9 replies to this topic

[MeatForBrains]

There has been considerable discussion on this forum about boating, and how hardpoints work, and how they should work. From my viewpoint the issue of boating, poptarting, not having enough armor on center torso, needing to double armor to make fights last longer, heat inefficiencies, single heats sinks not viable, etc. and is a symptom of an underlying problem, namely the current hardpoint system.

It appears that the current hardpoint system is much too simple for the complicated arrays of mechs, weapons, armor, engines, etc.

With the current hardpoint system, you are penalized in several ways.
1. You are encouraged to place the largest weapon available into a slot.
2. You must take double heat sinks to compensate for the large weapons
3. You must maximize your burst damage in order to compensate for your high heat
4. You must find the most effective way to hide while your heat dissipates
5. Whatever else, tired of listing things

Hence the arrival of the poptart, and boating. The pattern reemerges with whatever the flavor weapon of the month is.

While in themselves there is nothing wrong, and there are ways to get around each strategy, it's indicative of a system that cannot handle the complexity of this PVP game.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Unfortunately the way to fix it may be an overhaul of the system or a modified version like what I would outline below.




1. Each mech should have a different number of available slots in relation to their weight.

As it stands now, a commando has the same available slots as an Atlas. Which means, if you can find the weight, you can put a PPC or whatever on it. Or a raven with a gauss. Or the other extreme of a 90ton Highlander not being able to hold an AC20 on it's arm even though there is a ballistic hardpoint there. (except for one variant)

Engines should have slot amounts proportionate to their rating.

OR

As an alternative, have the weapons change slot size based on weight class. So instead of a LL taking up 2 slots, on a light it would take up 3 or 4 or however you want to balance the system.


Of course this would upend all current variants of all mech types, and mess up the current mech XP system.




2. Eliminate quantities of hardpoints, but allow hardpoint types.

What does this mean? Designate what kind of weapons are allowed on a mech area. Missles on torso, ballistics on arms, as an example, and leave the qty of weapons up to the player.

This would allow the mech models to stay the same, and not penalize for placing or boating smaller weapons to compensate for having a few larger weapons.

Add this feature to the number of available slots for a weight class, and you effectively eliminate boating of massive weapons, but allow boating of smaller ones if slots and weight allow. Lots of small, or few large.




3. Engines should have an energy rating that all weapons tap.

This would eliminate boating too much energy and being effective. It would also keep a smaller engine mech from putting out insane amounts of energy that the large weapons use. If you don't use all the energy of the engine, let it affect mech speed, and energy weapon recharge rate. Alternatively let there be a penalty for taxing the engine.

Missles and ballistics would have energy use as well, though it wouldn't affect reload speeds since it is a mechanical system.




There are lots of other little things the game does, but these three points would fix the current system. Maybe some of them are redundant with weight, such as Engine Energy, but it's something to discuss.

[tenderloving]

Lots of small weapons is just as problematic as more large weapons than was intended. Your other ideas are sound.

The true, simple fix is to create sized hardpoints. This will allow PGI to tweak variants to make them unique, and allow mechs to retain their original design roles. The restrictions placed by sized hardpoints prevents abuse, but still allows for a ton of customization.

[Syllogy]

Boating isn't a problem. Nobody complained about boating when LRM's were an effective countermeasure.

Instead of nerfing weapons or chassis, you should be advocating the fixing of LRM's.

[AnnoyingCat]

hey, you know that the the urbie mech can arm an AC20?

[MeatForBrains]

tenderloving, on 18 April 2013 - 06:13 AM, said:

Lots of small weapons is just as problematic as more large weapons than was intended. Your other ideas are sound.

The true, simple fix is to create sized hardpoints. This will allow PGI to tweak variants to make them unique, and allow mechs to retain their original design roles. The restrictions placed by sized hardpoints prevents abuse, but still allows for a ton of customization.

Well the boating of small weapons would become just a math excersize in Engine Energy usage, tonnage, and slot space, just like all the weapons.

[tenderloving]

Syllogy, on 18 April 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

Boating isn't a problem. Nobody complained about boating when LRM's were an effective countermeasure.

Instead of nerfing weapons or chassis, you should be advocating the fixing of LRM's.

Tons of people complained about boating then- boating LRMs.

[Syllogy]

tenderloving, on 18 April 2013 - 07:59 AM, said:

Tons of people complained about boating then- boating LRMs.

PPCs, like LRM's, have an enormous drawback - minimum range.

Boating is not a problem. Keeping Snipers in check is a problem.

[tenderloving]

Syllogy, on 18 April 2013 - 06:31 AM, said:

Nobody complained about boating when LRM's were an effective countermeasure.

I refute this claim and you respond with:

Syllogy, on 18 April 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

PPCs, like LRM's, have an enormous drawback - minimum range.

Boating is not a problem. Keeping Snipers in check is a problem.

So are you accepting that what you said in your first claim was 100% false? Because it takes the wind out of your future claims until you address the fact that many people did in fact complain about boating LRMs.

All the LRM/SRM nerf did was change the type of boats we see. It did nothing to make them less of a gameplay problem. I do agree that LRMs need to be viable for the game to be balanced but boating will still be the most effective way to build competitively.

[Roadbeer]

People complained about LRMs because of the constant flux of damage output. God/worm/God/worm.
The Catapult is a prime example of a mech that is designed as a specific platform for LRM boating, so is the Stalker. Before you argue that fact, anything that has 20 tubes on each arm is INTENDED to vomit missiles. These designs have their own, built in, gimps to doing that. The K2 is another example of a 'boat'. it's stock variant is dual PPC, if armor wasn't doubled, you'd have that design as a God of the Battlefield without customizing a single thing on it.

The argument that a commando has the same amount of HP as an Atlas, isn't a bad one, but you have the obvious limitation of weight. Sure you can put a PPC on a Raven, but not much else of value, and you're trading either armor or speed. There are built in counters to boating (Heat efficiency, speed, armor, etc.). You've pretty much made yourself a one trick pony, and when taken out of that role, you're just a lot of scrap metal.

I keep seeing these threads, but it's like with politics, you're inventing a solution when there isn't a problem.

[Tekadept]

Although sometimes boats aren't always what they seem

Edited by Tekadept, 18 April 2013 - 04:03 PM.