60 replies to this topic

[Kivin]

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

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.

Insulting everyone here repeatedly does nobody any good, yourself included. I'm not really sure what you think you're obtaining from doing so, but please quit it immediately. If you want to argue it, feel free to start with the post in my signature.

[MustrumRidcully]

Shumabot, on 01 May 2013 - 11:14 AM, said:

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.

Well, hard points won't change that. If a mech has the hard points to boat, it will be done, and if another mech can't, then that mech is weak and will be less used.

If versatile mechs is an objective - then maybe we need special synergy rules. Say, you get a bonus module for every full 12.5% of your weapons* that belong to a different range group than the majority (so, up to 4 modules at a 50 % split).
Add some more modules and make some existing ones more useful (Artillery, Air Strike), and you can have the drawbacks of versatility balanced out.


*) Either absolute number or counted in tonnage or crit slots

[Hammerfinn]

Kivin, on 01 May 2013 - 10:21 PM, said:

Insulting everyone here repeatedly does nobody any good, yourself included. I'm not really sure what you think you're obtaining from doing so, but please quit it immediately. If you want to argue it, feel free to start with the post in my signature.

I'm sorry if you felt it was insulting; I'm not meaning to be offensive here. I just feel like every single thread I've visited is biased and slanted, and I thought this one had the most potential. I apologize to anyone I offended.

My main problem with all the suggestions here as opposed to the original hardpoint system is that it kills build diversity. Homogeneity is not the same thing as balance. I don't think changing the hardpoints is the solution you're looking for.

There. If I hadn't been told to shut up and called illiterate (and if I wasn't a little drunk....) I wouldn't have gone off here.

[Kivin]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 May 2013 - 10:36 PM, said:

If a mech has the hard points to boat, it will be done, and if another mech can't, then that mech is weak and will be less used.

Mechs don't need to be boats in order to stand strong and independent. The end goal here is to reduce the boating potential across the board such that players don't feel like they need six duplicates of the exact same weapon in order to be effective.

Hammerfinn, on 01 May 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

I'm sorry if you felt it was insulting; I'm not meaning to be offensive here.

Thank you.

Hammerfinn, on 01 May 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

biased and slanted

You're right, this thread is biased and slanted, and unapologetically so. Many of the participants of this thread have hashed out these ideas in other threads, recently, to great length. We've heard all the popular arguments against them and rebutted them adequately to our own standards. The purpose of this thread, I believe, was to determine which of the options that have been presented is more favoured. The threads discussing the viability of hard point restrictions are still out there and I'd welcome a challenger who can make an articulate argument against it. If you're honest in your interest to represent the opposition, feel free to read the thread in my sig in its entirety and we'll get down to business.

[Karl Streiger]

Kivin, on 02 May 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Mechs don't need to be boats in order to stand strong and independent. The end goal here is to reduce the boating potential across the board such that players don't feel like they need six duplicates of the exact same weapon in order to be effective.

I'm pretty sure it was already said....

• weapon of a kind (MLAS) is a joke
  
• weapon of a kind is good backup
  
• weapon of a kind is great
  
• weapon of a kind start to be complete imballanced

Mechlab and a reasonable Weapon Slot Restriction is only one battle field.
Even if Mech modification is not permited at all...there will be some Mechs - that will be used more often for example the Hunchbacks will rule over the centurions because most Hunchbacks have multipe medium lasers.
You need NO CONVERGENCE
Other Mechs will extinct like the A1...to specialized and the available game mods are not in favour of a LRM only mech (retreat mini campaign, value of a battle is depended on damage dealt and damage done, battle ends by more things than capture or kill all)

[Kivin]

Karl Streiger, on 02 May 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Mechlab and a reasonable Weapon Slot Restriction is only one battle field.

Weapon balance is also of paramount importance, no argument there.

Karl Streiger, on 02 May 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Even if Mech modification is not permited at all...there will be some Mechs - that will be used more often for example the Hunchbacks will rule over the centurions because most Hunchbacks have multipe medium lasers.

I don't see this as necessarily a bad thing. Balance Zen where every Mech is used equally is a myth. Either way, the Centurion has a shield arm, the Hunchback has a prominent weak-point. The Centurion makes a viable speed Mech, and a Zombie Mech. The HB can do neither of this things well. And when all of that is said and done, neither the Centurion nor the Hunchback are game breaking boats, so they only stand to gain - not lose - by adding hard point limitations.

Karl Streiger, on 02 May 2013 - 12:43 AM, said:

Other Mechs will extinct like the A1.

It seems to me that the A1 can only benefit from hard point restrictions. It's a dominant Mech in the short range arena, and the current boating situation gravitates players towards long range, pin point attacks. No, the A1 has its place on the battlefield secured.

[tenderloving]

Nation Uprise, on 01 May 2013 - 09:41 PM, 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.

You're correct. I was just showing how the different systems would look with different hardpoints. PGI probably wouldn't give the K2 the ability to hold 4 PPCs if they were trying for a thought-out system.

That's why I put the disclaimer that everything was speculative. There was no way for me to design a hardpoint layout that everyone would agree with; I just needed to illustrate the differences in the methods.

Edited by tenderloving, 02 May 2013 - 03:56 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Kivin, on 02 May 2013 - 12:32 AM, said:

Mechs don't need to be boats in order to stand strong and independent. The end goal here is to reduce the boating potential across the board such that players don't feel like they need six duplicates of the exact same weapon in order to be effective.

But how can hard points achieve this, if the fact is - there are boats in canon. The moment these get into the game, you have boats and if weapons and targeting is designed i such a way that boats have a clear advantage, you don't get people away from boats.

The Hunchback, the Nova, the Supernova, the Warhawk, the Jenner, the Annihilator, the Catapult and more. They all have boat variants.

How does your hard point system make it more desirable to use the non-boat variant?

[tenderloving]

MustrumRidcully, on 02 May 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

But how can hard points achieve this, if the fact is - there are boats in canon. The moment these get into the game, you have boats and if weapons and targeting is designed i such a way that boats have a clear advantage, you don't get people away from boats.

The Hunchback, the Nova, the Supernova, the Warhawk, the Jenner, the Annihilator, the Catapult and more. They all have boat variants.

How does your hard point system make it more desirable to use the non-boat variant?

There are other threads where this argument is brought up multiple times. They are linked in the OP, which clearly states that this thread is not for arguing over whether a change needs to be made. Please stay on topic or go to the other threads where the topic fits the discussion you want to have.

If you have a novel argument against a renewed hardpoint system, take it to these other threads and vote in their polls. This thread is for people who already want a new hardpoint system to discuss what they think is the best way to go about it.

If I made a poll about which hats we should be able to place on our mechs, and you started arguing that the game doesn't need hats, you would look pretty silly. If you don't want hats, take it to one of the "We Need Hats" threads and not the "Which is your Favorite Hat?" thread.

I don't know how to simplify this any more.

Edited by tenderloving, 02 May 2013 - 05:56 AM.

[Acid Phase]

OP, thanks for the illustrations. I've been reading this interesting topic since yesterday. It caught my interest because I believe that hardpoint restrictions are a sure fire way to eliminate ridiculous builds. It is the weapon balance this game has been yearning for. All we need now is for a Dev to appear and express his opinion. I for beleive you have something solid here that they could look at and analyze.

[DeadlyNerd]

Here's my solution that keeps some flexibility while preventing ridiculous builds like 4PPC cicada.

Hard a big hard point allows for either 1 weapon of the maximum size or more weapons of the smaller size.

Keeps the awesome a PPC boat allowing him to load up on MLs, but prevents the stalker from exchanging their MLs for PPCs.

[Syllogy]

The answer to this poll is irrelevant because any change to the hardpoint system would call for a major overhaul of the code that is in place for a very minor change.

You might think of it as completely re-writing a 100 page paper because your teacher wants you to use a different color pen.

[Nation Uprise]

Syllogy, on 02 May 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

The answer to this poll is irrelevant because any change to the hardpoint system would call for a major overhaul of the code that is in place for a very minor change.

You might think of it as completely re-writing a 100 page paper because your teacher wants you to use a different color pen.

Actually, your post is irrelevant. Cause it has nothing to do with the topic. Unless the devs literally come out and say, "We're not doing hardpoint restrictions because it would take us a long time to rewrite code." we're gonna keep talking about it. So don't you go talking for the developers, cause you aren't one. This is the Suggestion forum, and we're doing just that. You can go ahead and make a thread suggesting that nothing should change. No one's stopping you.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 02 May 2013 - 08:06 AM.

[Nation Uprise]

tenderloving, on 02 May 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

You're correct. I was just showing how the different systems would look with different hardpoints. PGI probably wouldn't give the K2 the ability to hold 4 PPCs if they were trying for a thought-out system.

That's why I put the disclaimer that everything was speculative. There was no way for me to design a hardpoint layout that everyone would agree with; I just needed to illustrate the differences in the methods.

This might be asking too much, but would you be willing to fix it? Because right now the image makes the MW4 option seem like its utterly overpowered. The difference between 10 and 14 total weapons is very drastic. In option 2,3 and 4 you were able to discern that it would only hold 1 small energy hardpoint per side torso, but you didn't do the same with the MW4 one.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 02 May 2013 - 08:35 AM.

[Kivin]

MustrumRidcully, on 02 May 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

But how can hard points achieve this, if the fact is - there are boats in canon. The moment these get into the game, you have boats and if weapons and targeting is designed i such a way that boats have a clear advantage, you don't get people away from boats.

The Hunchback, the Nova, the Supernova, the Warhawk, the Jenner, the Annihilator, the Catapult and more. They all have boat variants.

How does your hard point system make it more desirable to use the non-boat variant?

You're right, there are boats in canon, and thank god for that. They can actually be quite flavourful if used in moderation. I like to call upon the Hunchback 4P as an example of healthy boating. It becomes a problem when every Mech is a potential boat. That's called homogenization, and it also happens to be a game breaking mechanic.

What we actually want to avoid is everyone boating PPCs/Gauss - pinpoint surgical strike damage. Even ER LL are a lot less prone to abuse, given their burn time.

In this post I discussed how to nerf the CTF-3D in to a Mech which has choices, without the only obvious choice gravitating towards 4 PPCs and a Gauss Rifle.

[tenderloving]

Syllogy, on 02 May 2013 - 07:37 AM, said:

The answer to this poll is irrelevant because any change to the hardpoint system would call for a major overhaul of the code that is in place for a very minor change.

You might think of it as completely re-writing a 100 page paper because your teacher wants you to use a different color pen.

They already have Energy/Ballistic/Missile/AMS and soon to be ECM hardpoints. Unless they say otherwise, there's no reason that they couldn't create Large/Small Energy, or 3 Crit Energy, or 2 Crit Energy, etc. There would be some UI changes, but they are (hopefully) working on a system for clan mechs which requires some sort of mechlab system changes anyway.

And your analogy makes no sense. If I (game developer) write a paper in the wrong color (bad game design) and the teacher (the market) tells me to get credit (a successful game) it has to be in black ink (good game design), you bet your *** I'm going to rewrite it (make the changes).

So are you saying this is a good idea and worth the efforts of the development team? Because that's what your analogy says.

Edited by tenderloving, 02 May 2013 - 11:39 AM.

[tenderloving]

Nation Uprise, on 02 May 2013 - 08:30 AM, said:

This might be asking too much, but would you be willing to fix it? Because right now the image makes the MW4 option seem like its utterly overpowered. The difference between 10 and 14 total weapons is very drastic. In option 2,3 and 4 you were able to discern that it would only hold 1 small energy hardpoint per side torso, but you didn't do the same with the MW4 one.

Hopefully most people can discern that each example is just a representation of what each system could look like, and that for options 1 and 2 the # of weapons is highly dependent upon what hardpoints are on the mech. I could have just as easily put room in for an UAC/5 on option 3 but I didn't. (For the same reason I'm not fixing the image: laziness.)

[Nation Uprise]

Thats ok. To be completely honest, I would rather have ANY of those options other than the one MWO currently has. I just leaned a bit more towards the MW4 one.

[tenderloving]

Nation Uprise, on 02 May 2013 - 11:32 AM, said:

Thats ok. To be completely honest, I would rather have ANY of those options other than the one MWO currently has. I just leaned a bit more towards the MW4 one.

A more reasonable MW4 option would have 10 possible weapons like you suggested.

[Destoroyah]

I think option 3 is best. The current hardpoint system does a decent job at preventing small weapon boating and option 3 would help the other end of the spectrum by helping to limit large weapon boating without inadvertently allowing increased small weapon boating or removing too much customization options by a stringent crit allowance system that would be annoying for the large weapons and upgrades like artemis.