89 replies to this topic

[tenderloving]

Chavette, on 17 April 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Small weapons don't get boated as much as they usually have smaller range, which makes them less of use in the current meta.

#Answered

/lock

I love when people make posts like this that display their ignorance and lack of reading comprehension. It makes it even better when they post something smarmy at the end. The "Playing chess with a pigeon" analogy comes to mind.

MeatForBrains, on 18 April 2013 - 05:06 AM, said:

This is a two fold problem. It has to do with the number of slots a mech has on its arms/legs etc. Which is the root of the problem with ravens carrying gauss highlander that cant carry an AC20 etc.

If it's a smaller mech it should have less slots. Use slot availability to limit weapon size, and carrying the qty. An Atlas should have a huge amount of space, and a spider should have very little. Either change the number of the available slots, or scale the weapons to take up a different amount of slots based on weight class.

ALSO

We don't need hardpoints the way the game has them setup, we need power based usage, especially for energy weapons. An engine needs an available energy pool that all weapons tap from. The bigger the engine, the more slots it takes up (or smaller is less) and the larger or smaller available energy pool.

Unused energy reduces energy weapon cycle time, or slows it down etc.

Don't put qty of hardpoints, just put a hardpoint allowing you to put any number of whatever weapon type. Instead of limiting type and qty. In other words just limit type. The slot usage with the above mechanice will take care of the rest.

It would also be nice to buy ammo in qty's instead of by tons, rounded up to the nearest slot.

I agree with you on the critslots, but I don't think they will make changes that stray that from from TT.

As far as heat usage/penalties, that is DEFINITELY a way to bring some common sense back into things.

[Zerberus]

Messing with critslots + hardpoints will only serve to make some stock builds senseless /impossible, and compound issues even more.

Take the atlas as an example. On the RS. If you limit the hardpoints to laser OR ppc, say one per arm, almost none of the standard canon configurations can be used.

Or the D... is it really in anybody`s interests to have 2 gauss rifles or god forbid 2 AC/20 in the torso (more crit space)? Becasue you sure as hell arent taking any away, a single AC20 barely fits as is.

Or the D-DC:potentially 60 LRMs instead of 45 (again, no way less space is a viable option)?

The only things any changes to the system would do is further ENCOURAGE boating, cripple stock configs, and make even more people complain because now that they can mount even more of their favorite weapon they see even less need to adapt instead of whine.

Edited by Zerberus, 18 April 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[Fooooo]

Albert Cowboy Teuton, on 17 April 2013 - 10:57 PM, said:

My favorite quick fix: make separate hardpoints for Lasers and PPCs. it won't affect the stock variants as they will be updated to their correct type and boats will have to be revised so that they actually "boat" the type of weapon they were designed for. I don't think "size" maters so much and I'd rather have a 4xLL Stalker in my face than a 32xSL hunchback in my back.

So basically you would have

LRM Hardpoints
SRM Hardpoints
Light Laser Hardpoints (SL/SPL - ML/MPL)
Heavy Laser Hardpoints (Any lasers)
Energy Projectile Hardpoints (PPC's and any other projectile based energy weapon)
Light Ballistic Hardpoints (MG's, AC2 - AC5, UAC5)
Heavy Ballistic Hardpoints (Any Ballistic)

Maybe split up the LRM ones as well or just leave SRM and LRM as missile etc etc etc.


Whilst I would not really be against this type of idea (even tho you said you wouldnt mind having no heavy / light HP's etc its the general idea I mean) , I'm not sure how much of an effect it would have if the hardpoints were not adjusted and or not balanced per mech etc. (some mechs will eventually have setups that allow / not allow what you are trying to stop / encourage etc)

Even then it still may end up doing not much of anything.

Edited by Fooooo, 18 April 2013 - 06:30 AM.

[Elepole]

tenderloving, on 17 April 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

I can run 2 ppcs on a Jenner at 115kp

Sir, my Cicada with 2 ERPPCs at 125kph would like to have a word with your jenner.


Also, the problem is not the wieght, but the size, that said, this is not that much of a problem, as a Cicada with 2 ERPPCs still balanced against an Awesome with 2 ERPPCs (fast unarmored heavy hitter, against slow armored heavy hitter, more or less balanced). It's only a problem if you want realism, which is not a part of this game to begin with.

Edited by Elepole, 18 April 2013 - 06:27 AM.

[Albert Cowboy Teuton]

Fooooo, on 18 April 2013 - 06:23 AM, said:

So basically you would have

LRM Hardpoints
SRM Hardpoints
Light Laser Hardpoints (SL/SPL - ML/MPL)
Heavy Laser Hardpoints (Any lasers)
Energy Projectile Hardpoints (PPC's and any other projectile based energy weapon)
Light Ballistic Hardpoints (MG's, AC2 - AC5, UAC5)
Heavy Ballistic Hardpoints (Any Ballistic)

Maybe split up the LRM ones as well or just leave SRM and LRM as missile etc etc etc.


Whilst I would not really be against this type of idea (even tho you said you wouldnt mind having no heavy / light HP's etc its the general idea I mean) , I'm not sure how much of an effect it would have if the hardpoints were not adjusted and or not balanced per mech etc. (some mechs will eventually have setups that allow / not allow what you are trying to stop / encourage etc)

Even then it still may end up doing not much of anything.

ERR... you went way beyond the scope of my suggestion. I'm just saying we should have Ballistics, laser, missile and PPC types. I like keeping it simple and there is already a system in place to regulate weapon size its called slots and weight. As for the upcoming mechs setups... who knows really?

Edited by Albert Cowboy Teuton, 19 April 2013 - 01:45 AM.

[Rhinzual]

Splinters, on 17 April 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Well one solution would be to require large weapons to use more hardpoints. Say a PPC needs 2 hardpoints, AC20 needs 3 ballistic hardpoints, LRM20 needs 2 hardpoints, etc. That way they can increase the number of hardpoints for small boating, but limit the craziness of large weapon boating.

The concern of course is that we'll end up with an even harder system for new players to BT/MW to decipher, but at this stage I'm not sure if it's a big deal with all the web-based online mech builders.

-S

AC/20 would use 2 Ballistic Hardpoints, as it comes standard on the AS7-D-DC which only has 2 Ballistic Hardpoints at all. Under the system you're advocating (that I agree with) you'd either have the AC20/Gauss Rifle or two smaller Ballistic weapons. The three missile hardpoints on the left torso are good as is, as people either slap an LRM, 3xSRM4/6 or 3xSSRM, keeping that slot pretty even in how many missiles come out. The hands should be MLa/LLa and the pulse variants just because ERPPC/PPC wouldn't make a ton of sense, but it is an Assault Mech at 100 tons.

[FunkyFritter]

I like the flexibility of the current system. If someone figures out how to fit a gauss rifle onto a raven and make it work, more power to them. There will always be min/max builds that push the system to its limit, that's simply what happens when you connect a bunch of people and let them collaborate. If a boat is too powerful it implies that the weapons it's boating are too powerful, there are better ways to fix that than revamping the whole hardpoint system.

[Mister Blastman]

As it is right now I'm tempted to say let us boat all the small and medium lasers we want and remove the speed caps entirely.

Imagine a Stalker plowing into a pack of snipers while going 90 KPH packing 15 smalls or 15 mediums... Oh the horror! It would be balanced. He'd have to survive long enough to get in close.

[Terror Teddy]

Instead of having "slots" I'd have preferred if they had gone with criticals.

Take the Jenner [founder variant, cant remember designation]
4 energy slots
2 missile

Instead of JUST that it could be:
4 Energy slots [4 Criticals per Arm]
2 missile [2 Criticals Torso]

This means that in the arms it could have a maximum of 2 lasers OR 1 laser that takes up to 4 critical slots.

HBK-4G
3 ballistic [10 Criticals]

etc...

You would then have to juggle critical alloted space AND slots.

[Satan n stuff]

tenderloving, on 17 April 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Yes you can argue against it and I did. The Raven can carry Gauss + XL, the Hollander can't. It is better than the Hollander at the Hollander's only job.

Why wouldn't a hollander be able to carry a gauss and an XL engine? A gauss is only 7 crits and the XL engine takes up three in the sidetorsos. Just because it doesn't have one stock doesn't mean you can't have one.

[tenderloving]

***** n stuff, on 19 April 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

Why wouldn't a hollander be able to carry a gauss and an XL engine? A gauss is only 7 crits and the XL engine takes up three in the sidetorsos. Just because it doesn't have one stock doesn't mean you can't have one.

You're right. I flipped the crits/tonnage for Gauss and AC20. The Raven still has an advantage in that it can carry the Gauss in its arm for greater deflection. At the very least it makes redundant a mech that only has one purpose.

[Sephlock]

Btw I looked up the Hollander II and was deeply disappointed to not see a second gauss rifle.

[jay35]

tenderloving, on 17 April 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

I can run 2 ppcs on a Jenner at 115kph, which is supposed to be a short/medium range guerilla fighter. I can throw a Gauss on a Raven, which is supposed to be a light weapons/electronic warfare mech. I can put 6PPCs on a Stalker, which has missile slots in it for some reason. Should I be able to do these things? Not really.

Only according to antiquated tabletop rules and canon. When it comes to gameplay and diversity, I'd much prefer we are allowed more freedom to build diverse mechs than strict adherence to tabletop turn-based rules in a multiplayer FPS game. So long as there are natural counters to everything, it's fine, and so far there are. That 2PPC light mech has its own downsides and can be countered just fine. So really, the only complaint here is "I don't like this because it's not close enough to TT rules for me" and that's where those of us who prefer fun, experimentation, and diversity over outmoded rules will have to disagree.

FunkyFritter, on 19 April 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

I like the flexibility of the current system. If someone figures out how to fit a gauss rifle onto a raven and make it work, more power to them. There will always be min/max builds that push the system to its limit, that's simply what happens when you connect a bunch of people and let them collaborate. If a boat is too powerful it implies that the weapons it's boating are too powerful, there are better ways to fix that than revamping the whole hardpoint system.

Yeah, this.

Edited by jay35, 19 April 2013 - 07:29 AM.

[Koniving]

Personally I prefer the AC/20 Raven or the Gauss Spider.

These mechs sacrifice things to be what they are. Speed, armor, etc.

The Gauss Spider requires an XL 170 rated engine, no ECM (due to being the K), no armor on the arm or shoulder opposite of the cannon (I'm serious, NO Armor!), and can only carry two tons of ammo at best. It goes in the 80s with speed tweak, can't carry jump jets without sacrificing one ton of ammo, and brings the pain like you wouldn't believe. Should it happen? Probably not. Does it imply the requirement of skill? Oh hell yes. Is it lore friendly? Matter of fact it is, there was a story of a Spider being dropped in a week in advance of an invasion with a Gauss Rifle intended to scope out and silently snipe down mechs until the rest of the team arrived.

PPC stalkers? Annoying but very vulnerable. You simply need some common sense and flank them while they are busy with the front line and poptarts. With a brawling Highlander (Twin UAC/5, twin LL, SRM6s) and two spiders, we flanked around a couple of poptarts and a PPC stalker and absolutely destroyed them. We engaged two, then one off on his own, and finally looped around to slaughter the rest. We lost no one. Although two players had no weapons. One of ours got legged. The enemy had a total of 3 Cataphract 3Ds, 2 PPC stalkers, 2 Highlanders and a PPC Trebuchet. Our team had two spiders, a brawling highlander, a poptart highlander, one cataphract 3d, two muromets with UAC/5s, and a jenner.

With the return of LRMs we'll see them PPC builds significantly reduced. Their biggest bane was the fact they couldn't get shots without dying from LRMs. But to point out a fact, their existence encourages the roles of scouts to find key targets like them. However, it would be nice if their shots were less precise. Say an area of effect around the cross-hairs. The reason it didn't matter so much before was because there was no arm lock, so the shots were less precise. Some would go slightly off course. We need a counter for that when lots of weapons are firing at the same point.

[tenderloving]

jay35, on 19 April 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

Only according to antiquated tabletop rules and canon. When it comes to gameplay and diversity, I'd much prefer we are allowed more freedom to build diverse mechs than strict adherence to tabletop turn-based rules in a multiplayer FPS game. So long as there are natural counters to everything, it's fine, and so far there are. That 2PPC light mech has its own downsides and can be countered just fine. So really, the only complaint here is "I don't like this because it's not close enough to TT rules for me" and that's where those of us who prefer fun, experimentation, and diversity over outmoded rules will have to disagree.


Yeah, this.

We currently have ongoing examples of how diversity is being stifled by the current mechlab. Load up a game and look at the makeup of mechs and the weapons they carry.

You couldn't be further from the truth about my love of TT rules. I think the TT rules are largely idiotic. What I do love is good gameplay, which we currently don't have and won't have until they figure out a way to bring diverse roles and loadouts back into the game.

[tenderloving]

FunkyFritter, on 19 April 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

I like the flexibility of the current system. If someone figures out how to fit a gauss rifle onto a raven and make it work, more power to them.

It's not difficult to put a Gauss rifle on a Raven. Just drag it into the slot and fill up the remaining weight with engine and ammo.

FunkyFritter, on 19 April 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

There will always be min/max builds that push the system to its limit, that's simply what happens when you connect a bunch of people and let them collaborate.

Correct, and it's the developers' job to create a game where there are multiple viable solutions. A multitude of other games do this.

FunkyFritter, on 19 April 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

If a boat is too powerful it implies that the weapons it's boating are too powerful, there are better ways to fix that than revamping the whole hardpoint system.

This may be the most twisted logic I have ever seen on these forums. If you have a mech that can carry 6 PPCs, you should nerf the PPCs to make boating less powerful? What about the mechs that can only use 1 or 2 PPCs? I guess they're just screwed. If you nerf a weapon to deal with boating then you also nerf the weapon for everyone who isn't boating. This is ludicrous.

[Greyfyl]

Koreanese, on 17 April 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

Only boating problem I see is. Large laser stalkers. Other then that,I see no problems. TThere's counter for just about everything

Sigh - the old "you can counter it if you l2p" argument. It never gets old does it?

[Truesight]

Maybe we should just adapt the Model, a Raven with a Gauss/AC/20 should grow an arm of a Highlander, the same with the side torso of the K2 and the Arms of the Jagermech. Or a Jenner with the Arms of an K2? If you want to equip PPCs, you have to go all the way!

Maybe just Small and Large Hardpoints.

Small Energy: Small Laser, Med. Laser, and Pulses, Flamers
Large Energy: Every Energy weapon (maybe even limit to at least LL or up)

Small Ballistic: MG, AC/2, AC/5 (maybe even UAC/5)
Large Ballistic: Every Ballistic weapon

Small Missile: SRM2/4, LRM5/10
Large Missile: Every Missile weapon

This would severly limit some Chassis, while others (like the A1 Cat) could still boat weapons. I dont think it would break the game, there would not be AC/20 Jager/K2 Mechs, no 3xSRM6 Cents, ...

Edited by Truesight, 19 April 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

tenderloving, on 17 April 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

I can put 6PPCs on a Stalker, which has missile slots in it for some reason.

Yeah, why do we even have missile slots? Theyre dead weight right now, I wonder why ppl dont use them -.-

Greyfyl, on 19 April 2013 - 08:19 AM, said:

Sigh - the old "you can counter it if you l2p" argument. It never gets old does it?

never gets less relevant either
It was relevant for LRMs prior to the patch that made them accidentally massively powerful BUT

its vastly easier to get the devs to break a weapon by coming here and QQing than it is to counter it in game. and they fall apart in the face of that QQing so fast people are killed by the shrapnel

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 19 April 2013 - 08:43 AM.

[Trauglodyte]

Utlimately, we've had this arguement put to bed by PGI the second that they added in the barrel art for ACs and Gauss on the K2. That was their subtle way of telling us that there would be no limitation put on weapon sizes in relation to the hard points.

This really only leaves us with the option of lobbying for heat penalties as a means to help counter idiotic builds. That you can run around with 4+ Lrg Laser/PPC builds and suffer no issues is beyond explaination to me. And it is, sadly, our only remaining trump card with which to deal with them.