210 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

DeadlyNerd, on 25 April 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

See? I knew it, people ignorantly posted disagreements on "variety".

I ask you again, is 4 PPC,6PPC, 1 gauss 2 PPC variety? Everyone is using the biggest guns for the highest alpha just cause they can mount them in places they shouldn't be able to.

Remove the ability of boating PPCs from mechs with medium lasers and you make the awesome the ultimate PPC boater, the way it should be. Remove the ability of placing gauss into AC5 spots and 3D becomes 1 gauss, no PPC mech. Remove the ability of placing LRM20s into certain stalkers and catapults regain their original use as LRM support.

But ofc, it's normal, you don't get it cause you're too narrow minded and looking at this like "durr, but now I can't put PPCs on 9/10 of my mechs".

Again, you merely shift the meta to mechs that come stock with certain weapons. You don't change or correct anything. PPCs are so OP right now, you would just make everyone use the 9M, or if you counted Large Lasers as a "large" energy hardpoint they would be running Atlas K with PPCs & Gauss.

Your proposal to increase variety is basically condemning every mech to a more or less stock loadout.

Your issue, you don't think like a Min/Maxer, and cannot see how your system actually makes the problem worse.

Edited by 3rdworld, 25 April 2013 - 01:01 PM.

[Hellcat420]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Again, you merely shift the meta to mechs that come stock with certain weapons. You don't change or correct anything. PPCs are so OP right now, you would just make everyone use the 9M, or if you counted Large Lasers as a "large" energy hardpoint they would be running Atlas K or RS with PPCs.

Your proposal to increase variety is basically condemning every mech to a more or less stock loadout.

Your issue, you don't think like a Min/Maxer, and cannot see how your system actually makes the problem worse.

ppc are far from op, and they are far from the problem. the problem is the horrible hardpoint system. hell if ppc are so op gauss rifles are the most op weapon in game.

Edited by Hellcat420, 25 April 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[3rdworld]

Hellcat420, on 25 April 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

ppc are far from op, and they are far from the problem. the problem is the horrible hardpoint system. hell if ppc are so op gauss rifles are the most op weapon in game.

If you believe this, you should just check out of the conversation. You are not qualified to have it.

[Hellcat420]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

If you believe this, you should just check out of the conversation. You are not qualified to have it.

you should go back to cod. seems like that is where you belong. besides you seem to not have any interest in fixing teh problem, you just want a nerf to a weapon you dont like. i actually use all the different weapons, and put them in different situations, use them for different fighting styles just to see how they perform in different roles. you obviously have not. you just watch other people use them and assume you know better than everyone else(either that or you are just full of crap to troll people).

Edited by Hellcat420, 25 April 2013 - 01:15 PM.

[3rdworld]

Hellcat420, on 25 April 2013 - 01:09 PM, said:

you should go back to cod. seems like that is where you belong. besides you seem to not have any interest in fixing teh problem, you just want a nerf to a weapon you dont like.

Ya, I hate them alright. As I said, you are not qualified for this discussion.

[Hellcat420]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 01:15 PM, said:

Ya, I hate them alright. As I said, you are not qualified for this discussion.

you are definatly not qualified for this discussion because you dont even understand what the actual problem is.

Edited by Hellcat420, 25 April 2013 - 01:26 PM.

[3rdworld]

Hellcat420, on 25 April 2013 - 01:25 PM, said:

you are definatly not qualified for this discussion because you dont even understand what the actual problem is.

[Hellcat420]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

thats what i thought. come back when you can actually comprehend what the problem is when teh weapons in this game. (ill even give you a hint, its not teh weapons)

Edited by Hellcat420, 25 April 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[3rdworld]

Hellcat420, on 25 April 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

thats what i thought. come back when you can actually comprehend what the problem is when teh weapons in this game. (ill even give you a hint, its not teh weapons)

And people think our schools are failing.

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

Looking at your post, I could run pretty much exactly what I said early, actually more restricted because I could not swap the LRMs for SRM or vice versa. Generally speaking, when I critique something, it is best to not suggest the exact thing I critiqued. Your system forces mech to run pretty much stock. You are simply shifting the Meta to those mechs you feel are boats.

With the Atlas D, I could put MPLs for MLs, or Gauss for Ac/20. That is about the most customization I could do. This defeats the entire premise of Mechwarrior.


AS7-D:
RA: 1 Energy
RT: 1 Large Ballistic, 1 Ballistic
CT: 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM, 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Energy

What about dropping the LRM/20 to an LRM/15 or LRM/10, to add 4 Medium Pulse Lasers, then dropping the AC/20 for an AC/10 to add heatsinks?

How is that not enough customization? Is it because you can't boat Large Lasers? If you want to do that, play a Laser boat like the Awesome that can wield 6 Large Lasers.

But nobody wants to do that because the Awesome has a drawback of being large. Which is the whole point of the Awesome, no other mech can have so many large PPCs or Larger Lasers as the Awesome can.

And what does the HBK-4G bring to the table that the HBK-4P doesn't? Having a little bit more restrictive hardpoint system with more classifications helps bring balance to the chassises.

Without restrictions in place, people just pick the best armor/engine rating ratios and boats the best weapon. Stalker for it's small profile for an 85t mech and ability to load up on energy weapons and the Highlander/Cataphract for it's ability to jumpjet and place pin-point PPC/Gauss fire on a single location.

Having better hardpoint classifications would help break up a lot of these issues while still allowing people to customize their mechs. And if you can't customize that specific variant to the way you like, I am sure one of the other variants allows you to do this.

The whole reason the hardpoints was created in the first place was because why have 3 different 50t mechs? Just pick the best silhouette and take the same loadout of any 50t mech.

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Again, you merely shift the meta to mechs that come stock with certain weapons. You don't change or correct anything. PPCs are so OP right now, you would just make everyone use the 9M, or if you counted Large Lasers as a "large" energy hardpoint they would be running Atlas K with PPCs & Gauss.

Your proposal to increase variety is basically condemning every mech to a more or less stock loadout.

Your issue, you don't think like a Min/Maxer, and cannot see how your system actually makes the problem worse.

The Atlas could be the only mech that could wield 2 PPCs and 1 Gauss, and that isn't too scary on a large, slow mover like the Atlas, so it makes sense. It's keeping these 4 PPC small profile or 2 PPC/1 Gauss jumping abominations from being built.

[3rdworld]

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 01:56 PM, said:

What about dropping the LRM/20 to an LRM/15 or LRM/10, to add 4 Medium Pulse Lasers, then dropping the AC/20 for an AC/10 to add heatsinks?

How is that not enough customization? Is it because you can't boat Large Lasers? If you want to do that, play a Laser boat like the Awesome that can wield 6 Large Lasers.

But nobody wants to do that because the Awesome has a drawback of being large. Which is the whole point of the Awesome, no other mech can have so many large PPCs or Larger Lasers as the Awesome can.

And what does the HBK-4G bring to the table that the HBK-4P doesn't? Having a little bit more restrictive hardpoint system with more classifications helps bring balance to the chassises.

Without restrictions in place, people just pick the best armor/engine rating ratios and boats the best weapon. Stalker for it's small profile for an 85t mech and ability to load up on energy weapons and the Highlander/Cataphract for it's ability to jumpjet and place pin-point PPC/Gauss fire on a single location.

Having better hardpoint classifications would help break up a lot of these issues while still allowing people to customize their mechs. And if you can't customize that specific variant to the way you like, I am sure one of the other variants allows you to do this.

The whole reason the hardpoints was created in the first place was because why have 3 different 50t mechs? Just pick the best silhouette and take the same loadout of any 50t mech.

How am I going to add 4 MPLS? I could swap 4 MLs for 4 MPLs but I am not adding anything. No that really isn't enough customization. No one would swap an AC/20 for a 10. They may pull it for a gauss and add Doubles but there is no real way to improve on the stock atlas with the restrictions you suggest, other than putting found tech on it and buffing the engine.

The atlas D can only mount 3 LLs at most. I wouldn't call that boating them.

The awesome needs some love, definitely. But making all other assaults obsolete to do it, is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I am assuming you are referring to the 4H not the P? The 4G sucks because there is no reason to have 3 ballistic hardpoints on a 50 ton mech. Even using 3 AC2s is a stretch in weight. And generally speaking Hunchbacks are bad because of bad hitboxes.

It would change the current meta sure. But it isn't going to change Alpha>all. It isn't going to change which weapons people boat, you are just going to move people from 1 mech to another.

I would rather see the weapons balanced to increase the number of viable options and a reason for dps to matter, thus limiting alpha strike online. Your solution will accomplish neither. Oh and limit the heck out of the available loadouts for each mech.

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 01:59 PM, said:

The Atlas could be the only mech that could wield 2 PPCs and 1 Gauss, and that isn't too scary on a large, slow mover like the Atlas, so it makes sense. It's keeping these 4 PPC small profile or 2 PPC/1 Gauss jumping abominations from being built.

Cataphracts are small profile?

Edited by 3rdworld, 25 April 2013 - 02:19 PM.

[Zyllos]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

How am I going to add 4 MPLS? I could swap 4 MLs for 4 MPLs but I am not adding anything. No that really isn't enough customization. No one would swap an AC/20 for a 10. They may pull it for a gauss and add Doubles but there is no real way to improve on the stock atlas with the restrictions you suggest, other than putting found tech on it and buffing the engine.

The atlas D can only mount 3 LLs at most. I wouldn't call that boating them.

The awesome needs some love, definitely. But making all other assaults obsolete to do it, is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I am assuming you are referring to the 4H not the P? The 4G sucks because there is no reason to have 3 ballistic hardpoints on a 50 ton mech. Even using 3 AC2s is a stretch in weight. And generally speaking Hunchbacks are bad because of bad hitboxes.

It would change the current meta sure. But it isn't going to change Alpha>all. It isn't going to change which weapons people boat, you are just going to move people from 1 mech to another.

I would rather see the weapons balanced to increase the number of viable options and a reason for dps to matter, thus limiting alpha strike online. Your solution will accomplish neither. Oh and limit the heck out of the available loadouts for each mech.

Why is swapping the AC/20 for an AC/10 to fit other bigger weapons on it or better heatsinks/engines not customization enough?

If a mech has all the biggest weapons already in the mech stock, then what else do you want? If your wanting multiple big weapons of a single type, find a mech that allows that or wait for PGI to produce one.

The whole point of more classifications is to add more stock-like builds (mixing weaponry on non-boats) without totally removing customization.

And I can't go along with the idea that the HBK-4G is just worthless. Thats why we need more classifications.

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 02:21 PM, said:

Cataphracts are small profile?

Reread that... "4 PPC small profile or 2 PPC/1 Gauss jumping abominations..."

2 PPC/1 Gauss jumping is the Cataphract and the 4 PPC small profile is the Stalker.

Edited by Zyllos, 25 April 2013 - 02:27 PM.

[Shumabot]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 12:59 PM, said:

Again, you merely shift the meta to mechs that come stock with certain weapons. You don't change or correct anything. PPCs are so OP right now, you would just make everyone use the 9M, or if you counted Large Lasers as a "large" energy hardpoint they would be running Atlas K with PPCs & Gauss.

Your proposal to increase variety is basically condemning every mech to a more or less stock loadout.

Your issue, you don't think like a Min/Maxer, and cannot see how your system actually makes the problem worse.

Except what you describe doesn't make the problem worse. You simply describe a different problem. Hardpoint sizes don't remove or increase the end-game impact of min maxing, because min maxing is finding a mathematically and statistically optimal pattern and adopting it in the widest variety of settings. You can never truly remove that from any system with customization. What you can do, however, is reduce the depth of customization in single items but increase the overall availability of items with different basic attributes. This will result in people gravitating towards the most optimal usage scenario among their choices, but it forces a broadening of choice, and gives coordinated ground level control to the games developers to create a baseline of intermech balance that is fundamentally impossible with their current system.

It's as much about forcing balance as it is about encouraging or forcing variety. Even a highly balanced system will bleach itself to uniformity if customization is absolute. The gameplay and scenarios aren't varied enough to force it not too. Variety, in and of itself, can be a balancing factor.

Edited by Shumabot, 25 April 2013 - 02:33 PM.

[Hellcat420]

Zyllos, on 25 April 2013 - 02:26 PM, said:

Why is swapping the AC/20 for an AC/10 to fit other bigger weapons on it or better heatsinks/engines not customization enough?

If a mech has all the biggest weapons already in the mech stock, then what else do you want? If your wanting multiple big weapons of a single type, find a mech that allows that or wait for PGI to produce one.

The whole point of more classifications is to add more stock-like builds (mixing weaponry on non-boats) without totally removing customization.

And I can't go along with the idea that the HBK-4G is just worthless. Thats why we need more classifications.



Reread that... "4 PPC small profile or 2 PPC/1 Gauss jumping abominations..."

2 PPC/1 Gauss jumping is the Cataphract and the 4 PPC small profile is the Stalker.

not worth talking to that guy. he cant comprehend that battletech was balanced through its mech variants and hardpoint system, and not through weapon stats. battletech weapons were never designed to be balanced. that is why you couldnt just swap in and out whatever weapons you wanted. (is also one of the reasons none of the video games have been very good and were all plauged by the same problems, because they ignored this in favor of full customization).

[Shumabot]

Hellcat420, on 25 April 2013 - 02:38 PM, said:

not worth talking to that guy. he cant comprehend that battletech was balanced through its mech variants and hardpoint system, and not through weapon stats. battletech weapons were never designed to be balanced. that is why you couldnt just swap in and out whatever weapons you wanted. (is also one of the reasons none of the video games have been very good and were all plauged by the same problems, because they ignored this in favor of full customization).

Battletech was balanced solely through BV and it wasn't a very balanced game. Stock lodaouts were often times worthless. Battletechs balancing systems are nonsense applied to games not in battletech.

[3rdworld]

Shumabot, on 25 April 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Except what you describe doesn't make the problem worse. You simply describe a different problem. Hardpoint sizes don't remove or increase the end-game impact of min maxing, because min maxing is finding a mathematically and statistically optimal pattern and adopting it in the widest variety of settings. You can never truly remove that from any system with customization. What you can do, however, is reduce the depth of customization in single items but increase the overall availability of items with different basic attributes. This will result in people gravitating towards the most optimal usage scenario among their choices, but it forces a broadening of choice, and gives coordinated ground level control to the games developers to create a baseline of intermech balance that is fundamentally impossible with their current system.

It's as much about forcing balance as it is about encouraging or forcing variety. Even a highly balanced system will bleach itself to uniformity if customization is absolute. The gameplay and scenarios aren't varied enough to force it not too. Variety, in and of itself, can be a balancing factor.

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that limiting choices per hardpoint will increase the choices as a whole because you will have to run a more varied build as most stock mechs are varied? If that is not the case, ignore the rest.

My contention is that I can make a varied build desired with weapon balancing. Doing this leaves much more choice with the current Hardpoint system than a limited form.

It also does not combat that certain stock mechs boat the best weapons, and would certainly draw the lions share of players.

[Inyc]

I would really just apply this to mechs with multiple hard-points in the same section. Lets say for every mech with 3 or more of the same hardpoint, only 1 can be used for a "large weapon" and we would define large weapon as any weapon that takes up 3 crit slots or more. This would prevent any mech from having more than 4 PPCs or LRM15s/20s. It would also prevent mutliple ASRM6.

[o o]

I would like this, but it's never going to happen.

[Shumabot]

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 03:19 PM, said:

If I understand your position correctly, you are saying that limiting choices per hardpoint will increase the choices as a whole because you will have to run a more varied build as most stock mechs are varied? If that is not the case, ignore the rest.

My contention is that I can make a varied build desired with weapon balancing. Doing this leaves much more choice with the current Hardpoint system than a limited form.

It also does not combat that certain stock mechs boat the best weapons, and would certainly draw the lions share of players.

I understand where you're coming from. I would contend though, that in the end boating is a direct result of hardpoint optimization and not weapon balancing, and that in order to balance the game away from homogeniety between classes they'd have to make the weapons incredibly similar to one another. I also agree that some stock mechs would stand out from others. As it stands now though, what we have is effectively one stock mech per mech, and that stock generally has 1-2 viable or semi viable builds. With more restricted hardpoints you have 3-4 builds per mech with those being tiered to the efficacy of hardpoints. I think it would be healthier for the game in the end, personally.