Jump to content

Hardpoint Sizes


210 replies to this topic

Poll: Do you support the concept of HardPoint Sizes (265 member(s) have cast votes)

HardPoint Sizes

  1. Yes (213 votes [80.68%])

    Percentage of vote: 80.68%

  2. No (51 votes [19.32%])

    Percentage of vote: 19.32%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#201 Jestun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:16 AM

View PostNation Uprise, on 23 May 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

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."

And why did you suddently change your tone from "maybe it should be tested" to "I hope PGI ignores this suggestion."


Because I'd still rather it weren't considered.

Being open to testing does not mean I want them to test it. I think it would use up a lot of dev time just to confirm that it wouldn't actually solve the problem. This is an 11 page thread, the reasons why it wouldn't work have been stated repeatedly.

The post that I was replying to had no more reasoning included than my reply, it simply stated that the poster thinks boating is the problem and that we should all send them tweets about it.

Edited by Jestun, 23 May 2013 - 11:16 AM.


#202 Nation Uprise

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:26 AM

Ok fine. So you were specifically against me asking people to tweet them about it. I can accept that more than having the whole suggestion being ignored by the devs. But just to let you know, I'm not the only person tweeting or asking others to tweet about certain aspects of the game. If you search through twitter, they (the devs) are constanly being messaged about everything. LRMs, UI 2.0, bugs, etc. So if you find me annoying, fine, but I'm not the only one taking this route. But I did notice that some stuff are being answered through twitter as opposed to here on the forums.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 23 May 2013 - 11:28 AM.


#203 Jestun

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,270 posts

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:35 AM

View PostNation Uprise, on 23 May 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

Ok fine. So you were specifically against me asking people to tweet them about it. I can accept that more than having the whole suggestion being ignored by the devs. But just to let you know, I'm not the only person tweeting or asking others to tweet about certain aspects of the game. If you search through twitter, they (the devs) are constanly being messaged about everything. LRMs, UI 2.0, bugs, etc. So if you find me annoying, fine, but I'm not the only one taking this route. But I did notice that some stuff are being answered through twitter as opposed to here on the forums.


As I said in an earlier post, I have no problem with you posting in support.

My only problem with you was when you replied to me and told me not to post.

#204 Nation Uprise

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • LocationNew Jersey

Posted 23 May 2013 - 11:42 AM

I didn't say you couldn't post. What I said was that posting something that would incite a flame war, "I hope PGI ignores this thread" (Which I didn't realize you directed only at me) wasn't constructive. But whatever. I now understand where you're coming from, and I'd hope you know where I was coming from.

#205 zolop

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 284 posts

Posted 17 June 2013 - 09:11 AM

View PostHomeless Bill, on 25 April 2013 - 11:58 AM, said:

It's becoming clearer and clearer how much this is needed to prevent ridiculous boating. The Stalker was never meant to mount PPCs, the K2 was never meant to boat ballistics, etc., and the result is that a lot of 'mechs are becoming redundant. It's not bad. Not yet. But with as few 'mechs as we have now and as many will eventually be released, it's going to get worse quickly.

Why can a Raven mount the same AC/20 that a Hunchback can, but it doesn't have a huge hardpoint that everyone shoots for first? It's blatantly unfair to allow 'mechs to have all the advantages of large hardpoints with none of the drawbacks. The larger gun models are not enough - and even if they were, PGI plans to ramp up 'mech releases (plus, the Clans are coming eventually); how are they going to keep selling 'mechs if much of a chassis' uniqueness is diluted by redundancy?

I love all the Awesomes, and I run them whenever I'm not grinding. But they have a couple very niche roles they can shine in, whereas the Stalker is largely superior in most other respects. And it largely comes down to the lack of hardpoint sizes.

At first, the lack of limitations was good for diversity. Now, the more 'mechs they release, the worse things are going to get.


Edit: A brief addendum, 3rdworld's posts made good points, and a ForumWarrior never backs down from a worthy opponent.

I would like to just note that this won't fix all boating perfectly. Canon boats like the A1, Jager, and this ******* monstrosity would still be able to do their thing to an extent. I think the developers should stay away from those 'mechs as much as possible.

For the canon boats we have, hardpoint size restrictions will go a long way towards solving the problem. Size restrictions on the A1 and Jagermechs would bring them back into the realm of effective without being cheesy (I speak of the A1 assuming that missiles will again one day not be ****).

On to my rebuttal...

To an extent, 'mechs with larger hardpoints would be more valuable for certain builds. But that's exactly how it should be. The Hunchback should get the privilege of mounting a big cannon because it has a huge ******* right torso.

Not everything should be able to boat PPCs. Not everything should be able to boat large ballistics. The more 'mechs they pump out, the more the builds will all look the same. More and more chassis will be made obsolete. Just look at the Awesome; I run them as my primary 'mech, but its shining capability (PPC hardpoints) is overshadowed by just about every other assault with energy hardpoints.

About your Atlas-D example. First, I'm not in favor of limiting LRM/SRM swaps (that would be terrible). Second, I don't think stock weapons should necessarily determine hardpoint size; that should be up to the developers. For instance on the Atlas-D, the arm hardpoints would be 2-slot-capable. Third, I'm also not in favor of limiting down-sizing.

I'm thinking something more like this:
RA: 1 2-Slot Energy
RT: 1 Extra Large Ballistic, 1 Medum Ballistic
CT: 2 1-Slot Energy
LT: 2 Large Missiles
LA: 1 2-Slot Energy

The Atlas would frankly barely be affected. No PPCs, no LL in the CT, no 2xLBX-10s (</3), but everything else would work like it does now. The things most hard-hit currently would be most PPC boats. The K2 and certain LRM boats would have taken a hit (though PPC K2s would be back in force like they should be), but I don't see them around much anymore.

And just in case I gave the wrong impression, this isn't about me being all jelly that I don't get to be special with PPCs in my Awesome. I don't run PPCs in any of my Awesomes. I just hate to see my baby get the short end of the stick, and I hate to see the metagame polluted with cheese weapons because everyone can mount them =[

The only 'mechs that should be capable of mounting large weaponry are the ones that are slow and easy-to-escape and the ones screaming "shoot my big-*** weapon hardpoint."


I agree with this but there should be a hardpoint limitation on slots instead, leave everything currently as it is. Forexample the Hunchback should get the privilege of mounting a big cannon because it has a huge ******* right torso, not the Trebuch (SPL) because the size of that torso mount is not as big as the Hunchbacks Large ballistic mount, so the hardpoints should be far less for the trebeuch for that same torse area (spl).

Edited by zolop, 17 June 2013 - 09:12 AM.


#206 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 23 June 2013 - 11:52 PM

How does this system address these mechs:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder_Hawk (3 Gauss Rifles)
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Warhawk (4 ER PPCs)
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Annihilator (4 LBX-10)

---

What kind of customization is left if you limit hard point sizes?

How do you distinguish the 3 Missile Boat Catapults meaningful?

One fundamental problem you can easily run into:
If you cannot upgrade a weapon to a larger size variant of that type, what is the point of downgrading another weapon to a smaller size? You can't use the crit slots o weight freed by downgrading for another weapon.

So you basically end up switching between very, very few weapon options.
Basically "Do I use PPCs or ER PPCs? Do I use Medium Lasers or Pulse Lasers?"

This sounds boring to me.

The problem with all the boating is based on pinpoint precision. You fire all your weapons together, all hit the same spot.
Deal with convergence. Or deal with being able to fire all weapons together.
Then you don't need to worry so much about everyone running around with a boat. Some will still do it, but they have no clear advantage over those that don't.

#207 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 24 June 2013 - 02:41 AM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 23 June 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

How do you distinguish the 3 Missile Boat Catapults meaningful?

Only on their behaviour in battle with additonal perks n quirks:

for example:
A1 - engine cap = 390
C4 - engine cap = 260
C1 - engine cap = 325

All variants are able to fire LRM 10% faster.

You have to look at the whole picture - not just a single part of it - duno if a single mind is able to do. :P

#208 Nothing Whatsoever

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,655 posts
  • LocationNowhere

Posted 24 June 2013 - 03:39 PM

Well, first I'd simply like to state that I like the idea of exploring limits with hardpoints to keep the Mechwarrior setting as believable as it can be within this game's context.

For example, I still find it funny to see PPC's being fired from different mechs that originally had lasers, compared to how the specific Awesomes and the CPLT-K2 being modeled to have big cannons if they had PPC's originally. And seeing a 9M running around with lasers (especially SLs or SPLs) firing from those same cannons is equally as funny for me to see.

So as we have had Auto Cannons have some minor tweaks, where different ballistics have different barrels, I say the same should eventually be done with PPC's and Lasers (if it's not currently being worked on). This combined with soft limits to make believable loadouts and have that reflected in the Mech models would be where hardpoint restrictions should build from, where we can still customize in most cases where it is believable.

Therefore for me at least, balance between weapons is still a separate and very important aspect for gameplay, which definitely needs to keep all weapons viable compared to each other. I'm glad that this is getting addressed albeit slower than what many of us would prefer, I look forward to the next patch to see what's in store.

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 23 June 2013 - 11:52 PM, said:

How does this system address these mechs:
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Thunder_Hawk (3 Gauss Rifles)
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Warhawk (4 ER PPCs)
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Annihilator (4 LBX-10)

---

What kind of customization is left if you limit hard point sizes?

How do you distinguish the 3 Missile Boat Catapults meaningful?

One fundamental problem you can easily run into:
If you cannot upgrade a weapon to a larger size variant of that type, what is the point of downgrading another weapon to a smaller size? You can't use the crit slots o weight freed by downgrading for another weapon.

So you basically end up switching between very, very few weapon options.
Basically "Do I use PPCs or ER PPCs? Do I use Medium Lasers or Pulse Lasers?"

This sounds boring to me.

The problem with all the boating is based on pinpoint precision. You fire all your weapons together, all hit the same spot.

Deal with convergence. Or deal with being able to fire all weapons together.
Then you don't need to worry so much about everyone running around with a boat. Some will still do it, but they have no clear advantage over those that don't.


So I figure that we need to have multifaceted approach to improving this game anyway.

If those mechs are introduced into this game, then they need to be addressed through the weapons balancing we will be testing with, and with how they are modeled, scaled and tuned as with existing mechs (Stalkers need to be looked at in particular, [and I wonder how they did in the Tourney? compared to other Assaults, but that's for another thread]).

There are also other ways those three could be brought into this game where they could be made to have specific weaknesses in performance and design of their hitbox sizes (the Thunder Hawk is rockin' an XL afterall, and the Annihilator would be super sluggish with the STD 200 and would seem to have a low limit for it's Engine also).

So for me at least, as I mentioned earlier, hard points limits should take the approach of keeping mech loadouts believable to how mechs look, and when necessary to bring a more balanced approach in how mechs are set up (such as Stalkers taking the field as a boat platform, when maybe they shouldn't be able to do so as effectively as they currently can). And a possible benefit with hardpoint limits maybe with lowering the number of LRM's being fired in a single volley by a single mech yet still keep LRM's viable but not too powerful, as PGI keeps trying to balance them against other weapons.

I'm not sure that I understand your question about the Catapults, so I won't try addressing it.



At any rate, I like the idea of keeping each and every single mech to the same Heat Capacity at a default that won't increase or decrease.

One value I've seen suggested is keep it at 30 (I guess that was TT value?), which would be fine with me. So that this way, weapon heat and then heat dissipation would be where the focus should go to, along with damage being done to our mechs if we fire to Shutdown, Power back up and then Shutdown again and so on, not only taking damage when we Override. Heat Sinks would still modify heat dissipation, so that weapons can be chain fired and so on.

But I still figure that there is a place for hardpoint limits in MWO also if only to make balancing a tad easier, since there would be fewer builds that can excessively abuse what PGI is trying to do in the first place.

#209 MustrumRidcully

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,644 posts

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:12 AM

Quote

But I still figure that there is a place for hardpoint limits in MWO also if only to make balancing a tad easier, since there would be fewer builds that can excessively abuse what PGI is trying to do in the first place.

The problem with merely "fewer" is - we're min/maxers. Not all of us, but many. Especially those that really like to win and not gimp themselves. If you let just one abusable mech slip through, that's the mech you'll see on the battlefield. You don't get more variety, you get less.

The most variety can be had if the weapon balance and the targeting mechanics do not "force" people into specific builds if they want to be competitive. If you can run a 6 PPC Stalker and it has its advantages and drawbacks that are matched by the advantages and drawbacks of a 2 LLs, 4 ML, 2 LRM15s and 2 SSRM2s Stalker. Then you can have two Stalkers on the field, and they would play very differently, but still be competitive.

It's not an easy task, but if you're not trying to get closer to that ideal, why bother changing anything?

The two biggest problems I see with hard point sizes / limitations:
1) If you add the wrong mech, you are back into the trouble you tried to avoid.
2) You make customization options too limited. If you cannot upgrade a weapon slot, what's the value in downgrading a weapon slot? You just are left with unused weight that you can't fill up with a gun. So you get only tiny variations - a mech switching between SL, SPL, ML or MPL, but nothing more. Downgrading your LRM20 to an LRM 15? You'd only do this to add a few more missiles. Changing it to an SRM6? You never need that many missiles. You might sometimes be able to upgrade the engine, but then there are engine size restrictions, so you can't get very far with that on some mechs.
If you want to avoid boats, you also can't allow heavy slots to carry multiple weapons - that's just inviting a boat.

I want this game to have 6 PPC boats and Dual AC/20 boats. But I also want this game to have a mech with an AC/10, a PPC, a Large Laser and an LRM10, and not have this mech feel gimped compared to the aforementioned ones.

#210 Karl Streiger

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 20,369 posts
  • LocationBlack Dot in a Sea of Blue

Posted 25 June 2013 - 01:17 AM

View PostMustrumRidcully, on 25 June 2013 - 01:12 AM, said:

I want this game to have 6 PPC boats and Dual AC/20 boats. But I also want this game to have a mech with an AC/10, a PPC, a Large Laser and an LRM10, and not have this mech feel gimped compared to the aforementioned ones.

Well maybe not the 6 PPC boat (they will extinct in the next weeks) but yes to the dual AC 20 - at least because of canon.
But that can only be achieved by game mechanics that are directly working ingame. No mech lab change with current game play will made the mixed mech comperable to a death simple boat.

#211 Big Giant Head

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 258 posts
  • Locationingalaxyfarfaraway

Posted 25 July 2013 - 08:41 AM

View Post3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Disagree.

Hardpoint sizes just shift the meta to mechs that come stock with larger weapons. It will destroy customization.

Example, with size based hardpoints, the most customization you could do to an Atlas would be putting a Gauss in for a AC/20. That is about it.


If you think that is what hardpoint restriction would look like take a hike at some hardpoint threads - because its not what people that want this system in the game want





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users