210 replies to this topic

[Zyllos]

Zongoose, on 27 April 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

I'd like to thank 3rdworld for taking the abuse in this thread so well. His point of view is not my own but he is making me think through my ideas further and refine them. Yes some of the comments may seem a bit \"troll-y"\ but by being a bit ridiculous it can sometimes spur the conversation into new areas, for this thank you.

I'd like to address your point that even with a hardpoint limit system that some mech's which by design can boat would be used exclusively as they would still be OP. I think you do have a valid point there but only in so far as it has made me realise something else about my argument. The best boating mechs would be able to achieve a 30point or 35point alpha at range (3PPC or 2PPC/Guass). This is now down to the twin PPC, Guass, AC20 levels we dealt with fine in previous builds. These did not appear overpowered, feared yes but not something to rip arms and legs off with 1 shot. We didn't fear them that much because at range LRM's would make them have to find cover and not be able to keep up sustained firepower. At short range SRM's were dangerous and would kill them quickly.

Evaluating that we see that the counters which made those builds dangerous, but only in the right circumstances, were symptoms of other weapons being overpowered in their own way (or balanced with the pinpoint damage dealers depending on your outlook). Even if we could get all the weapons in the game to this state of balance (which I think would be near impossible) you would still be rewarded greatly for boating as many of the same sort of weapon together to fire at the same time in a pinpoint alpha. SRM cats, SRM cents, medium laser cicadas and jenners, and all the above sniper builds we have been talking about.

I think that these builds are very effective but not very interesting. They don't require deeper strategy than getting to optimum range as intact as possible, preferably against a target whose optimum range is different, then hitting your 1 or 2 weapon group fire buttons. By having to take a range of weapons with different characteristics you would force more inventive gameplay and strategy as it would take a bit more skill to engage with several different weapons at once and still keep your damage up. As the weapons have different mount points, spread patterns, burn durations etc damage would again be spread over the target mech rather than concentrated into a single point, UNLESS you are a very skilled pilot who can concentrate and time his disparate weapons to hit the same place.

This still doesn't address the natural boats as they would be able to run single weapon groups that are effective but they would be rarer, you would still see SRM/LRM cats, PPC awesomes etc but that is their point. Not everyone would take one as although they do one thing well they suck in any other situation. It's easier to balance the PPC sniper awesome as it's chassis design limits it's brawling capability. The SRM/LRM cat has no supporting weapons so outside of it's normal engagement range it is helpless. The problem isn't with there being a couple of boating chassis, it's with them ALL being a boating chassis. If you could boat with an awesome but nothing else then you'd still take an Atlas for it's armour or ECM or twin AMS, a Stalker for its higher overall DPS or twin AMS and better frontal hit box. It's easier to balance the different chassis if they all have strengths and weaknesses which complement each other. It's easier to balance a few intential boating mechs with other downside characteristics than it is to balance boating in all mechs. This is hard to do when you remove the potential weapon loadouts from the mix of advantages/disadvantages. If any mech can take 3+ of a single large weapon then it has very little real difference in weapon capability to another.

Yes, it's good to have an antithesis being pushed against you to think.

The reason why I think "natural" boats are fine is because their designed look usually is a drawback. Look at the Awesome, that would be the only "natural" boater of large energy weapons, but the thing is huge. So while it can destroy people at long range, if anyone even remotely gets close, they can easily pick it apart.

The same goes for the Catapult. At range, it can destroy or suppress mechs with all the LRMs hardpoints. But as soon as you get close, those large launcher ears can easily be killed off, just leaving the few other hardpoints in the torso left.

[Shumabot]

3rdworld, on 26 April 2013 - 10:06 PM, said:

I disagree. People used to run PPCs with streak or SRM backups. Specifically to engage an enemy if they closed. You do not see that anymore, as brawling mechs are not viable. and thus don't require countering.

If the entire goal of this exercise is to nerf the PPC build stalker, SRMs dominating them at close range is a pretty decent way to achieve it while not even requiring an actual nerf to PPCs or a nerf to any mech that uses an "acceptable" number of them. I understand you dislike this form of balance because it is still based on focused builds boating or min/maxing into a very tight niche, but that will happen regardless.

All that I am saying is that brawling mechs being viable will force PPC boats to counter them. Being a super hot, 2-3 alpha till overheat on a mech that is slow, usually not the best brawler, specifically when its weapons have min ranges and its torso twist is abysmal. Is it such a coincidence that PPCs and boating of them, have become more popular since the huge missile nerf after LRMaggeddon?

You saw PPCs with streak backup because streaks were the only way to meaningfully damage and kill lights. HSR means no more need. Post laser hsr streaks practically vanished, and that's when they were still doing up to 12x damage to lights. You are repeating the same thing over and over again. Yes, powering down PPCs will make brawling come back, but brawling was never brawling in the first place. It was only ever boating short range weapons to counter the boated long range weapons. If the brawler closed in he won for free, if he didn't he lost and did no damage. It was a terrible, stilted, and dysfunctional metagame before just as it is now. The problem isn't weapon balancing and you keep ignoring everyones posts because you truly can't understand that. Equality in boating ranges isn't anymore "balance" than "balance" is an all long range meta. Balance is what people strive to achieve, and boat-meta is not more balanced than PPC meta. We all agree that less powerful PPCs will bring back brawling. That's not the point of this thread, and that's why I keep resorting to personal attacks. Because you deserve them for being willfully ignorant and loud.

Quote

It will be okay, it isn't the end of the world.

It'll be the end of the world of warmechs when the servers get shut down.

[DeadlyNerd]

Shumabot, on 27 April 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

It'll be the end of the world of warmechs when the servers get shut down.

What more, it'll happen sooner than everyone thinks as people who do appreciate balanced builds and play the game for the BT component will get sick of this and their numbers are high enough so that, when they leave, the game will become barren.

[Zongoose]

There are a few threads on this theme now in the forum, I hope that PGI pick up on the ideas and sentiment expressed in them. Some changes to the hardpoint system could be the answer to a lot of balance problems we currently experience.

[Varnas]

Zongoose, on 27 April 2013 - 03:24 PM, said:

There are a few threads on this theme now in the forum, I hope that PGI pick up on the ideas and sentiment expressed in them. Some changes to the hardpoint system could be the answer to a lot of balance problems we currently experience.

I hope so too. But i wouldn't bet 5 cents on it. I really doubt they even care about balance. Just look at Machine guns and Flamers! They've been completely useless for so long, even a blind child with down syndrome would have noticed and fixed the issue. *sigh
It really feels like PGI just doesn't give two *****.

Edited by Varnas, 28 April 2013 - 01:16 AM.

[Peiper]

Varnas, on 28 April 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I hope so too. But i wouldn't bet 5 cents on it. I really doubt they even care about balance. Just look at Machine guns and Flamers! They've been completely useless for so long, even a blind child with down syndrome would have noticed and fixed the issue. *sigh
It really feels like PGI just doesn't give two *****.

Sigh... Machine Guns and Flamers are not DESIGNED to kill mechs. They are designed to kill infantry, torch bunkers, and set woods alight to make smoke screens. People keep freaking out that certain weapons are boated too much and others are useless. WELL, give the weapons uses! Why are we worried about how machine guns and flamers work when we can't light woods on fire, we have no bunkers to torch, and we have no infantry to clean up? Hmm???

[Sybreed]

Varnas, on 28 April 2013 - 01:15 AM, said:

I hope so too. But i wouldn't bet 5 cents on it. I really doubt they even care about balance. Just look at Machine guns and Flamers! They've been completely useless for so long, even a blind child with down syndrome would have noticed and fixed the issue. *sigh
It really feels like PGI just doesn't give two *****.

I asked miSs to take a look at this thread and forward it to the devs... I think people brought excellent arguments as to why hardpoint sizes is needed (and has always been needed). One thing the devs could do is do a forum-wide poll so everyone sees it. Not just the people knowledgeable about the issue.

Peiper, on 28 April 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Sigh... Machine Guns and Flamers are not DESIGNED to kill mechs. They are designed to kill infantry, torch bunkers, and set woods alight to make smoke screens. People keep freaking out that certain weapons are boated too much and others are useless. WELL, give the weapons uses! Why are we worried about how machine guns and flamers work when we can't light woods on fire, we have no bunkers to torch, and we have no infantry to clean up? Hmm???

this has been proven false numerous times and I would appreciate if you would just stop spreading false truths.

[MustrumRidcully]

Hellcat420, on 26 April 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

that guy(3rdworld) not worth talking to, he is just a troll. nobody can be that dumb.

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.

[MustrumRidcully]

tenderloving, on 27 April 2013 - 04:31 AM, said:

You can't fix the issue without removing the possibility: If it's a good weapon with quantity X, it's a broken weapon when carried with quantity Y. This isn't that difficult. We have CURRENT EXAMPLES of this with the small energy weapons. This is not conjecture; we know it occurred in the past and it is occurring now. PGI even took steps to limit boating of small weapons, but for whatever reason they forgot the other end of the scale.

And yes you did paint yourself into a corner; if the PPC is no longer the best weapon then logically another weapon would be the best. If you can boat the best weapon, you will. This is a competitive game; the players are not going to police themselves to make the most engaging gameplay. This is the dev's job; and some sort of sized hardpoints are a solution that fixes current problems AND allows them to easily tweak in the future.

The question is by how big the margin is between the best weapon and the next-best weapon. Ideally you reduce it to 0, but if you can't get that, you should reduce it to a low enough level that it's hard enough to figure out.
Especially since the margin is actually a multidimensional value. PPCs rock at 540m. But imagine a variant of the PPC with only 400m range, no minimum range, producing 1 less heat. Which is now better? The 540m PPC, or the 360m PPC?

Zyllos, on 27 April 2013 - 06:39 AM, said:

But with out any additional hardpoint restrictions, as soon as 1 weapon is a clear top winner, everyone finds the heaviest mech that allows for speed to boat the weapon and boats them.

Weapon Balance means there is no clear top winner. Is that concept so hard to accept. The goal of game balance is that two mechs with the same tonnage can both have equally competitive and equally useful builds without turning these mechs into carbon copies of each other.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 28 April 2013 - 07:53 AM.

[Shumabot]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 April 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

The question is by how big the margin is between the best weapon and the next-best weapon. Ideally you reduce it to 0, but if you can't get that, you should reduce it to a low enough level that it's hard enough to figure out.
Especially since the margin is actually a multidimensional value. PPCs rock at 540m. But imagine a variant of the PPC with only 400m range, no minimum range, producing 1 less heat. Which is now better? The 540m PPC, or the 360m PPC?



Weapon Balance means there is no clear top winner. Is that concept so hard to accept. The goal of game balance is that two mechs with the same tonnage can both have equally competitive and equally useful builds without turning these mechs into carbon copies of each other.

Which ignores the simple and absolute fact that weapons increase in damage per second and damage per match on a non linear curve as you begin to homogenize and take multiple identical weapons. In a perfectly balanced field of weapons the best mechs are still carbon copies of one another. The heaviest chassis with the smallest frontal profile and the most ability to boat will be the stage setters. With full HSR, jump reticulse shake, and tonnage based matchmaking (all the things people want for "balance) with a perfectly balanced field of weapons you're going to see nothing but Jenner Ds, Hunch 4SPs, Cat A1s and Ac40 Jagers, and whatever mix of stalkers and atlas D-DCs. Each of those mechs is the smallest, heaviest, and most boat capable mechs in their weight classes and fully push the others out of contention.

The negative opportunity costs of mixed loadouts will cause this game to never be balanced, hardpoint restrictions are the only functional way to combat that.

Edited by Shumabot, 28 April 2013 - 08:17 AM.

[tenderloving]

MustrumRidcully, on 28 April 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

Weapon Balance means there is no clear top winner. Is that concept so hard to accept. The goal of game balance is that two mechs with the same tonnage can both have equally competitive and equally useful builds without turning these mechs into carbon copies of each other.

Is the small laser the "clear top winner"?

Is it a good idea to allow every mech to carry 20 of them?

You are implying that only the best weapon is a problem when boated. This is false, as proven by the two questions above. (And you know, the last few Mechwarrior games/any game in history that allows customization.)

The reason people are calling 3rdworld a troll is because he keeps spewing the same illogical nonsense and refusing to address the direct challenges to his arguments.

You CANNOT balance a weapon when it's possible to drastically multiply its effect by cramming identical copies of it into the chassis with the best hitboxes. It's math. This is not opinion or conjecture; we have existing examples.

I'm so tired of people acting like this game is treading in some new frontier of gameplay.

Do not quote this post unless you directly answer the two questions I posed.

Edited by tenderloving, 28 April 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Nation Uprise]

Peiper, on 28 April 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Sigh... Machine Guns and Flamers are not DESIGNED to kill mechs. They are designed to kill infantry, torch bunkers, and set woods alight to make smoke screens. People keep freaking out that certain weapons are boated too much and others are useless. WELL, give the weapons uses! Why are we worried about how machine guns and flamers work when we can't light woods on fire, we have no bunkers to torch, and we have no infantry to clean up? Hmm???

Well then, taking design into consideration, most of the mechs that are currently boating PPCs, AC20s and Gauss Rifles weren't designed to be boats. I guess something should be done about both (hardpoints and weapon balance) of these problems, no?

[Shumabot]

Peiper, on 28 April 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

Sigh... Machine Guns and Flamers are not DESIGNED to kill mechs. They are designed to kill infantry, torch bunkers, and set woods alight to make smoke screens. People keep freaking out that certain weapons are boated too much and others are useless. WELL, give the weapons uses! Why are we worried about how machine guns and flamers work when we can't light woods on fire, we have no bunkers to torch, and we have no infantry to clean up? Hmm???

That's right! Spiders weren't DESIGNED to be useful in this game! Tens of thousands of dollars of development costs and a months worth of content wasn't DESIGNED to ever be used!

[Sybreed]

Shumabot, on 28 April 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

That's right! Spiders weren't DESIGNED to be useful in this game! Tens of thousands of dollars of development costs and a months worth of content wasn't DESIGNED to ever be used!

yup, PGI also willingly put weapons in the game that will never be useful

[Peiper]

Sybreed, on 28 April 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

I asked miSs to take a look at this thread and forward it to the devs... I think people brought excellent arguments as to why hardpoint sizes is needed (and has always been needed). One thing the devs could do is do a forum-wide poll so everyone sees it. Not just the people knowledgeable about the issue.

this has been proven false numerous times and I would appreciate if you would just stop spreading false truths.

You're right. Even in Classic Battletech, when people would allow for them, players would customize designs with 20 some machine guns on them. No heat. They just have to get close enough to set off the sparkler show and enemy mechs would fall apart. These are the same people who worship splatcats and the like. Effective? Yes. Fun, balanced, realistic, or cool? No way.

Nation Uprise, on 28 April 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

Well then, taking design into consideration, most of the mechs that are currently boating PPCs, AC20s and Gauss Rifles weren't designed to be boats. I guess something should be done about both (hardpoints and weapon balance) of these problems, no?

I've been arguing for hardpoint restrictions since closed beta based upon weapon size and how they look/fit in with the mech they're designed to fit on. I suggested they change the K2's ears to allow for large AC's and Gauss, but I was ignored. Back then there was less support because there were so few mechs to chose from that I figured they wanted to allow the Gauss Cats to continue as they were in the interest of seeing how boating affected the game. I knew in time we'd get other chassis that would be able to put in pairs of AC20s and the like, but since they weren't in the game - I assumed PGI let the K2 slide because it served as a test-bed for future builds. Instead they changed animation of the K2 to put them in the torsos showing that they valued frankenmechs more than balance, aesthetics or reason.

This is what I've written in other threads:


PGI says they want to honor classic battletech, but they missed the boat with how their hardpoints work. They are stuck thinking about weapons as ballistic/energy/missiles. Hardpoints should be based on the model of the mech their looking at, and size, rather than type.

Weapon Hardpoints should look like this:
Large bore (PPC's, Gauss, large ACs)
Medium bore (L.Lasers, medium AC's)
Small bore (S/M Lasers, M guns, AC2s, flamers)
Large missle racks (LRM 10-20)
Small missle racks (SRMs, SSRMs, LRM 5s)
-and-
Support gear like NARC and TAG should not use hardpoints.

[Peiper]

Shumabot, on 28 April 2013 - 09:51 AM, said:

That's right! Spiders weren't DESIGNED to be useful in this game! Tens of thousands of dollars of development costs and a months worth of content wasn't DESIGNED to ever be used!

From Sarna:

SDR-5D - The -5D Spider is also geared towards anti-infantry work. This is done by removing one of the Medium Lasers and replacing it with a single arm-mounted Flamer. BV (1.0) = 412, BV (2.0) = 524[4]
SDR-5K - The -5K Spider removes one of the Medium Lasers and replaces it with two arm mounted Machine Guns for anti-infantry use. To make room for its Machine Gun ammunition the 'Mech sacrifices 60 meters of its jump capability. [5] BV (1.0) = 433, BV (2.0) = 503[6]

Note: both were designed for anti-infantry work. I'm not saying I don't enjoy piloting my spiders: I am just not under the illusion that they were designed to kill mechs.

Now, as far as usefulness in MWO: in time, stuff may be put into the game that will give purpose to certain mechs and weapon systems that were previously useless.

I would just beg you all to not confuse the issue of hardpoints with the usefulness - or uselessness of certain weapons in the game. This is the first Battletech/MW simulator that DOESN'T have vehicles, infantry, and destructible terrain in decades. That doesn't mean it WON'T, just that they haven't got around to it yet. I agree with the hardpoint arguments, but I disagree with the illusion that a Jaggermech, designed to be an anti-aircraft platform, will ever be as heavily armed and armored as a K2, who's soul purpose is to kill mechs - and even it has machine guns to keep the pesky infantry off it's feet.

Edited by Peiper, 28 April 2013 - 10:06 AM.

[Varnas]

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

From Sarna:

SDR-5D - The -5D Spider is also geared towards anti-infantry work. This is done by removing one of the Medium Lasers and replacing it with a single arm-mounted Flamer. BV (1.0) = 412, BV (2.0) = 524[4]
SDR-5K - The -5K Spider removes one of the Medium Lasers and replaces it with two arm mounted Machine Guns for anti-infantry use. To make room for its Machine Gun ammunition the 'Mech sacrifices 60 meters of its jump capability. [5] BV (1.0) = 433, BV (2.0) = 503[6]

Note: both were designed for anti-infantry work. I'm not saying I don't enjoy piloting my spiders: I am just not under the illusion that they were designed to kill mechs.

Again, from Sarna:

Quote

The Machine Gun is the quintessential anti-infantry weapon, issuing a stream of bullets at a high rate of fire to cut down opposing soldiers, while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs.
while still being effective at damaging BattleMechs.
being effective at damaging BattleMechs.

effective at damaging BattleMechs.
damaging BattleMechs.

Edited by Varnas, 28 April 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[DeadlyNerd]

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.

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?

Edited by DeadlyNerd, 28 April 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Nation Uprise]

Peiper, on 28 April 2013 - 09:58 AM, said:

I've been arguing for hardpoint restrictions since closed beta based upon weapon size and how they look/fit in with the mech they're designed to fit on. I suggested they change the K2's ears to allow for large AC's and Gauss, but I was ignored. Back then there was less support because there were so few mechs to chose from that I figured they wanted to allow the Gauss Cats to continue as they were in the interest of seeing how boating affected the game. I knew in time we'd get other chassis that would be able to put in pairs of AC20s and the like, but since they weren't in the game - I assumed PGI let the K2 slide because it served as a test-bed for future builds. Instead they changed animation of the K2 to put them in the torsos showing that they valued frankenmechs more than balance, aesthetics or reason.

Ok, but you can't revise the hardpoint system but leave the flamer and machinegun untouched. Right now they are basically useless. If the hardpoint system is revised, some mechs who either come stock with flamers or MGs, or only have enough hardpoint slots just for those weapons, have to be able to use them just as effectively as other mechs with bigger weapons. I don't mean that they should do as much damage as Lasers or ACs, but at least do some damage balanced along with their rate of fire. The simple fact that barely anyone uses them right now is very telling. Not even boated are they any good.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 28 April 2013 - 10:26 AM.

[Peiper]

Nation Uprise, on 28 April 2013 - 10:23 AM, said:

Ok, but you can't revise the hardpoint system but leave the flamer and machinegun untouched. Right now they are basically useless. If the hardpoint system is revised, some mechs who either come stock with flamers or MGs, or only have enough hardpoint slots just for those weapons, have to be able to use them just as effectively as other mechs with bigger weapons. I don't mean that they should do as much damage as Lasers or ACs, but at least do some damage balanced along with their rate of fire. The simple fact that barely anyone uses them right now is very telling. Not even boated are they any good.

Not going to argue more about machine guns and flamers in this "Hardpoint Size" thread.