210 replies to this topic

[Shumabot]

Peiper, on 28 April 2013 - 10:02 AM, said:

From Sarna:

From Sarna:
From Sarna:
From Sarna:


Does this look like the local card shop in 1992? Sarna is irrelevant.

Edited by Shumabot, 28 April 2013 - 10:50 AM.

[Destoroyah]

I like the concept of hardpoint sizes cause it would help bring about a modest amount of balance as people can no longer cram as much alpha potential as they wish and must work within the confines givin them.

It's been my experience that MMOs that offer the player too much freedom in how they can build there characters as being bad things. Champions online is a good example with a freeform build you can make your character with all the bells and whistles and be able to tank/heal/dps all at the same time and do it well I might add. Where as the archetype builds are more themed and limited and will almost always lose to a freeform. This brings up the problem that it is impossible to balance the game cause if the developers try balancing the game so the archetype builds are viable the freeforms would just find a way to exploit the new system cause nothing was stopping them and trying to balance from the freeform perspective is impossible. MWO realized the same thing that if they allowed players complete customization they would never be able to balance the game which is why we got the current hardpoint system. Plus they needed to have a way to restrict where weapon fire came from. The current system does a good job at limiting massive small weapon boats but they didn't do anything to stop the other end of the spectrum in limiting larger weapons.

The main problem with the game at the time is the current dominance of high alpha builds and convergence. The high alpha is mainly a problem because of the current heat system and pinpoint accuracy. The current lvl of heat threshold givin mechs is ridiculously high. Normally a TT AWS 8Q firing a 3 PPC alpha was dang near overheat quality, but here we can alpha literally 2X that amount and still be active with only a 6-8 sec wait period too SAFELY alpha again. The Current system allows mechs to get away with huge alpha strikes with little real consequence. This is further conpounded by being able to land all your shots with pinpoint accuracy and at range too boot. With convergence being nearly instantaneous high alpha builds will trump sustained DPS builds cause they only need to place a few well placed shots and got more time to protect their vulnerable areas or find cover. The reason large weapons are the problem is cause they offer high damage at long ranges. Smaller weapon boats don't got the same level of pinpoint capabilities just by the design of the weapons themselves. A HNK 4P while dangerous and a small energy boat is not overpowered cause they have the super vulnerable hunch as well as trying to get all those medium lasers to hit the same area is hard without damage drift and while moving at full speed cause not moving at that range is suicide.

Also it'll help premote more variant role so if you want a medium with a AC20/Gauss the HNK 4g is your mech whereas the HNK 4H is good if your fine with a smaller ballistic but get more smaller energy weapons to work with. While a HNK 4SP could mimic a HNK 4J only the 4J can fit the big LRM launchers. Even if the 4J fitted 2 SRM6s and had the extra energy slot too boot the 4Js singular torso reliance is enough of a drawback to keep the 4SP viable. Same can be said for some lights if the COM 1B and RVN 2X where the only current lights with large energy slots they would become viable options instead of everyone opting for a RVN 3L for obvious reasons.

I understand the concerns about certain mechs that are released or could be released having the so called optimal hardpoint set up. In these cases they could always balance those variants by the quirk system making them have more limited ranges of movements and stuff.

[Yokaiko]

Shumabot, on 28 April 2013 - 10:48 AM, said:

shop in 1992? Sarna is irrelevant.

Speaking of relevance, where the hell is the infantry?

[Bobzilla]

Isn't it just a matter of not all mechs should have the same amount of slots in each section? It seems like a jenner could almost fit in an atlas's head, yet they can hold the same volume. Or a Cat's torsos are as big as an awesome's slot wise, when clearly they are differnt sizes.

It would probably go a long way if they just changed the available slots to match what the mech would actually be capable of instead of all mech slots being cookie cutter.

[3rdworld]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 April 2013 - 07:39 AM, said:

A troll that happens to discuss game balance pretty actively, is one of the few that actually knows how the heat efficiency stat in the mech lab is calculated, and has a hobby writes an excel mech lab?

If anyone is a troll, it is quite obviously you. Stop insulting 3rdWorld and start to really read and understand what he writes, engage his arguments if you disagree.

It isn't worth it. If you have an opposing view in these threads no one ever addresses that their system has major flaws, they just spout insults, or pretend that for some unknown reason the flaws in your idea somehow don't exist in theirs.

Hardpoints based on size:

• Don't stop boating (if fact make it worse, the AWS-8Q would be able to mount 10 MLs for a 50 point alpha and create the same heat as the 4 ppc stalker). Or if you are just adding additional restrictions, the 8Q now has 4 hardpoints, 3 3crit energy and 1 1crit enery. You have just removed customization from the game save for putting in smaller weapons and upping the engine.
  
• Doesn't solve all people running the best mech to use the most of the best weapon. The only contention to this is that in some fantasy world people will run crap mechs using balanced loadouts because of "reasons", and not just stick with the best boat. (while this is an issue with Weapon balance, it can be accounted for pretty easily).
  
• Doesn't stop high heat alpha.
  
• Doesn't stop certain chassis from being DoA. (would likely increase this).
  
• Doesn't alleviate hill humping.
  
• Still requires good weapon balance to work (in which case the restrictions are completely superfluous).

And all of these could be fixed with weapon balance and heat changes. While it would not be perfect as some people have pointed out, it will ebb and flow as people discover weapons with the slight edge on others, and will start boating them. An on the ball development team can make changes to push weapons in different ways, or to slowly move the meta in different directions.


We have already seen what a more restrictive customization system has done to the game. Ask hunchbacks how they turned out after engine restrictions. Or ravens not the 3L. Or the fact that the jenner is the fastest mech in the game because it exists in the sweet spot with a large enough base engine.

PPCs have been game breakingly OP since February, but now they are an issue. What changed? It sure as heck wasn't a less restrictive MechLab. It wasn't a new mech capable of mounting more of them. The only thing that changed is weapon balance. (please say HSR, so I can just tell you it was never any issue for anyone that knows how to aim).

DeadlyNerd, on 28 April 2013 - 10:12 AM, said:

what arguments are there to engage when everything he posts is false and the proof, that it is, is so easily obtainable breathing becomes a difficult task.
I know it's in your nature to make arguments on topics you have absolutely no understanding of but please don't defend someone who is so ignorant that he continues to blabber on about his incorrect view even after he's countered by 10 different people.

P.S. he's not posting any more, as in not defending his view. What does that tell you Sherlock?

It couldn't have been anything like arguing internet robits isn't the most important thing in my life. And I actually had stuff to do on the weekend. Nah, I am just too scared or defeated to come back to this thread, that just needs to die like all the other hardpoint size threads ever, since someone thought that the dual gauss k2 was OP.

Destoroyah, on 28 April 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Normally a TT AWS 8Q firing a 3 PPC alpha was dang near overheat quality, but here we can alpha literally 2X that amount and still be active with only a 6-8 sec wait period too SAFELY alpha again.

That is actually completely false. The TT 8Q only makes 2 heat per turn unless it is firing its SL then it makes 3. It could alpha 10 times before auto shutdown (assuming you roll the dice well).

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 April 2013 - 05:30 AM.

[Shumabot]

So you're making up a hardpoint size system that no one proposed, not explaining it, and saying that it would make everything worse with unexplained examples that sound like something the developers would never implement in the first place and that no one would actually want to see?

You have the guts to say OTHER PEOPLE are the ones not arguing in good faith, and you're doing that? Christ. You'll do anything to be right, won't you? (also, saying medium lasers are a pinpoint alpha is laughable, lasers are never pinpoint because lol-hitscan)

Quote

PPCs have been game breakingly OP since February, but now they are an issue. What changed? It sure as heck wasn't a less restrictive MechLab. It wasn't a new mech capable of mounting more of them. The only thing that changed is weapon balance. (please say HSR, so I can just tell you it was never any issue for anyone that knows how to aim).

The introduction of alpine and the idiotic weighting they give and then don't remove from new maps. When half of your matches are in an infinite open limbo-like empty space the PPC wins games. Tourmaline did the same (and alpine is still weighted like a new map). Laser HSR made it so that 3Ls were no longer a threat to long range teams as well. The missile nerf put the nail in the coffin, forcing the sniper meta, but it was already dominant before it. You can up the PPCs heat generation or lower its damage, but you're not going to actually find a balanced medium. Your propositions are nice in that asking for "perfect balance" is always a fun thought exercise, but you're repeatedly showing that you don't actually understand the end goal that you're trying to achieve and are basically just trying to get rid of PPC storm while arguing against a game change that you don't like because "muh tabletop!" rather than "it's bad for the game".

The fact that you're making things up, refusing to engage anyone on anything, and just copy pasting the same thing every single reply shows that you have no actual interest in this debate.

Edited by Shumabot, 29 April 2013 - 06:04 AM.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 05:46 AM, said:

So you're making up a hardpoint size system that no one proposed, not explaining it, and saying that it would make everything worse with unexplained examples that sound like something the developers would never implement in the first place and that no one would actually want to see?

You have the guts to say OTHER PEOPLE are the ones not arguing in good faith, and you're doing that? Christ. You'll do anything to be right, won't you? (also, saying medium lasers are a pinpoint alpha is laughable, lasers are never pinpoint because lol-hitscan)



The introduction of alpine and the idiotic weighting they give and then don't remove from new maps. When half of your matches are in an infinite open limbo-like empty space the PPC wins games. Tourmaline did the same (and alpine is still weighted like a new map). Laser HSR made it so that 3Ls were no longer a threat to long range teams as well. The missile nerf put the nail in the coffin, forcing the sniper meta, but it was already dominant before it. You can up the PPCs heat generation or lower its damage, but you're not going to actually find a balanced medium. Your propositions are nice in that asking for "perfect balance" is always a fun thought exercise, but you're repeatedly showing that you don't actually understand the end goal that you're trying to achieve and are basically just trying to get rid of PPC storm while arguing against a game change that you don't like because "muh tabletop!" rather than "it's bad for the game".

DeadlyNerd, on 25 April 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

I already stated, if hard points were dynamic meaning that instead of 1 AC10 you can fit 7 MGs but instead of 1 MG you can't fit AC10, cheese would stop and game would be balanced and cheese free. No more 6 PPC stalkers, dual AC20 jagers(although I'd allow for those), twin gauss 4X,IM or 3D, etc.

Alas, our thinking has too much logic so it cannot be accepted.

Also prepare for "hurr durr, this will reduce the amount of varied builds".
As if 2 PPC 1 gauss or 4 PPC sniper builds are variety.

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

What this also does is let certain mechs that are suppose to be boats, be the boats of the game. It also lets certain mechs that are unique be unique within it's weight.

Two excellent examples of this is the HBK-4G and AWS-8Q.

The AWS-8Q is suppose to be the PPC boat of the game. Allow it to be the only mech to equip 6 PPCs.

The HBK-4G is suppose to be the premier 50t mech with an AC/20. But the HBK-4P is just plain better due to a smaller hunch and more hardpoints.



Well, that is if you follow the MW3 system.

I am saying if you added a Large, SRM, and LRM quantifier, you could do this but still have an open system. This allows mechs with the "Large" quantifier to equip anything in it's place. This allows you to limit the number of large weapon systems in mechs so that they can't be boated, unless that mech is suppose to be a boat.

Look here:

http://mwomercs.com/...loadout-issues/

Here are 2 from the first page, that my criticisms are accurate for. If you would explain how you would see it implemented, I will address yours directly.

I might be able to agree with you on the actual ability to balance weapons if you have the standpoint that PGI is incapable of it. But balancing weapons that have different characteristics has been done before, and it is not impossible. You can certainly get it close enough that the choice between weapon x and weapon y is a choice in preference.

I shoot MLs pretty pinpoint. If you cannot, that doesn't make it impossible, just your accuracy needs work. I also never said they were pin point. You added that.

I never played TT, and I am more inclined to think that a less restrictive gives more choices. I only commented on the 8Q because he said "from TT" on something that is totally false.

I am also not going to talk about what teams did. I have recordings of what teams actually did, and have been recording competitive matches for several months. I don't need a false lesson on what you thought they did, I have plenty of experience in it.

I like the game quite a bit actually. I did develop one of the first theory crafting tools for MWO in CB, and I still support it to this day. I just think it could be improved, mostly by weapon balance and heat caps to buff DPS. The last thing I want is TT online or BT online.

[Shumabot]

Quote

Here are 2 from the first page, that my criticisms are accurate for. If you would explain how you would see it implemented, I will address yours directly.

I don't see any awesomes with 10 medium lasers, nor a method advocating for that possibility, but I'll chalk that up to interpretation.

Quote

I might be able to agree with you on the actual ability to balance weapons if you have the standpoint that PGI is incapable of it. But balancing weapons that have different characteristics has been done before, and it is not impossible. You can certainly get it close enough that the choice between weapon x and weapon y is a choice in preference.

How and where has it been done before? Certainly never in any mechwarrior game or in any mech game at all that I am aware of. The problem with weapon balance is that it's not a thing. It doesn't exist. Balance is just a shorthand term for a gameplay state that is what can achieveably create the best sense of "fairness". Balance parity between what? DPS to weight/heat/range spreads? Well if you homogenize those numbers to be perfect you're still just in boat town. Balanced to deal with the issues of opportunity costs and mixed ranges? That's functionally impossible without heavy weapon restrictions and incredibly homogeneous maps. You clearly want the first and I want both. You create a false division pitting these ideas as adversarial, and that's just one of the many ways you are arguing in bad faith.

Quote

I shoot MLs pretty pinpoint. If you cannot, that doesn't make it impossible, just your accuracy needs work. I also never said they were pin point. You added that.

And I turn my torso and you hit 4 sections of my frame quartering your "/pinpoint/" damage. And yeah, I added it, I read "50 point alpha" as "50 pinpoint alpha" my bad, sorry.

Quote

I never played TT, and I am more inclined to think that a less restrictive gives more choices. I only commented on the 8Q because he said "from TT" on something that is totally false.

Name a single competitive game where a high level of customization created actual, material, meaningful variety. One. They don't exist because that's not how it works.

Quote

I am also not going to talk about what teams did. I have recordings of what teams actually did, and have been recording competitive matches for several months. I don't need a false lesson on what you thought they did, I have plenty of experience in it.

Yes, making things up and not justifying my points is fun for me too. Lets try to avoid that here though.

Quote

I like the game quite a bit actually. I did develop one of the first theory crafting tools for MWO in CB, and I still support it to this day. I just think it could be improved, mostly by weapon balance and heat caps to buff DPS. The last thing I want is TT online or BT online.

It certainly doesn't seem that way from your arguments.

Edited by Shumabot, 29 April 2013 - 06:40 AM.

[Kivin]

I haven't yet had a chance to fully read this topic, but I do have a lot to say on the matter. I've addressed many of the objections in http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2304013 in a similar thread.

Edited by Kivin, 29 April 2013 - 07:43 AM.

[tenderloving]

Kivin, on 29 April 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

I haven't yet had a chance to fully read this topic, but I do have a lot to say on the matter. I've addressed many of the objections in http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2304013 in a similar thread.

That post was incredible. I was tempted to copy/paste it and send it directly to PGI as a support ticket. They need to see this stuff.

[Kivin]

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:06 AM, said:

That post was incredible. I was tempted to copy/paste it and send it directly to PGI as a support ticket. They need to see this stuff.

Thank you very much. It's sort of funny what you get inspired to do at 5 in the morning when you haven't slept in thirty hours, but none the less...

These forums are comprised of a bell-curve gradient of players who, on one end, are super-radical in favour of everything PGI, and the other end are willing to throw away nearly everything but the title to make a solid action video game, with the majority stuck in the middle. One side wont be convinced, no matter how well we represent the point, and the other will march with almost nothing to go on.

As for me. I'll be satisfied if the owners of just one of the popular mech labs decides to knight the issue and fork (or allow the fork) of their software to represent a virtual world where we had some limitations, so we could show the 90% that actually matter - the ones whose opinions follow the evidence - that this is an improvement, and the improvement we need.

I'm pretty sure that if we allow the Piranha's to have their way, instituting small, incremental balance changes by raising/lowering heat, range, dps of the weapons, we'll be here (or not) in a years time, still waiting for the perfect synergy of weapon statistics that brings the hypothetical balance zen. If I could honestly make myself believe that there exists a combination of numbers that would tighten the meta up for now and forever, I would gladly knight it, as it stands a far better chance of being implemented by the hyper-conservative piranhas.

Edited by Kivin, 29 April 2013 - 08:31 AM.

[Zongoose]

To argue the point of an Awesome with 10 medium lasers, that would be fine. The 50 point alpha damage is spread over time, hitting multiple armour sections at anything further than point blank (even then if the target torso twists it will spread). It is only 50 damage out to 270m, max range 540m where it becomes 0 damage. This is far less scary than a PPC boat which can hit you at double that range, all in 1 spot, without having to stay exposed longer than the few ms it takes to press the fire button. It's like a splat cat, dangerous in its 1 ideal situation, no problem at all if you see it coming.

This is also on the only mech that would have this many 3 slot energy hardpoints. A stalker currently has at most 6 energy hardpoints. Looking at stock load outs these would probably be at best 4x1 and 2x2 slots for a total capacity of 8 medium lasers at best. It also wouldn't be able to mount a PPC, at all. Maybe we look a bit closer at 1 or two of the variant and increase the 2x2 slots to 2x3 slots. This then gives a mech also capable of 10 medium lasers or 2 PPC and 4 medium lasers and far more in between. Still nothing truly scary but a lot of room to play around and try different things.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

I don't see any awesomes with 10 medium lasers, nor a method advocating for that possibility, but I'll chalk that up to interpretation.

DeadlyNerd: I already stated, if hard points were dynamic meaning that instead of 1 AC10 you can fit 7 MGs but instead of 1 MG you can't fit AC10


I thought it was pretty obvious.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Balanced to deal with the issues of opportunity costs and mixed ranges?

I disagree. Any modern FPS deals with the same scenario, on generally much more varied maps. At the highest level (read MLG) there may not be much variation, but given the size an niche of this game, I doubt that is our greatest concern.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Name a single competitive game where a high level of customization created actual, material, meaningful variety. One. They don't exist because that's not how it works.

while people love to bash it, CoD has more variation that what we have. its customization may not be as extreme, but you are generally free to take what ever weapon you want with whatever perks and back-ups you desire. (at least if my memory is correct, haven't played it in some time). And generally speaking there was no dramatic difference between Assault rifle X vs Assault rile Y.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 06:38 AM, said:

Yes, making things up and not justifying my points is fun for me too. Lets try to avoid that here though.

meh, you could check the RHoD rosters if you want. Our team is also undefeated in Marik league.

Did notice you weren't on any of the rosters though? Misprint?

Also could you please post your proposal, I feel we spend the majority of the conversation talking about my ideas, and postulating on an undefined system your advocating.

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 April 2013 - 08:39 AM.

[tenderloving]

3rdworld, on 29 April 2013 - 08:37 AM, said:

meh, you could check the RHoD rosters if you want. Our team is also undefeated in Marik league.

Did notice you weren't on any of the rosters though? Misprint?

Did you seriously just say "I'm better than you?"

You pretty much prove that you are arguing from a position of weakness when you pull stuff like that.

And stop focusing on one person's (not even the OP's) interpretation of a revised hardpoint system. You've been cherry-picking fringe posts this entire time. The intent of this thread is that SOMETHING needs to be done about hardpoint sizes; specifics are up to PGI. Everyone but you seems to be on the same page about that.

Edited by tenderloving, 29 April 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

Did you seriously just say "I'm better than you?"

You pretty much prove that you are arguing from a position of weakness when you pull stuff like that.

And stop focusing on one person's (not even the OP's) interpretation of a revised hardpoint system. You've been cherry-picking fringe posts this entire time. The intent of this thread is that SOMETHING needs to be done about hardpoint sizes; specifics are up to PGI. Everyone but you seems to be on the same page about that.

No, I didn't say I am better than you. I said I didn't need a lesson on what teams do, because I know what they do. He more or less called me a liar. I gave some proof to the contrary.

There are like 100 different ideas buzzing around this thread. All of which are different, and everyone advocating them spouting off how they "never said that" when I respond to someone else.

I am not a mind reader. I don't know what it is you are advocating. And without any specifics how do you want me to respond to some undefined system?

I do love the part, where you are attempting to call me out on a argument from authority, then giving me an argument ad populum

[tenderloving]

By your own admission you don't know what the argument is, or what the general population of this thread are discussing. -"I'm not a mind reader."- In which case my "argument ad populum" (It wasn't even this but I'm not getting into it) was correct and not a fallacy.

You literally just said "I don't know what's going on in here but I'm going to argue with it anyway!"

You are cherry-picking the least viable options that are being thrown up in here and arguing against them. Your uncanny ability to do this leads me to believe that you know exactly what you are doing and are therefore a troll.

Don't start the fallacy BS train. Any ***** with access to google can wikipedia that crap and it doesn't help. You've already admitted you don't understand what you are arguing about. Just leave the thread.

From this point on I'm only going to address constructive posts in this topic. Feel free to quote me but I'm not going to respond and repeat what has been explained to you many times in these last 7 pages.

Edited by tenderloving, 29 April 2013 - 09:01 AM.

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

By your own admission you don't know what the argument is, or what the general population of this thread are discussing. -"I'm not a mind reader."- In which case my "argument ad populum" (It wasn't even this but I'm not getting into it) was correct and not a fallacy.

You literally just said "I don't know what's going on in here but I'm going to argue with it anyway!"

You are cherry-picking the least viable options that are being thrown up in here and arguing against them. Your uncanny ability to do this leads me to believe that you know exactly what you are doing and are therefore a troll.

Don't start the fallacy BS train. Any ***** with access to google can wikipedia that crap and it doesn't help. You've already admitted you don't understand what you are arguing about. Just leave the thread.

You didn't understand the context or the reason behind the I'm not a mind reader.

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:42 AM, said:

And stop focusing on one person's (not even the OP's) interpretation of a revised hardpoint system.

If anyone doesn't know what they are actually advocating, it is you. You give some vague idea of stricter hardpoints, then want me to give you a valid reason why it won't work or to point out flaws in it.

When I give you are reason, 3 other people tell me that wasn't there position to start with. If you would just lay out what your are asking for, I can more accurately respond to the direct topic at hand. It has nothing to do with me not understanding what the argument is, I just want you to make your position clear.

tenderloving, on 29 April 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

From this point on I'm only going to address constructive posts in this topic. Feel free to quote me but I'm not going to respond and repeat what has been explained to you many times in these last 7 pages.

by constructive you mean people that agree with ya. got it.

Hey hopefully you will leave this thread and let it die, like every other hardpoint crit limit thread since CB

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 April 2013 - 09:13 AM.

[Shumabot]

Quote

DeadlyNerd: I already stated, if hard points were dynamic meaning that instead of 1 AC10 you can fit 7 MGs but instead of 1 MG you can't fit AC10


I thought it was pretty obvious.

I assumed it was a special exception since MGs are otherwise worthless and machine gun "arrays" are part of the TT and videogame history. Those aren't hardpoint limitations if you can go backwards, an awesome could have ~72 medium lasers if his system worked the way you interpreted it. That's effectively no hardpoints at all, the OPPOSITE of hardpoint limitations.

So no, it's not obvious.

Quote

I disagree. Any modern FPS deals with the same scenario, on generally much more varied maps. At the highest level (read MLG) there may not be much variation, but given the size an niche of this game, I doubt that is our greatest concern.

True, many modern FPS games do so, and they do so with the ultimate of boating. Sniper rifle? Yeah, you're useful at one range. Shotgun? One range. One gun, one range.

Mechwarrior is, in theory, a game based on having mixed all purpose loadouts to suit a variety of scenarios. It's not meant to function that way. Are you tacitly admitting that you're ok with boating being the overwhelming and superior standard in this game? Because you sound like you're advocating it.

Quote

while people love to bash it, CoD has more variation that what we have. its customization may not be as extreme, but you are generally free to take what ever weapon you want with whatever perks and back-ups you desire. (at least if my memory is correct, haven't played it in some time). And generally speaking there was no dramatic difference between Assault rifle X vs Assault rile Y.

I agree that CoD has a lot of variation, though I'd argue that those systems are too materially different from MWO to be transferred or really considered. When two thirds of your assault rifles are virtually clones of one another and your play experience between LMGs and ARs is functionally identical is that the kind of variety this game is striving to achieve? Is that variety materially meaningful as differentiating playstyles or just differentiating nuances of single playstyles?

Also, CoD bleaches down to a very small number of builds at competitive levels. Shotguns and SMGs vanish and 9/10 perks are unused. League of legends has remarkebly few customization systems but you see more build and character diversity in that than you will ever see in MWO or CoD.

and you dodged my question

Quote

meh, you could check the RHoD rosters if you want. Our team is also undefeated in Marik league.

Did notice you weren't on any of the rosters though? Misprint?

Nope, I just discount the miniscule population of RHoD players as being materially good game designers and they certainly lack an impartial viewpoint on what is and isn't effecting the community. When 1 in 1000 games played is an RHOD game you do not represent what is happening.

Quote

Hey hopefully you will leave this thread and let it die, like every other hardpoint crit limit thread since CB

And hopefully you develop the ability to reason rationally. I'm not holding my breath.

[DeadlyNerd]

3rdworld, on 29 April 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

It couldn't have been anything like arguing internet robits isn't the most important thing in my life. And I actually had stuff to do on the weekend. Nah, I am just too scared or defeated to come back to this thread, that just needs to die like all the other hardpoint size threads ever, since someone thought that the dual gauss k2 was OP.

So during the weekend you DON'T have the time to defend your view but during the weekdays you DO even though a normal human being would be too busy working/education and then relaxing to bother with some forum troll that is telling you you're wrong.

By logic you either hate relaxing, OR you're not working or educating yourself.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 29 April 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

I assumed it was a special exception since MGs are otherwise worthless and machine gun "arrays" are part of the TT and videogame history. Those aren't hardpoint limitations if you can go backwards, an awesome could have ~72 medium lasers if his system worked the way you interpreted it. That's effectively no hardpoints at all, the OPPOSITE of hardpoint limitations.

So no, it's not obvious.

It says in the quote "but instead of 1 MG you could not mount an AC/10." So it is a hardpoint limitation based on the crits of the stock equipment. I doubt you actually read it, or maybe just skimmed.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

True, many modern FPS games do so, and they do so with the ultimate of boating. Sniper rifle? Yeah, you're useful at one range. Shotgun? One range. One gun, one range.

Mechwarrior is, in theory, a game based on having mixed all purpose loadouts to suit a variety of scenarios. It's not meant to function that way. Are you tacitly admitting that you're ok with boating being the overwhelming and superior standard in this game? Because you sound like you're advocating it.

Last time I played an FPS they allow you to have a back-up weapon.

Not a super fan of 1 weapon and such. I just would rather there be a reason to want to not run a boat, than being forced to by a more restrictive hardpoint system. Specifically when you can just subvert the system by using a natural boat. With correct balance factors I believe I could promote varied (meaning not just stacking a single range or weapon), without stricter hardpoints.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

I agree that CoD has a lot of variation, though I'd argue that those systems are too materially different from MWO to be transferred or really considered. When two thirds of your assault rifles are virtually clones of one another and your play experience between LMGs and ARs is functionally identical is that the kind of variety this game is striving to achieve? Is that variety materially meaningful as differentiating playstyles or just differentiating nuances of single playstyles?

Also, CoD bleaches down to a very small number of builds at competitive levels. Shotguns and SMGs vanish and 9/10 perks are unused. League of legends has remarkebly few customization systems but you see more build and character diversity in that than you will ever see in MWO or CoD.

and you dodged my question

I would say it is different enough. Regardless of the map the player using the submachine gun had a role as did the player using the LMG. The entire goal is to kill the enemy, so making sure the different ways to do that are viable is the most variation you can ask for.

How did I dodge your question? I said CoD had meaningful variation, perhaps not at the MLG level (which MWO will never achieve), but for the general population, it is quite a bit.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

Nope, I just discount the miniscule population of RHoD players as being materially good game designers and they certainly lack an impartial viewpoint on what is and isn't effecting the community. When 1 in 1000 games played is an RHOD game you do not represent what is happening.

So you don't have any actual idea what teams were doing or when. But I bet internet forum warrior Shumabot, could have saved this game from the cretins.

Shumabot, on 29 April 2013 - 09:52 AM, said:

And hopefully you develop the ability to reason rationally. I'm not holding my breath.

Na, I will just keep responding to you. I would miss you to much.