60 replies to this topic

[Fajther]

Don't you think that it is a little late to be asking this question? In the end It is something new that pgi has added to the mechwarrior universe. I think that it is great. Even if I might believe there may be a better system out there. All being said, I hope they keep it the same way they have it.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Honestly they could have saved themselves a lot of pain by just limiting the mechlab. There has never been a MWO game that with out sever limits on mechlabs that it wasn't a nightmare to balance and basically destroys the game. No worries though, when MWO goes broke maybe the MWLL guys will pick it up!!

[tenderloving]

I added a picture with an example of each option. In each example I tried to show unique builds allowed by that particular system.

[Sybreed]

to the OP, you should add the option "current system is fine" , before too many people call the poll biaised (which I could agree with)

[Shumabot]

Sybreed, on 01 May 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

to the OP, you should add the option "current system is fine" , before too many people call the poll biaised (which I could agree with)

A poll based on alternatives isn't biased because it doesn't present the current reality any more than a poll that does. It's not asking whether a new system is better, it's presupposing that and asking which proposed system is best.

[Kivin]

I'm with Shumabot. The people voting should already agree that measures must be taken. There's plenty of good places for the "opposition" to spam away with their diatribe.

Fajther, on 01 May 2013 - 12:30 PM, said:

Don't you think that it is a little late to be asking this question? In the end It is something new that pgi has added to the mechwarrior universe. I think that it is great. Even if I might believe there may be a better system out there. All being said, I hope they keep it the same way they have it.

I think that this is expressly the right time to be asking this question. We still have some time in beta and must take advantage of that fact. I honestly believe without hyperbole that this game will suffer a catastrophic launch if the Piranhas don't implement restrictions as soon as they're able. If you're right and it is too late, then we all might as well pack up our bags and go home. Boating isn't getting any better. Sniping is here to stay as a first-class game mechanic. The arms race of bigger and better pinpoint alpha-strikes will continue well on in to the future. The magical balance zen of number tweaks will never resolve these issues.

Edited by Kivin, 01 May 2013 - 06:50 PM.

[tenderloving]

Sybreed, on 01 May 2013 - 06:09 PM, said:

to the OP, you should add the option "current system is fine" , before too many people call the poll biaised (which I could agree with)

If you read my post you will see the purpose of the poll. I even bolded it and increased the font size. If you don't want a new hardpoint system, don't vote. If you do, vote on the one you like the best or propose another.

[SweetWarmIce]

I like the current hardpoint system as it is.

[Hammerfinn]

I like the current hardpoint system, and I think the poll is biased in not providing this option.

[tenderloving]

Hammerfinn, on 01 May 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

I like the current hardpoint system, and I think the poll is biased in not providing this option.

That's not what the poll is for. Read the OP before you respond to avoid appearing illiterate.

[Hammerfinn]

I read it, and I think it is a flawed concept that artificially limits discussion.

[Sephlock]

MW2 method!

Edited by Sephlock, 01 May 2013 - 07:53 PM.

[Nathan Foxbane]

tenderloving, on 01 May 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

That's not what the poll is for. Read the OP before you respond to avoid appearing illiterate.

The poll is most flawed. I gives several options and asks for the option the player being polled likes best. It in no way takes into account the simple fact that that player might actually like the current system. If you are proposing a change and want to poll the opinions of all parties instead of targeting just the party that desires your change then you at least need the option of no change at all in the poll. Seriously, first thing you learn in any stats class: Poor data gathering gives inaccurate and skewed results. Certain parties will find this desirable to their own ends, but it does not change the fact that the data gathered is by its very nature inaccurate. Suffice to say if your poll is bad your data is less than worthless, it is misleading.

All proposed systems in the OP are very restrictive and will have the unintended side effect of forcing the player's choice in picking a chassis and variant to achieve optimum results. You will actually see less variability the the proposed system than you would in the current. Right now almost all chassis and variants can be optimized to be at least somewhat competitive. There are always players who will find the meta's logical extreme, just like there are always players that will feel they need to do something just because "everyone else is doing it."
The OP is a poorly thought out method to change the current meta with out considering all consequences. How many things will it change, how will this affect other parts of the game, and how will that change the gameplay from what the developers envisioned? Any boat that the OP seems so obsessed with (high alpha in particular) becomes more effective in greater numbers if proper tactics are used, in an of themselves they are specialists and excel only at the niche they were made for. That the OP actively encourages boating of lighter weapons will just mean the FoTM 'Mechs will be different in how they go about optimizing their builds. We will just ignore the little historical fact that boats carrying large quantities of medium or small lasers other low alpha, but high DPS weapons used to dominate the meta. Or the little fact that MW4 multiplayer meta was very restrictive in what worked and what did not. We can learn from the mistakes of the past so as not to repeat them, can we not?

People seem to think up blanket solutions for obvious problems without considering the full ramifications of that fix or that the perceived problem is actually the end result of the cumulative effects of smaller problems else where in the system. In a system that one aspect effects many others Murphy's Law and the Law of Unintended Consequences are in full effect.

Edit: The SDR-5K called. It said it would rather not be thrown under the bus... again.

Edited by Nathan Foxbane, 01 May 2013 - 08:26 PM.

[Nation Uprise]

If you like the current hardpoint system then this isn't the thread for you. This thread is only for people who agree that there should be a hardpoint restriction. And since there's multiple ways to implement a hardpoint restriction, this thread and poll is asking which one would be better. You like the current system? Then make a thread praising how awesome it is and how it doesn't make any other weapon other than a PPC, Gauss, or AC20, completely useless. Or how it somehow promotes using mechs other than Highlanders, Stalkers, Cataphracts, Jagermechs.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 01 May 2013 - 09:02 PM.

[Kivin]

Nathan Foxbane, on 01 May 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

...

Please read the OP before writing a giant wall of text next time, so you don't end up looking foolish. How embarrassing. If you want to argue the need for hard point limitations, there are plenty of excellent places to go for that, where many of the common objections have been thoroughly laid to rest. Please find one of them and I would be happy to put thought to whatever objections you might have.

[Nation Uprise]

tenderloving, on 01 May 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Didn't want to quote the whole first post. Its pretty long.

Thanks for the image, it really clarifies the different options well. But I was wondering. In the MW4 option, wouldn't the K2 have (1) 3 Crit Energy per arm, (1) 1 Crit Energy per side torso and (1) 1 Crit Ballistic per side torso? It would have a maximum of 10 weapons in total. I don't see how the K2 would have the same energy hardpoint on its side torsos as on its huge cannon arms.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 01 May 2013 - 09:45 PM.

[Hammerfinn]

So this is only a thread for malcontents who want drastic and time-consuming, balance-altering and build-restricting change, and not for discussion of the merits of all hardpoint systems? OK. I'll go post somewhere else.

[Asmudius Heng]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 May 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

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.

Liked not because i agree totally - i think a revised hardpoint system would work fine.

PGI will never do it and people who hate any sort of restrictions will cry and throw tantrums.

Incentives seem to be the only way PGI can move forward - adding another layer of complexity because it doesnt stop anyone building their little pet designs they thing are so unique and wonderful - but it does change player behaviour in the mechlab if they can squeeze more bonuses out of the intended role of a mech.

That being said i chose 3 as the best option. Someone else said it right, MW4 stopped large people boating quite well but did nothing to stop small weapon boating. However small weapons sucked so people still went big and the most powerful 2 slot items were used the most - LBX10, ERLL, Light Gauss from memory were the bets big and boatable weapons.

Hammerfinn, on 01 May 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

So this is only a thread for malcontents who want drastic and time-consuming, balance-altering and build-restricting change, and not for discussion of the merits of all hardpoint systems? OK. I'll go post somewhere else.

Excellent! thank you bye bye you wont be missed with that attitude

[Nation Uprise]

Hammerfinn, on 01 May 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

So this is only a thread for malcontents who want drastic and time-consuming, balance-altering and build-restricting change, and not for discussion of the merits of all hardpoint systems? OK. I'll go post somewhere else.

Hey, thanks. And Niko thanks you too.

Niko Snow, on 01 May 2013 - 02:07 PM, said:

Edited by Nation Uprise, 01 May 2013 - 10:08 PM.

[Hammerfinn]

My point is that this thread isn't actually about suggestion or discussion, it's about masturbatory self-reflection. Don't pretend it's anything else.

I'd actually like discussion about the merit of various hardpoint systems, but I can't find a thread where that's actually welcome. I thought it might be this one, but it's not.

Edited by Hammerfinn, 01 May 2013 - 10:11 PM.