particular chassis?

For example

balistic hardpoint tech 1: ac2 - ac5 - uac5
balistic hardpoint tech 2: ac10 - ac20 - gauss

energy hardpoint tech 1: small - medium
energy hardpoint tech 2: large - ppc

So maybe a Catapult can mount energy lvl 4, but balistic lvl 2
A jagermech can mount energy lvl 2 but balistic lvl 4 (for gauss)

So you can split the tatical choices between more mechs

etc.etc.

What's your idea about this?

There is only one glaring issue with what you're suggesting but it isn't out of the realm of possibility for PGI to do this: the number of hard points that PGI has put on mechs exceed the number of weapons allotted on the TT variants. In every case, with the exception of the Stalker and all Cataphracts except for the 4X, every mech in game has additional variants in excess of how they were designed. So, IF they were to categorize the hard points, it would force them to go through each variant and make decisions on top of the decisions that they'd already have to make based on the current weapons. That isn't to say that they can't do this but PGI has already stated that they're pretty happy with the level of variation that the players have built. So, now you're kind of asking them to go back and prevent some of them (ie, MGs to AC20s, Md Lasers to PPCs, etc) from being allowable. And all of that is after the art devs have gone through and made visual adjustments to some of the mechs (see the K2).

[Trauglodyte]

Belorion, on 01 April 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

bad idea is bad.

Belorion, on 01 April 2013 - 04:32 PM, said:

It is bad because it is over complicating an already complex system.

It is bad because the current system is fine, and there is no reason for PGI to start back at step one.

It is bad because it is unnecessary.

You're like a song with only one note. But I like how you said "bad" so often because that clearly paints your ability to think tactically and rationally while almost certainly describing your play.

[Darius Deadeye]

Trauglodyte, on 01 April 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

There is only one glaring issue with what you're suggesting but it isn't out of the realm of possibility for PGI to do this: the number of hard points that PGI has put on mechs exceed the number of weapons allotted on the TT variants. In every case, with the exception of the Stalker and all Cataphracts except for the 4X, every mech in game has additional variants in excess of how they were designed. So, IF they were to categorize the hard points, it would force them to go through each variant and make decisions on top of the decisions that they'd already have to make based on the current weapons. That isn't to say that they can't do this but PGI has already stated that they're pretty happy with the level of variation that the players have built. So, now you're kind of asking them to go back and prevent some of them (ie, MGs to AC20s, Md Lasers to PPCs, etc) from being allowable. And all of that is after the art devs have gone through and made visual adjustments to some of the mechs (see the K2).

Unfortunately, I agree with you on this. Regardless, I still believe distinctions in the hardpoint system would create a much better, more varied and interesting game.

[Belorion]

Darius Deadeye, on 01 April 2013 - 04:41 PM, said:

Current system is anything BUT complicated. Introduce a tutorial to get through the basics, and you're set.

In terms of being complicated, how does this game compare to starcraft? civilization? eve online? It's NOT complicated.

Those games are all pretty popular.

Current system is NOT fine. It allows people to make ridiculous builds. It's NOT a step back, but a step FORWARD. Progression!

It's a necessary move forward, because it currently creates scenarios that make multiple weapons, chassis and VARIATION redundant. Essentially, it's a FIX.

Table top gave even more freedom with builds. If people can't adapt to builds then they deserve to lose.

[Trauglodyte]

Darius Deadeye, on 01 April 2013 - 05:27 PM, said:

Unfortunately, I agree with you on this. Regardless, I still believe distinctions in the hardpoint system would create a much better, more varied and interesting game.

You're absolutely correct and it would be helpful. Before they do that, though, they'd really need to get weapons, IS and Clan, completely balanced. Otherwise, we're just going to be running new cheese builds based on only the weapons that currently work best.

[Corwin Vickers]

dumb idea

[GODzillaGSPB]

Corwin Vickers, on 01 April 2013 - 10:28 PM, said:

dumb idea

...because?

In case you have nothing more to say: Dumb post. Because you give no reasons or an explanation.