210 replies to this topic

[Yokaiko]

No

[Shumabot]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

Your solution does nothing to fix imbalances. You are assuming people will run the bad mechs. They won't, just as they don't now.

Your variety might last a week, until people figure out which mechs are the best, if it even takes that long. Instead of stalkers you are going to get 9Ms. Instead of d-dcs you will get Ks. Instead of the Highlander 732 you get the 733P. You don't make missile carrying mechs viable by forcing them to use missiles. You make them viable by making missiles good.

You are treating the symptoms of bad weapon balance. I want to cure the disease. Make other weapons viable and build variety increases, as does mech variety.

I don't think you have the capacity to reason, your arguments are treading water and your examples are kinda dumb. Increasing baseline variety and tamping down on exploitative builds reduces imbalance and brings visible variation to teams as a basic precept, you can't argue against that because it's logical that a wider set at the beginning of the equation results in a wider set at the middle when you go down a flow chart. Your contention that everyone will just use what is best anyway is stupid, of course they will, the point is to create contention between what is best. What we have now is just "best weapon + most of that weapon + smallest hitboxes = best mech". Arguing that it's either hardpoint sizes OR weapon balance makes you sound like a child. You don't want to discuss anything you just want to repeat crap and plug your ears. I'm finished speaking to you.

Are you an exceptionally advanced chatbot?

Edited by Shumabot, 26 April 2013 - 07:40 AM.

[tenderloving]

I've had disagreements with Shuma on things in the past, but he is 100% correct here:

We know for a fact that none of the "intentional boat" designs are as extreme as what we're seeing now. If we limit hardpoints, there will not be a mech that can mount 6 ppcs, dual AC/20, etc. until that design is actually released. None of the mechs currently in the game were intended to carry anything even close to the loadouts we are seeing.

Limiting hardpoint sizes will change the "best" mechs, but we'll have more "best" mechs to pick from than we do currently, because mixed weapon systems will be the norm. Roles will start to come back into the game, and it will be fun again.

You can't balance the weapons around the current meta. If you balance PPCs around a mech that can carry 4-6 of them, then you nerf every mech that carries less than 4-6.

The devs clearly know that boating is an issue, because a hardpoint system exists. For whatever reason they missed the logical step that boating large weapons is just as bad as boating smaller weapons.

The argument that sized hardpoints will stifle variety is provably false, stop using it.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 April 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[3rdworld]

Wow, I thought we could actually have a conversation apparently baby gets mad.

Having 100 choices to start doesn't lead to more choice in the end when all but 4 are bad.

We both agree you are lowering customization. So lets take it a step further and remove customization. Do you think that is going to add to build variety and make more mechs viable? Of course not. So how could limiting customization more ever lead to more viable builds or more mech variety? It wouldn't.

I never said it was one or the other. I simply state that through weapon balance, I can achieve a system with more choice and variety in the end.

When you can prove that players will run a crap build in a crap mech because it is the only build your system allows, instead of taking the boat mech and still abusing mechanics, I will stand corrected.

If your system also requires balanced weapons, then what is the point? The same can be accomplished without gutting customization.

BTW, most of your examples of exploited builds are trash pub stompers.

Shumabot, on 26 April 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

"best weapon + most of that weapon + smallest hitboxes = best mech".

And you fail to understand that hardpoint limits don't change this in any way. Just changes the mech.

tenderloving, on 26 April 2013 - 08:07 AM, said:

I've had disagreements with Shuma on things in the past, but he is 100% correct here:

We know for a fact that none of the "intentional boat" designs are as extreme as what we're seeing now. If we limit hardpoints, there will not be a mech that can mount 6 ppcs, dual AC/20, etc. until that design is actually released. None of the mechs currently in the game were intended to carry anything even close to the loadouts we are seeing.

Limiting hardpoint sizes will change the "best" mechs, but we'll have more "best" mechs to pick from than we do currently, because mixed weapon systems will be the norm. Roles will start to come back into the game, and it will be fun again.

You can't balance the weapons around the current meta. If you balance PPCs around a mech that can carry 4-6 of them, then you nerf every mech that carries less than 4-6.

The argument that sized hardpoints will stifle variety is provably false, stop using it.

Mechs that carry 4 aren't a problem. Dual AC/20s aren't a problem. What mechs were intended to carry is irrelevant to a game based on customization.

Mechs that carry 6 ppcs are terrible, and if that is what you base your argument on, then it is terrible.

Pubs get mad when that 6 ppcs stalker 1 shots them.

It perhaps will increase variety within that hardpoint on that mech, but it will kill mech variety. Unless you are basing the system on one where the weapons are balanced, then the entire point of size hardpoints is moot.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 April 2013 - 12:17 PM.

[tenderloving]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 08:10 AM, said:

Wow, I thought we could actually have a conversation apparently baby gets mad.

Having 100 choices to start doesn't lead to more choice in the end when all but 4 are bad.

I never said it was one or the other. I simply state that through weapon balance, I can achieve a system with more choice and variety in the end.

When you can prove that players will run a crap build in a crap mech because it is the only build your system allows, instead of taking the boat mech and still abusing mechanics, I will stand corrected.

If your system also requires balanced weapons, then what is the point? The same can be accomplished without gutting customization.

BTW, most of your examples of exploited builds are trash pub stompers.

Let's do a thought experiment:
If a mech could carry 12 PPCs, would you be able to balance them so that they are fair in quantities of 12 and useful in quantities of 1? No. What about 11 PPCs? 10? 9? etc... Where do you draw the line on that? Do you nerf PPCs? Well now you just ****** the mechs that only carry 1 or 2 PPCs.

This has already been done with another weapon: the medium laser. The current system prevents the abuse of medium lasers, why doesn't it prevent the abuse of PPCs?

By their nature the large weapons should be rare on the battlefield and scary. Right now it's almost a joke. There's no "Oh wow that's powerful." when you get Gaussed or PPCed because that's all you ever get hit with. You expect every mech to be able to insta-core you so it's not a surprise if they do, and likewise you don't get any satisfaction from blasting some poor fool who decided to move.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 April 2013 - 08:21 AM.

[Derffe]

I don't think I go along with the idea of having hardpoint sizes. Granted, I was somewhat caught off-guard by Catapults and Jagermechs sporting dual AC/20s.

I mean at this point, if they ever release the King Crab how it will it compete? Four AC/20s? Damn now that's a scary thought.

Still, I think I like the system that is in place now.

[hercules1981]

Nation Uprise, on 25 April 2013 - 09:54 AM, said:

If MechWarrior 4 did anything right, it was the Hardpoint sizes. Just because a mech had an arm that could equip three energy weapons didn't mean you could equip three PPCs. Either you took three smaller lasers or one PPC.

I've been saying this for months y they didn't do something like mw4 did with weapon sizes is beyond me. Like a raven could really fit an ac20 on it.

[tenderloving]

hercules1981, on 26 April 2013 - 08:26 AM, said:

I've been saying this for months y they didn't do something like mw4 did with weapon sizes is beyond me. Like a raven could really fit an ac20 on it.

Why buy a Hollander when a Raven can do its job better? This is another serious issue with the current system that will really affect the variety in the light and medium mechs.

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 26 April 2013 - 08:16 AM, said:

Let's do a thought experiment:
If a mech could carry 12 PPCs, would you be able to balance them so that they are fair in quantities of 12 and useful in quantities of 1? No. What about 11 PPCs? 10? 9? etc... Where do you draw the line on that? Do you nerf PPCs? Well now you just ****** the mechs that only carry 1 or 2 PPCs.

This has already been done with another weapon: the medium laser. The current system prevents the abuse of medium lasers, why doesn't it prevent the abuse of PPCs?

By their nature the large weapons should be rare on the battlefield and scary. Right now it's almost a joke. There's no "Oh wow that's powerful." when you get Gaussed or PPCed because that's all you ever get hit with. You expect every mech to be able to insta-core you so it's not a surprise if they do, and likewise you don't get any satisfaction from blasting some poor fool who decided to move.

A mech with 6 ppcs is a joke. You think you are going to find one that can mount 84 tons of PPCs?

Nerfing PPC heat to 9 doesn't prevent 1-2 being used. But it hurts mechs using 3-4 pretty bad, that is 1-1.3333 heat per second nerf. Nerfing their speed makes them harder to hit at longer ranges, and makes closing a PPC carrier easier. Decent LRMs keep PPC boats with there nose in the grass.

Gauss & PPC fest is a symptom of OP PPCs, Cool Shot, and brawling not being viable, mostly due to the SRM nerf.

Before the missile nerf / PPC buffs in February, we saw at most 1-2 ppc mechs in a competitive 8 man. When the Cent-As got on you in a ppc using mech, you were dead. Now they do nothing.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 April 2013 - 08:40 AM.

[Yokaiko]

tenderloving, on 26 April 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

Why buy a Hollander when a Raven can do its job better? This is another serious issue with the current system that will really affect the variety in the light and medium mechs.

Raven is equally terribad as a ...lol gauss build

[Zongoose]

I support the idea of hardpoint sizes because it allows greater variety between mech chassis. As has been pointed out why would you ever take a hollander when an omni-raven can do what it was designed for better? This applies across a lot of other mech chassis too as evidenced by stalkers being the PPC boat of choice instead of awesomes.

It also allows a more DPS rather than alpha based engagement. As all mechs will be carrying a mix of weapons, some large, some smaller, those who can manage engagement ranges, heat and keep shots on target will be rewarded. It adds extra layers of skill to the game.

You wouldn't lose customisation options to any great extent with a MW4 type system as there are different benefits and trade offs to running 3 medium lasers in a large slot to running a single ERPPC. In another example a large ballistic slot in an Atlas could be used for an AC20/Guass or it could house 2x AC10's or 3x AC5's. Even thinking as a min-maxer those options all have different benefits and all do roughly the same pinpoint damage for filling the slot. Smaller weapons will give you a DPS boost due to their shorter cycle times but this is compensated by the larger weapons putting all their damage in a single spot.

I think this would create a simpler balance situation between smaller and larger weapons as you no longer need to make a single medium laser worth the same as a PPC because they both take up the same amount of hardpoints. If a large energy slot could take a single PPC, a large laser and a medium laser or 3 medium lasers then you can balance the individual weapons far easier. Suddenly this looks like an easier task as whatever you choose to put in a large energy slot is close in battlefield effectiveness.

It would make mechs designed to have a large number of smaller hardpoints worthwhile as they get a DPS boost vs those with limited numbers of larger hardpoints. Suddenly a stalker or catapult with multiple large missile points has a distinguishing feature as most mechs cannot carry larger than LRM10's.

This would be a huge change to the current system as each mech would need it's hardpoints revisiting but I think the long term benefits in promoting weapon diversity and ease of balancing would make it very much worthwhile.

[Deamonition]

I voted yes and I can't agree with the argument that customization would be greatly penalized. You will not be able to do ridiculous builds and that's it mostly. Finding a good build will be more challenging, which is a good thing. Cheese builds are making the game boring right now and hardpoint sizing is the best idea to prevent boating. Boating is the main reason PGI is constantly nerfing, buffing, nerfing, buffing... Etc. Recently we saw PPCs boating poptarts, what does PGI do? Plan to nerf PPCs. Anybody that was not boating PPCs must think this is dumb.

That goes for any other boating build.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

This is all about narrowing the gap between the worst and the best.

I've never understood the argument "Well you will still have mechs that are the "best" and everyone will pilot them".

That is natural in games like this and will always happen.

What you want to see is...lets say the worst mech is a 1.

In the current system with unlimited hardpoint customization; the best mech is a 10.

So if someone brings the worst mech, there is a big difference.

Now if you limit customization, the worst mech is still a 1, but the best mech is now a 6. Sure it's still the best, but the gap is now narrow, leading to less issues.

Ontop of that, you can bring a 3, 4 or 5 and skill will be more of a deciding factor than your mech being customized to the utmost meta.

Narrowing the gap is important.

[DeadlyNerd]

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.

See, your problem is that you think only as a min/maxer. Your whole world revolves around putting together high alpha builds that take little to no effort in piloting so much that you can't fathom how a game would work if the game forced you to actually use a balanced build.
And no, to not think like a min/maxer is not an issue. If I didn't know how a min/maxer thinks I'd be subconsciously min/maxing and exploiting current balance holes.
Also, where the hell did you get the idea that I proposed hard point size classes? I merely said that 1 ML cannot be exchanged for 1 PPC cause 1 crit =/= 3 crit. That way 1 LL cannot be exchanged for 1 PPC either. This is elementary math.

And for crying out loud, META IS MECHS, not alpha striking. Who the hell needs variant D when D-DC can do the same only with ECM.
The whole point of having different variants is to have variety. This variety seizes to exist when you can equip all 3 variants of a mech with same equipment and have them perform optimally.

You buried your argument with the first line, NEXT.

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 26 April 2013 - 11:41 AM.

[3rdworld]

DeadlyNerd, on 26 April 2013 - 11:34 AM, said:

See, your problem is that you think only as a min/maxer. Your whole world revolves around putting together high alpha builds that take little to no effort in piloting so much that you can't fathom how a game would work if the game forced you to actually use a balanced build.
And no, to not think like a min/maxer is not an issue. If I didn't know how a min/maxer thinks I'd be subconsciously min/maxing and exploiting current balance holes.
Also, where the hell did you get the idea that I proposed hard point size classes? I merely said that 1 ML cannot be exchanged for 1 PPC cause 1 crit =/= 3 crit. That way 1 LL cannot be exchanged for 1 PPC either. This is elementary math.

And for crying out loud, META IS MECHS, not alpha striking. Who the hell needs variant D when D-DC can do the same only with ECM.
You buried your argument with the first line, NEXT.

I don't really know where to start here.

A system were the stock weapon crits is the limit, more or less removes customization. The Atlas D or D-DC in your example would only be able to swap a Gauss for an AC/20 or lower the size of its missiles.

Sounds like a pretty boring, when the entire point of mechwarrior is 2 pilots take the same base mech and do drastically different things with it. You basically neutered customization.

Sorry for assuming you wanted some form of hardpoint classification based on size and not actual crit limits.
Hardpoint classification sizes is generally the proposal, yours I guess is more constrictive.

Edited by 3rdworld, 26 April 2013 - 11:48 AM.

[Deamonition]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 11:47 AM, said:

I don't really know where to start here.

A system were the stock weapon crits is the limit, more or less removes customization. The Atlas D or D-DC in your example would only be able to swap a Gauss for an AC/20 or lower the size of its missiles.

Sounds like a pretty boring, when the entire point of mechwarrior is 2 pilots take the same base mech and do drastically different things with it. You basically neutered customization.

Sorry for assuming you wanted some form of hardpoint classification based on size and not actual crit limits.
Hardpoint classification sizes is generally the proposal, yours I guess is more constrictive.

The way things are right now is not super exciting either. A lot of people rely on boats and poptart boats. That's not what I call diversity.

Hardpoint sizing would force people to think and experiment, while right now we all know boating is quite powerful, though so boring.

Edited by Deamonition, 26 April 2013 - 11:54 AM.

[3rdworld]

Deamonition, on 26 April 2013 - 11:53 AM, said:

The way things are right now is not super exciting either. A lot of people rely on boats and poptart boats. That's not what I call diversity.

Hardpoint sizing would force people to think and experiment, while right now we all know boating is quite powerful, though so boring.

So people put PPCs on everything because they can, and not because PPCs are the best weapon in the game?

[Deamonition]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

So people put PPCs on everything because they can, and not because PPCs are the best weapon in the game?

Sorry but I don't understand where you are going with your question.

But I would say this : People boat PPCS because it's an easy to boat yet strong build. A single ppc is not going to destroy hell... So people would not be complaining about them if boating them was not possible.

In summary, if you allow ridiculous builds that are way too strong, you do the actual opposite of encouraging diversity. People will just all build the same thing.

You know one game is not balanced when everybody starts using the same couple of builds.

Hardpoint sizing would actually help diversity cause you would have to experiment more and numerous builds could have equivalent power (but using different strategy).

Edited by Deamonition, 26 April 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[tenderloving]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

So people put PPCs on everything because they can, and not because PPCs are the best weapon in the game?

You just painted yourself into a corner and exposed your faulty logic: The answer is yes. If another weapon was the "best weapon", they would boat that weapon BECAUSE THEY CAN. It doesn't matter what the weapon is; if it can be boated it will be.

Nerf the PPC all you want, another large energy will take its place. Nerf all the energy weapons without fixing hardpoints, and another weapon type will be abused. In a competitive environment players are going to min/max; it is up to the developers to create as many viable min/max solutions as possible.

Edited by tenderloving, 26 April 2013 - 12:47 PM.

[3rdworld]

Deamonition, on 26 April 2013 - 12:45 PM, said:

Sorry but I don't understand where you are going with your question.

But I would say this : People boat PPCS because it's an easy to boat yet strong build. A single ppc is not going to destroy hell... So people would not be complaining about them if boating them was not possible

Why do people want to boat PPCs? They want to boat them because PPCs are super powerful, not because the hardpoint system allows them to.

So the goal is to stop this.

I can either:

A. Completely change the entire games mechanics, yet still leave PPC boating on mechs that originally did it.
or
B. Address why people would want to use PPCs en masse in the first place.