60 replies to this topic

[tenderloving]

Edit: I added an image with an example of each hardpoint system.

There are a couple polls floating around now that show strong support in favor of a revised hardpoint system. The polls also indicate that most are in favor of limiting based on weapon size rather than weapon weight.

I have summarized the 4 most often cited examples of a better hardpoint system.

This thread is not a discussion of whether or not we need a new hardpoint system, it is a discussion of which system would be best for the game if a new hardpoint system were to be implemented. -Please respect these conditions. If you want to argue about the need for a hardpoint system overhaul go to one of these threads:

http://mwomercs.com/...-per-hardpoint/
http://mwomercs.com/...rtain-loadouts/

http://mwomercs.com/...ardpoint-sizes/

For purposes of discussion I will use the PPC as the "largest" weapon for our hypothetical largest possible energy hardpoint.

1. MW4 System- Our PPC hardpoint would be able to hold 1 PPC, 1 LL and 1 ML, or 3 ML
2. Hardpoints within hardpoints- We could have 1 PPC, 1 LL and 1 ML, or 2 ML (or other combinations)
3. Hardpoints with maximum size- We could have 1 PPC, 1 LL, or 1 ML. Smaller hardpoints could carry 1 ML or 1 SL but not LL or PPC.
4. Hardpoints with max and min size- We could have 1 PPC or 1 LL but nothing smaller.


Below is an image of the Right Arm and torso of a K2 Catapult using each system. The weapon sizes allowed and hardpoint sizes are PURELY SPECULATIVE and do not necessarily represent what would happen if they were implemented. Use your brain before you argue:

Edited by tenderloving, 02 May 2013 - 04:03 AM.

[Juodvarnis]

I would pick the third option if i understood it correctly.

[tenderloving]

Juodvarnis, on 01 May 2013 - 08:48 AM, said:

I would pick the third option if i understood it correctly.

When I get home I'm going to photoshop an example of each.

[Sybreed]

I voted #2...

I can accept that a mech strips its PPC to mount 2 or 3 medium lasers. Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

[tenderloving]

Sybreed, on 01 May 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

I voted #2...

I can accept that a mech strips its PPC to mount 2 or 3 medium lasers. Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

I'm #3 personally but I have no problems with #2. It could be adjusted to prevent the boating of small weapons.

Edited by tenderloving, 01 May 2013 - 09:17 AM.

[Nation Uprise]

Sybreed, on 01 May 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

I voted #2...

I can accept that a mech strips its PPC to mount 2 or 3 medium lasers. Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

I was under the impression that MW4's system is exactly the same.

The Atlas in the image has a large energy hardpoint on its arm that can either equip 1 PPC or 3 ML/SL. I think Option 1 and 2 are almost the same. Or is Option 2 only allowing for a maximum of 2 weapons within a hardpoint?

Edited by Nation Uprise, 01 May 2013 - 09:23 AM.

[tenderloving]

Nation Uprise, on 01 May 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

I was under the impression that MW4's system is exactly the same.

The Atlas in the image has a large energy hardpoint on its arm that can either equip 1 PPC or 3 ML/SL. I think Option 1 and 2 are almost the same. Or is Option 2 only allowing for a maximum of 2 weapons within a hardpoint?

1 would allow as many medium lasers as you have criticals. This system curtails large weapon boating but doesn't stop small weapon boating.

2 would only allow x number of weapons, where x changes from hardpoint to hardpoint. In system 2 you may have to choose between fitting 2 smaller weapons or 1 larger weapon even though there are 3 critical slots in the hardpoint.

Edited by tenderloving, 01 May 2013 - 09:36 AM.

[Nation Uprise]

Maybe because in MW4 the MLs and SLs did drastically less damage than here in MWO, that boating small weapons didn't seem like that much of a problem. I would prefer the MW4 system because its a bit easier to understand, but unless the ML/SL (maybe other small, 1 slot weapons too) get toned down a bit, I guess option 2 would be better.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 01 May 2013 - 10:10 AM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

There is no option to choose the current hardpoint system. Your poll is biased.
Really the system does not need to be changed. It will always be a part of the meta and the weapons of choice will change as balance and meta changes. Change the system and you change the way the meta works. If you change the meta, people will simply find news ways to optimize builds to get what they see as the best results. Nothing gets fixed, just changed.

The MW4 system was crap anyways. The weapon sizes were completely arbitrary and the whole MW4 build system set the the Battletech build rules on fire then tossed them out the window and into rush hour traffic. It was a fun game, but the customization system left so much to be desired it was not even funny.

[Shumabot]

I voted for the fourth because I think it would maintain the intended silhouette and function of mechs while making different variants of the same mech materially different in how they have to play and function. That reduces the level of build creativity possible, but I think it would greatly expand the amount in game variety. Having max size and smaller single points does almost the same thing, but still would result in builds like the splat cat.

Nathan Foxbane, on 01 May 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

There is no option to choose the current hardpoint system. Your poll is biased.
Really the system does not need to be changed. It will always be a part of the meta and the weapons of choice will change as balance and meta changes. Change the system and you change the way the meta works. If you change the meta, people will simply find news ways to optimize builds to get what they see as the best results. Nothing gets fixed, just changed.

The MW4 system was crap anyways. The weapon sizes were completely arbitrary and the whole MW4 build system set the the Battletech build rules on fire then tossed them out the window and into rush hour traffic. It was a fun game, but the customization system left so much to be desired it was not even funny.

In my opinion a hardpoint size systems role isn't to promote balance but is instead to promote variation and to tamp down on boating. Logically boating provides tangential benefits of increased match dps, better engine and heat to weapon ratios, and generally the best DPS in the mechs intended role. This has, in every mechwarrior game ever made (and battletech) led to homogeneous builds that ignore the different mech varients and different mechs entirely in favor of whatever is most boat capable, heaviest, and physically smallest (with tangentials like high-placed weapons).

Without a change to the hardpoint system itself competitive builds will never not be homogeneous and mostly boated. It's simply a byproduct of having freedom of selection and the freedom to optimize how you play as well as how your mech is built out.

Edited by Shumabot, 01 May 2013 - 10:38 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

No hard points. The game model of the mech adapts to the weapon you equip. The weapons and weapon/targeting systems are balanced so that it doesn't matter if you boat 60 short range weapons or 5 long range weapons or mix all kinds of weapons.

Short Range weapons deal more damage for the same effective weapon system weight (that weight includes heat sinks and ammo).

Quirks might be used to encourage mechs to be used to adapt to the "canon" looks. (Like, say a 20 % armour bonus to the weapon hunch on a hunchback), and balanced amongst each other assuming that these quirks are "activated", but they are not strong enough to feel like an absolute necessity.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 01 May 2013 - 10:44 AM.

[Xtrekker]

Sybreed, on 01 May 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

I voted #2...

I can accept that a mech strips its PPC to mount 2 or 3 medium lasers. Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

I voted #3 because I've always thought that made more sense. However, I can see #2 working if possibly additional structural critical points were penalized for the weapons array retrofit.

[Nathan Foxbane]

Shumabot, on 01 May 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

Without a change to the hardpoint system itself competitive builds will never not be homogeneous and mostly boated. It's simply a byproduct of having freedom of selection and the freedom to optimize how you play as well as how your mech is built out.

You have your answer. It it about freedom of design and play. The game is hardly finished as well. We do not have all aspects of information warfare and we do not have the meta of CW in yet. We could wait and see what PGI gives us to work by time of release instead of demanding something that has been around since the beginning of this game and worked fairly well. Yes I see a lot of concentration in builds depending on the current meta, but that changes regularly and with every new 'Mech that gets added. I also still see plenty of variation among the current meta in regards to what works. And I still even see many unique, but effective builds out there where players refuse to bow to the meta and make their own way successfully.

[Shumabot]

Nathan Foxbane, on 01 May 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

You have your answer. It it about freedom of design and play.

Yes, and freedom doesn't lead to variety. Those things aren't actually logically linked. People assume that having 100 options means you will see 100 options used, but that is never the case in anything, especially competitive environments where efficacy is prized. The more freedom you have the more distilled the competitive system becomes and the more homogenized it gets. It loses variety specifically BECAUSE players have the freedom of choice and players chose what is best. What is best is boating. Therefore, players with freedom CHOOSE to all be the same because they are trying to win. You can see this in any competitive game. Magic the Gathering never has more than 3-4 top competitive builds despite having literally trillions of combination options, Call of Duty never has more than 4-5 top competitive builds despite having hundreds of thousands. No mechwarrior game previous has avoided homogenous builds because people intend their mechs to win.

Quote

The game is hardly finished as well. We do not have all aspects of information warfare and we do not have the meta of CW in yet. We could wait and see what PGI gives us to work by time of release instead of demanding something that has been around since the beginning of this game and worked fairly well. Yes I see a lot of concentration in builds depending on the current meta, but that changes regularly and with every new 'Mech that gets added. I also still see plenty of variation among the current meta in regards to what works. And I still even see many unique, but effective builds out there where players refuse to bow to the meta and make their own way successfully.

You see a lot of concentration of builds depending on meta. What you don't see is the opposite. Non concentrated builds being effective. That is because they aren't, regardless of the meta. When was the last time you saw a mech build outside of an atlas sporting all 3 types of weapon without being terrible?

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

Yes, and freedom doesn't lead to variety.

What you need is balance. Balance gives you freedom to assemble different configurations, but you lack one problematic form of freedom - getting an OP build.

Oh, you want more range with your mech? Sure, go ahead, but your damage output will be lowered for that.
Oh, you want more firepower? Accept to take a range hit or move up to a larger chassis?
Oh, you want to go faster? Prepare to sacrifice firepower.

The challenge is making the trade-offs be fair - not too high, not too low.

But just restricting things won't help you. If SRMs are better, ton per ton, then Medium Lasers, then having 2 50 tons, one that can field medium lasers, and one that fields a mix of MLs and SRMs, will still make the second one preferable and better. Without balance, all those hard point restrictions are completely and utterly useless.

[Shumabot]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 May 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

What you need is balance. Balance gives you freedom to assemble different configurations, but you lack one problematic form of freedom - getting an OP build.

Oh, you want more range with your mech? Sure, go ahead, but your damage output will be lowered for that.
Oh, you want more firepower? Accept to take a range hit or move up to a larger chassis?
Oh, you want to go faster? Prepare to sacrifice firepower.

The challenge is making the trade-offs be fair - not too high, not too low.

But just restricting things won't help you. If SRMs are better, ton per ton, then Medium Lasers, then having 2 50 tons, one that can field medium lasers, and one that fields a mix of MLs and SRMs, will still make the second one preferable and better. Without balance, all those hard point restrictions are completely and utterly useless.

I agree that without balance hardpoint restrictions are only an artificial fix, and I agree that this game is missing a lot what balance would look like. However, there is still an issue with boating. The thing that makes boating inherently the best way to play is the fact that the player generally chooses their mode of play and the ranges at which they're engaged. When you take a loadout of both long and short range weapons your long range weapons hamper you at close range and your short range weapons hamper you at long range. What do you choose in this case? If a long range player is shooting you you can't shoot back because you're inherently exposing yourself and losing the ranged tradeoff. If you are in combat with a short range build he is going to win because he out DPS' you up close.

It's very easy in this game to avoid being shot until within SRM range when you chose too and it's very easy to avoid getting into SRM range with a long range mech if you choose to. Proper weapon balance would mean that a team of short range mechs trumps a team of long range mechs if it gets close and loses if it doesn't. The problem is that proper balance still creates a scenario where the all short ranged or all long ranged mechs win against mixed loadout mechs the vast majority of the time, the opportunity costs of mixed loadouts are just too high. Mixed loadouts have to deal with ammo and heatsinks, multiple reticules, different optimum engagement distances, projectile speeds (can't fire that laser, missile, and ac at the same time since 2 will always miss), and lower match and engagement dps. The LRM is a poster child of this, there is almost no reason at all to take an LRM unless you plan to take nothing but LRMs. The weapon dominates the way you HAVE to play with it and it doesn't work with any other weapon.

The game itself simply punishes mixed loadouts, regardless of how balanced the spreadsheet looks.

Edited by Shumabot, 01 May 2013 - 11:16 AM.

[Dishevel]

No hardpoints.
If you have the crit space in the area and the tonnage put it in.
Everything else is done so that people can bring crap and be competitive.
I get tired of QQing women that want to restrict the game so they can play badly and feel good.

[Shumabot]

Dishevel, on 01 May 2013 - 11:22 AM, said:

No hardpoints.
If you have the crit space in the area and the tonnage put it in.
Everything else is done so that people can bring crap and be competitive.
I get tired of QQing women that want to restrict the game so they can play badly and feel good.

And I get tired of people that think skill and net decking their builds off of smurfy are the same thing...

[Homeless Bill]

Here's just one example of why allowing many smaller weapons to take the place of larger ones is bad: Stalker with 12 medium lasers, two SRM6s, and four SRM4s.

The whole point of the hardpoint system is to limit weapon loadouts to reasonable ones (realistic for the chassis and not massively overpowered). All that does is change the weapon of choice for boats from large weapons to small weapons.

It would also make 'mechs designed to carry a large array of smaller weapons redundant.

[ArmageddonKnight]

I voted 3 on the basses that i understood it as follows.

Size = critical slot size, AND weight

Mech has 2 Energy hardpoints on its arm. It has 6 critcal slots left.

1 E-hardpoint is limited to A maximum weight of 7 tonns and maximum size of 3 criticals. (allows a PPC)
1 E-hardpoint is limited to a maximum weight of 5 tonns and a maximum size od 2 criticals (allows a LL)
Leaving, if both 3 slots and 2 slots r fully used, 1 slot for Ammo or other internal structure.

You would have to use weight AND critical slot size, not just one ..becouse weapons like the ML and Sl both use 1 crit slot, if u want to encourage or restrict certain hardpoitns to light/small weapons, u will need to restrict it by weight. SL = 0.5 tonns and ML = 1 ton. For example:

Mech arm : 2 E-hardpoitns.
1) Limited to 1 slot and 0.5 tonns (can use SL)
2) Limited to 1 slot and 1 tonn (can use up to a ML)

Remember ignor unbalanced weapons stats atm, just asume all weapons are viable. becouse eventually they will be.

Edited by ArmageddonKnight, 01 May 2013 - 12:34 PM.