210 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

I'm wondering if the countless threads about this will force IGP to forward the issue to PGI and PGI will make a statement on it...

[Destoroyah]

One thing is for sure if they intend to really look into the possibility they better start doing now or at the least say they intend to seriously look into the system even if they can't focus on it now cause they got other major systems to work out before launch.

Cause if try making such a drastic move after launch without no prior acknowledgement. The fallout could be severely damaging. Where as if they acknowledge the change while still in beta they at least got a "We Said we would probably do this" to fall back on.

[skullman86]

I've laid out some general rules for critical limits that I think would work well with PGI's hardpoint system and help mechs exploit their given specializations (more hardpoints = more crit slots). Obviously some mechs would need some extra tweaks to help them stand out more, but it's a start.

ASSAULT

-ENERGY-
2 crits per available hardpoint

• Awesome gets 3 crits per energy point across board as quirk so it can boat PPCs
  
• HGN 733p PPC arm gets 3 crits per energy hardpoint so it can carry double PPCs

-MISSILE-
Stock weapons determine maximum crit slots (LRM20 + SRM4 = 5 crits max for that component)

-BALLISTIC-
Stock weapons determine maximum crit slots (AC/20 = 10 crit slots max for that component)
----------------------------
HEAVY

-ENERGY-
2 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*

-MISSILE-
2 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*

-BALLISTIC-
4 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*
---------------------------
MEDIUM

-ENERGY-
2 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*

-MISSILE-
2 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*

-BALLISTIC-
4 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*
--------------------------
LIGHT

-ENERGY-
2 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*

-MISSILE-
2 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*

-BALISTIC-
3 crits per available hardpoint or stock weapon's crits where applicable*
-------------------------

"or stock weapon's crits where applicable" means that if a stock weapon has more crits than the proposed limit, the number of crits occupied by the stock weapon(s) will become the new crit limit for that component.

EX: 4 crits per ballistic hardpoint for a heavy. You have 1 ballistic hardpoint, but you have a gauss rifle equipped by default. The maximum crits allowed for that component is now 7

Edited by skullman86, 07 May 2013 - 07:07 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Will this system turn the Hunchback 4P in a non-boat?
Will this system turn the Jagermech into a non-boat?
Will this system turn the Missile-Carrying Catapults into non-boats?

Would this system turn the Devestator or Annihilator into a non-boat?

What happens when we get Omnimechs?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 12 May 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[FireSlade]

Interceptor12, on 25 April 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

You have to remember back in MW3 most of us who weren't in leagues boated the same weapon just for ***** and giggles. I mean sure you could boat a dozen machine guns and take merciless pleasure at watching the enemy daishi's armor get shredded, but you would be hard pressed to have enough ammunition to sustain your dakka-hose. That being said most of the stock configurations performed very well. They were certainly competitive enough that boats could have been generally classified as being gratuitous overkill. that and their was a very real possiblity on some of the mechs to spontaneously combust on builds designed for high heat alpha strikes.

Wrong, in MW3 online all you saw for builds were Shadow Cats and Dire Wolfs (Daishi), since that was the only way to win. You loaded up the Scat with 14ERSLs or the Dire Wolf with 6LRM20s (one volley caused shutdowns). MW3 was horribly balanced in terms of weapon loadouts that MW4 tried to fix with Hardpoints and Hardpoint sizes.

[ExtremeA79]

I really think this idea is something PGI should look into.
I feel that at this rate, the game will die when the damn clanners invade.

[Steadfast]

There should be nearly nill customisation except if playing an omni mech.

[MustrumRidcully]

FireSlade, on 12 May 2013 - 10:29 AM, said:

Wrong, in MW3 online all you saw for builds were Shadow Cats and Dire Wolfs (Daishi), since that was the only way to win. You loaded up the Scat with 14ERSLs or the Dire Wolf with 6LRM20s (one volley caused shutdowns). MW3 was horribly balanced in terms of weapon loadouts that MW4 tried to fix with Hardpoints and Hardpoint sizes.

The real balance problem in MW3 was also convergence and pinpoint accuracy. Hit-Scan lasers without beam duration together with convergence meant you could stack deadly amounts of damage into a single shot, blowing of limbs rapidly.

If MW3 had forced people to chain-fire with 0.25 second delays and had lasers been 1 second beam duration weapons, these boats might not have looked so impressive. They would still be good, of course, but not by such a margin.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 18 May 2013 - 10:12 AM.

[Peter von Danzig]

I voted "yes" even if I think that limiting the hard points won't cure the disease. The problem is not the 'Mech, the problem is the Weapon system.

Take the autocannons. They do pin point damage and shoot like a gun not like a cannon. They should have fire duration because they shoot rounds and not singe bullets. And they should have recoil whicht would it make quite harder to aim with fire duration. Hell, if a weapon should have recoil, then it's the autocannon. (Play dual AC20Jaeger, so no whinninh here).

Both PPC should have minimum ranges and - because they partly do kinetic damage - they should have recoil as well.

Personally I think you don't need dramatic changes like limiting the hard point system as long as you give specific characteristics to the different weapon systems.

Why did I choose yes anyway? We need a quick change and we need it very soon. I feel the game is dying for me and I am no hypocrat. You don't see any other weapons than ppc. Hunchies, Stalker, Highlander, Jenner, even Spiders use the ppc which is just insane. Yesterday I had a fight against a group and even the Atlas on the other side had one gauss and two ppc. Greetings to russia but this build is such a waste.

To cut to the chase: We need to do something. But I am a bit pessimistic since it seems like PGI is not aware of the problems we face.

Cheers, PvD

[DeadlyNerd]

MustrumRidcully, on 12 May 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

Will this system turn the Hunchback 4P in a non-boat?
Will this system turn the Jagermech into a non-boat?
Will this system turn the Missile-Carrying Catapults into non-boats?

Would this system turn the Devestator or Annihilator into a non-boat?

What happens when we get Omnimechs?

Was 4P ever designed as a non boat?
Was jager ever designed as a non boat?
Was the catapult ever designed as a non boat?

Isn't the whole point of omni technology, clan superiority?

Get a clue and then come back here.

[Jestun]

I do not support hardpoint sizes.

However, since this is a beta I'd not be opposed to it being tested. Personally I think it will cause more issues than it resolves and will serve only to further limit variation (people will still pick "the best", but now that best build will be one of fewer mech chassis).

DeadlyNerd, on 19 May 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

Isn't the whole point of omni technology, clan superiority?

This is a game, not a book. One side being obviously better than the other side is not balanced, and would be a very bad call in a competitive computer game, especially one with 100% PvP content.

Realistically PGI need to bring the clans in without giving them any real advantage (or balancing any bonus with a corresponding malus).

[PaintedWolf]

Yes- make the game less customizable, that way less people play and the hard core crowd can have a better time.

[MustrumRidcully]

DeadlyNerd, on 19 May 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

Was 4P ever designed as a non boat?
Was jager ever designed as a non boat?
Was the catapult ever designed as a non boat?

Isn't the whole point of omni technology, clan superiority?

Get a clue and then come back here.

If boating gives an advantage over non-boating, if there are more reasons to equip multiple copies of the same weapon than mixing different weapons, then these mechs have an advantage over all the other mechs. Which means that the other mechs, those with more restrictive hard points, those that cannot boat, will be less popular.

So if you hope to encourage less boats with more restrictive hard points, what you are more likely to get is less different mechs on the battlefield - more of those that can boat, less of those that cannot. You don't get versatile/mixed/balanced loadouts, because you still haven't given anyone a reason to actually want to build such mechs.

And if you believe that clan superiority is something that can survive in a PvP game, I think you're mistaken. You'll probably have to deal with heavy numerical faction imbalances - I don't mean match sizes, I mean that there will be 5 clan players for every IS player in the game because Clans have the cool toys. Guess what that will do to match-making...

Moreover, if clans have more firepower then our current mechs have now, plus all the boating advantages, we get a pacing problem - combat will get faster, and even more decided by who gets the first clean shot. It will remind players more of a typical first person shooter with fragile humans rather than a big stompy robot game.

So, could you go now and come back when you got a clue?

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 19 May 2013 - 11:59 AM.

[Red squirrel]

I do not want people to be restricted but I'd like different chassis having more of a unique feeling to them.
e.g. The dual AC20 on a Jagermech okay, but not on a Catapult.
4 PPC on an Awesome okay but not on a Stalker

[AntiCitizenJuan]

With todays shift from OP PPCs to OP LRMs, I encourage PGI to look into Hardpoint Sizes some more. 4 LRM15+Artemis Stalkers wouldnt be real if there was some kind of restriction on it

[Nation Uprise]

For anyone who agrees, please hammer this point home to @russ_bullock and @bryanekman on twitter. Maybe even @paul_inouye too. Threads keep being made about hardpoints but are always being ignored by the devs until they get buried. These constant changes to individual weapons aren't helping the game at all.

They're trying to balance the weapons because of boating, but its not the weapon's problem, its the amount of those weapons that are able to be equipped onto these mechs. 1-2 PPC isn't destroying the balance of the game, now 6? Definitely. They keep changing the weapon stats and all that is doing is pushing people to boat the next best thing. It went from boating MLs in closed beta to SRMs to LRMs to PPCs now we're back to LRMs. When is this gonna stop?

[Jestun]

This is one of the few times I'm glad PGI is ignoring the threads.

[Nation Uprise]

Jestun, on 23 May 2013 - 10:13 AM, said:

This is one of the few times I'm glad PGI is ignoring the threads.

Did you vote against this suggestion? Cause if you did, then you did your part. We don't need a flame war starting. If you have friends who agree with you, have them vote too. This is a suggestion, and thats all it is.

[Jestun]

Nation Uprise, on 23 May 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Did you vote against this suggestion? Cause if you did, then you did your part. We don't need a flame war starting. If you have friends who agree with you, have them vote too. This is a suggestion, and thats all it is.

I'll remove my post when you remove yours and just leave your vote.

I have no problem with you posting in support as well as voting, and I see no issue with me posting either.

[Nation Uprise]

Yeah, but you didn't make any argument against the suggestion. All you did was, " I hope the devs ignore this suggestion." How about putting some insightful info to show how this suggestion wouldn't work within this game instead of just "this suggestion sucks."

Jestun, on 19 May 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

I do not support hardpoint sizes.

However, since this is a beta I'd not be opposed to it being tested.

And why did you suddently change your tone from "maybe it should be tested" to "I hope PGI ignores this suggestion" in the same thread?

Edited by Nation Uprise, 23 May 2013 - 11:12 AM.