125 replies to this topic

[Yanlowen Cage]

plugging the product

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Sayyid, on 28 May 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

Ah, so PGI is finally figuring out why in the Table top game of Battletech, custom mechs were not that common.

The only way to balance the game now would be to remove ALL custom mech designs, force them to stock designs, reduce armor back to the 1:1 ratio, return weapons to their TT values.

But thats not my problem. I still believe the game would have been better if they had just made Multiplayer Battletech:3025 on a new game engine. And this is why I dont even bother to update the game anymore.

The 3050 era was the worst and even the game TT dev team has said so. The Jihad era is more in line but clan eq is still an issue. Total freedom to make any mek you want and some of the "stock" designs are out of hand. No one in TT game ( well that lasts more than weekend ) allows total free customization. Some of the more successfully megamek game sites are VERY strict on what meks are use and their combination and how often some of them appear. This has lead to some really long lived megamek sites. PGI is so far off on how to make this a FPS (opps it was a sim) there is little hope for anything more than a mechassualt remake. I'm just waiting for the module called potion of healing at this point.

Edited by Zerstorer Stallin, 28 May 2013 - 01:49 PM.

[Yanlowen Cage]

Shameless plug

[Sayyid]

KuruptU4Fun, on 28 May 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

Which means you haven't played MWO in some time... Then why are you here offering dismissive opinions?

Dont have to play to see not much has changed on a gameplay level. Great they added artillery and air strikes, yeah more COD features that no one wanted.

Zerstorer Stallin, on 28 May 2013 - 01:49 PM, said:

The 3050 era was the worst and even the game TT dev team has said so. The Jihad era is more in line but clan eq is still an issue. Total freedom to make any mek you want and some of the "stock" designs are out of hand. No one in TT game ( well that lasts more than weekend ) allows total free customization. Some of the more successfully megamek game sites are VERY strict on what meks are use and their combination and how often some of them appear. This has lead to some really long lived megamek sites. PGI is so far off on how to make this a FPS (opps it was a sim) there is little hope for anything more than a mechassualt remake. I'm just waiting for the module called potion of healing at this point.

I agree, 3050 was the worst timeframe to set the game. They should have gone with the original trailer for the game and set it in 3015. Then it would have been fine. Sure it would make so many kids cry because they cant play their beardy clan tech, but at least things would be balanced.

Could add cash shop items like Star League tech mechs.

It would have been easier, and quicker, to stick to a simpler time in the game, and then concentrated on community warfare, and depth of play. Oh well, live and learn.

[mania3c]

I for one don't agree with hardpoints size restriction..at least not for reason specified in this thread...

this again is proving people have hard times to think outside the box. I don't like boating either.. but boating should be penalized via game mechanics, gameplay..like heat, no accurate aiming etc.. limiting customization is no go for me.

There is natural penalization for hard hitting weapons..weight.. if raven want AC20..just let him.. he have to sacrifice almost half of his total weight just for mounting one gun.. Or spider can have 2xlarge laser in his hand?? so what?? if he wants to, just let him..

If someone want 6x PPC..okey..let him..but with current game mechanics, PGI has to balance weapons with boating in mind..and this is causing problem.. but boating is really caused with low/no penalties for hard hitting weapons...

So I say no to hardpoints restriction..boating has to be fixed in proper way..

[Crud Bonemail]

It's not the size of your hardpoint that matters, it's how you use it.

[Acid Phase]

What I keep looking for is to make the transition in customization make sense. Look at it this way. A limited/restricted hardpoint with an AC20 swapped to a gauss makes sense because of their size. Not a machine gun to an AC20. (K2, yes I'm pointing at you) A PPC to a large laser makes sense. Not a small/medium laser to a PPC. And lastly, SRM6 to an SRM4 is viable. But SRM2/SSRM2 to an SRM6 is ridiculous. I'm sure you see what I'm getting at. Some of you think I believe several builds are OP. No, I don't claim them to be OP. I just believe they go beyond ridiculous transitions. Making absolutely no sense and thus removing variety, making variants useless.

[Praehotec8]

The big problem is that there are valid arguments on both sides. On one hand, limiting hardpoints would encourage use of more variants and cut down on the most egregious boating. Those are good things. However, the customization IS one of the most fun aspects, and limiting it does have downsides. There are plenty of original builds that are not OP or damaging to the meta game which would be lost. Take the single PPC spider example someone posted above. Is it wrong to be able to customize how you like?

In short, I would imagine that the game has existed without said limitation for too long and such a drastic change at this stage will not be feasible for a number of reasons. For the record though, I DO wish that the largest weapons (PPC/gauss/AC20) would be more limited to preserve the flavor of the mechs that carry them (ex. the hunchback). I thought it a fine idea that the highlander only has one variant that can carry the AC20, but otherwise can be customized fairly freely. This ought to be similar for other mechs (say, only the Jager 6-DD can carry AC20s, all atlases, Misery, and all Hunchbacks for example).

[Asmudius Heng]

Praehotec8, on 29 May 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

The big problem is that there are valid arguments on both sides. On one hand, limiting hardpoints would encourage use of more variants and cut down on the most egregious boating. Those are good things. However, the customization IS one of the most fun aspects, and limiting it does have downsides. There are plenty of original builds that are not OP or damaging to the meta game which would be lost. Take the single PPC spider example someone posted above. Is it wrong to be able to customize how you like?

In short, I would imagine that the game has existed without said limitation for too long and such a drastic change at this stage will not be feasible for a number of reasons. For the record though, I DO wish that the largest weapons (PPC/gauss/AC20) would be more limited to preserve the flavor of the mechs that carry them (ex. the hunchback). I thought it a fine idea that the highlander only has one variant that can carry the AC20, but otherwise can be customized fairly freely. This ought to be similar for other mechs (say, only the Jager 6-DD can carry AC20s, all atlases, Misery, and all Hunchbacks for example).

On the Spider example. What if there was another light that fit that bill instead of the spider? Then people have a choice and would just need to by that mech. Or only a single variant of the spiders would have ability to carry a large energy weapon - but at a cost of something else so the othe varients had thier role. That one might be the long range harrasser, while other might be better at other things.

This differentiates mechs but does not kill customisation completely. IT in fact keeps a lot of custom options just not all on a single chassis - you would need to purchase more chassis to have those additional options.

IT would help make choosing your mech a little more about trade offs not just choosing he superor one.

I want to really think which varient I want to run, not just relegate some to junk. I want most mechs and varients to feel more unique and have a more interesting role, or set of roles.

With some of the good ideas about how to keep hardpoint restrictions to not be overbearing i cannot see how it interferes with peoples customising fun apart form some people just dont like change.

[Lykaon]

Suprentus, on 22 May 2013 - 07:18 PM, said:

It doesn't need any more restricting. I have 18 Mechs in my bay, all mastered, and all customized differently to play differently. Among them, I have 2 variants each of Cataphracts, Catapults, Stalkers, and Spiders. The reason for this is because there is already enough variation between chassis and variants to fit different playstyles, all of them viable.

One of my Spiders is one of my favorite Mechs in the game because I slapped an ER PPC on it, the fastest engine, max jump jets, and ECM. This configuration essentially makes it a scout sniper kind of role, and my god is it fun. This is just one example of what you can pull off with the current system. So why do people have to insist on horrible ideas that limit our imaginations in our builds? The balance was designed so that even the smallest Mech can carry a weapon that a big one can carry. The limit is just what you have to sacrifice to get away with that.

It is easy to lose perspective on the future of this game as more mechs are added. What roles will they fill if nearly anything can be put nearly anywhere or on whatever?

Let me use your spider as an example.This mech is a fast jumping light mech with an ER-PPC.

Some time further along the Panther mech is added,With an engine upgrade this mech is now a fast jumping light with a PPC but why bother.

The spider can do that already and you already have one,the panther is stillborn because the spider has either more jets or better hardpoint locations or whatever.The Panther at it's inception is a failure so why bother adding it at all?

Hardpoint restrictions does not mean you can't have a jumping light mech with a PPC what it does is make it so any light mech with jets and an energy hardpoint isn't a jumping PPC sniper that is a Panther's role so get a Panther.

We already have this occurring currently.

The Awesome 8Q is an assault mech that mounts three PPCs.But why bother when the Highlander can do it better and jumps? Result? Awesome 8Qs are almost never seen.

Hardpoint restrictions can be used to preserve chassis identity as well as balance chassis abilities.

[I am]

The only reason you would need hard point restrictions, is because weapons are grossly imbalanced. If all the weapons were closely balanced, with cost benefit choices separating them, you wouldn't even be having this conversation. The premise of this thread argues against that obvious conclusion. It's junk. Balance the weapons.

[Suprentus]

Lykaon, on 29 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

It is easy to lose perspective on the future of this game as more mechs are added. What roles will they fill if nearly anything can be put nearly anywhere or on whatever?

Let me use your spider as an example.This mech is a fast jumping light mech with an ER-PPC.

Some time further along the Panther mech is added,With an engine upgrade this mech is now a fast jumping light with a PPC but why bother.

The spider can do that already and you already have one,the panther is stillborn because the spider has either more jets or better hardpoint locations or whatever.The Panther at it's inception is a failure so why bother adding it at all?

Hardpoint restrictions does not mean you can't have a jumping light mech with a PPC what it does is make it so any light mech with jets and an energy hardpoint isn't a jumping PPC sniper that is a Panther's role so get a Panther.

We already have this occurring currently.

The Awesome 8Q is an assault mech that mounts three PPCs.But why bother when the Highlander can do it better and jumps? Result? Awesome 8Qs are almost never seen.

Hardpoint restrictions can be used to preserve chassis identity as well as balance chassis abilities.

Well the Panther is 5 tons heavier, has less jump jets, and can carry missiles. I doubt it'll carry ECM as well. Those are already 4 major differences that make their identities different.

Some variants are inevitably going to suck. I don't see that as a problem, though. Really, the only Awesome of note to me is the 9M, and I just had to grind 2 inferior variants for it. You just sometimes have to pilot a POS before you can master a gem, no biggie. I already gave an example of a 9M with a vastly different identity than any Highlander could have.

Different chassis have identities. It just takes more than a one-dimensional glance at hardpoints to realize that and find the inherent variety in them.

One part of your post bothered me, though...

Lykaon, on 29 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

Hardpoint restrictions does not mean you can't have a jumping light mech with a PPC what it does is make it so any light mech with jets and an energy hardpoint isn't a jumping PPC sniper that is a Panther's role so get a Panther.

Why shouldn't I be able to repurpose a Mech's role? One of the funnest things about the mechlab is being creative and coming up with builds that give me an experience I didn't think I'd get. You're just trying to gimp others' experiences so that their game fits your vision. If you want the Panther to only fill a jumping PPC light, then make your own Panther fit that vision. What does it matter if someone else wants to make a Spider theirs?

[Asmudius Heng]

Suprentus, on 29 May 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Some variants are inevitably going to suck. I don't see that as a problem, though. Really, the only Awesome of note to me is the
Why shouldn't I be able to repurpose a Mech's role? One of the funnest things about the mechlab is being creative and coming up with builds that give me an experience I didn't think I'd get. You're just trying to gimp others' experiences so that their game fits your vision. If you want the Panther to only fill a jumping PPC light, then make your own Panther fit that vision. What does it matter if someone else wants to make a Spider theirs?

The crux of the argument is that certain mechs will become default mechs for that role and become the most powerful at doing it. Not only that, some mechs will become much better across a number of roles due to their hardpoints. This reduces variety on the battlefield unless you think people just take what they like and that creates variety - long term people become frustrated if they cannot compete and will start taking whatever is most versatile and most powerful.

No one is trying to gimp anyones experience. The experience of more and differentiated mechs is what they are trying to enact.

Unless you simply think that any restriction is infringing on your experience which means that hardpoints as they are are currently doing this.

In fact, if you favour the hard points as we have them, then you must be engaged in this conversation about hardpoint sizes as well because the cat is already out of the bag once a single restriction is added.

Currently the only powerful argument I see against it is that mechs are differentiated by thier quirks - but I do not think those quirks are enough. Hardpoints are the PRIME motivator for why people use mechs I find and then ECM capability (well that used to be a concern). Though tonnage to fit thier weapons also comes into it.

Real differentiation to me is needed or we are still at the point where we have a shape that people stick weapons on rather than a unique peice of machinery that really has character.

[Praehotec8]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 May 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Real differentiation to me is needed or we are still at the point where we have a shape that people stick weapons on rather than a unique peice of machinery that really has character.

I do agree to an extent that this is true. More defining features for each chassis would be nice. BUT...I can see the viewpoint of people who want full customization. The issue is that the issue is one of opinion rather than arguing facts. If nothing else, there is a logic behind thoughts such as - "I love the way the catapult looks. I want to drive them and yet make them the mech I want to play also." It's a different opinion, not wrong though, and it seems that that's more the direction the developers have chosen.

[Suprentus]

Asmudius Heng, on 29 May 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

The crux of the argument is that certain mechs will become default mechs for that role and become the most powerful at doing it. Not only that, some mechs will become much better across a number of roles due to their hardpoints. This reduces variety on the battlefield unless you think people just take what they like and that creates variety - long term people become frustrated if they cannot compete and will start taking whatever is most versatile and most powerful.

You say it reduces variety, yet I always see a variety of Mechs on the battlefield. More often than not, they're all different.

Asmudius Heng, on 29 May 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

No one is trying to gimp anyones experience. The experience of more and differentiated mechs is what they are trying to enact.

You're saying that my Spider should only be able to equip one-slot lasers, for example. How is that not gimping?

Asmudius Heng, on 29 May 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Unless you simply think that any restriction is infringing on your experience which means that hardpoints as they are are currently doing this.

I like the current system. It's not as out of control and unrestricted as MW3 was, which gave complete freedom in customization. At the other extreme, I didn't like MW4's overly restrictive system, either.

Asmudius Heng, on 29 May 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Currently the only powerful argument I see against it is that mechs are differentiated by thier quirks - but I do not think those quirks are enough.

There are way more than quirks that differentiate the Mechs. What about tonnage, speed, hitboxes, hardpoint placement, jump jets, ECM, and last, but not least, their looks?

Asmudius Heng, on 29 May 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

Real differentiation to me is needed or we are still at the point where we have a shape that people stick weapons on rather than a unique peice of machinery that really has character.

Again, there's way more to it than hardpoints and quirks.

Edited by Suprentus, 29 May 2013 - 09:44 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Suprentus, on 29 May 2013 - 09:43 PM, said:

You say it reduces variety, yet I always see a variety of Mechs on the battlefield. More often than not, they're all different.

I see some variety, but i also know some of that variety is people simply grinding out terrible variants. when you get to high level competition you do not see variety. The longer the game goes on, the more stagnant it will become especially at higher level ELO.

Quote

You're saying that my Spider should only be able to equip one-slot lasers, for example. How is that not gimping?

Not every spider might have this. There might be a variant that allows a larger weapon if that fits in with the other mechs out there. Also if medium pulse lasers were worth a damn and also small pulse and regular small lasers then you have a bunch of options. The unique point of the spider is its speed and if that means they are not big gun boating mech then that is fine, i am sure there is another 30 ton mech that is ... A lot of this issue is bad weapon balance that make you feel more restricted.

Quote

I like the current system. It's not as out of control and unrestricted as MW3 was, which gave complete freedom in customization. At the other extreme, I didn't like MW4's overly restrictive system, either.

MW4 has some good poitns and some horrible point. The worst being unlimited heat sinks, but also thier hard point system was flawed by allowing massive small weapons boating. However it did give mechs white a bit of character. Just because you didnt like it doesnt mean its bad for the game of MWO is something similar but better was put in.

You insinuate others are trying to destroy your fun ... what if your adherence to this system is destroying my fun? In the end it is about what is good for the game not just our personal likes and dislikes so I am trying to argue this logically not emotionally.

Quote

There are way more than quirks that differentiate the Mechs. What about tonnage, speed, hitboxes, hardpoint placement, jump jets, ECM, and last, but not least, their looks?

Tonnage is a major issue yes. When you look at mech differentiation you look at mechs in approximately the same range. I am not comparing an Awesome to a raven.

Speed is good, i like the engine restrictions. That was a smart move by PGI for differentiation. However large engines give way too much advantage so people always go up in engine size. This is flawed, if teh character of a mech is that is is slower overall then that should be offset by other factors - tonnage is what it is suppose to be, but the advantage of a larger engine is often way better than the extra tonnage yo get for weapon. Disengaging the increased handling from larger engines is a good start. That is a major problem that causes people to hate restrictions ... not because it is bad but because it is implemented badly.

Hardpoint placement is PGIs answer to hardpoint differentiation. This is ... ok ... i like the arm/torso differential, but thats about it. The value of the amount of hardpoints is usually greater than where they are placed. Not always though and this does help but again the more mech are added the more crossover there will be.

JJ/ECM - yep all good points of difference.

Hitboxes i feel is a copout though. They can make or break a mech but PGI hardly use it to balance a mech. It is not so much a mech has good hitboxes but that some have god awful ones that destroy it. This isnt differentiation, this is punishment.

Looks though i think is the absolute least. This is a competitive game and if someone loves the look of the Awesome they will quickly hate it once they get cored over and over. Being able to compete will always come first in a competitive game. The interesting thing though is that this is kind of like something I want. I want a mech to have character, but the look of it is only one thing. The role of the mech and how it handles and all of its quirks is what gives it character, but it has to be competitive and have character. I would choose mechs on their intended role more than I would on their looks but it is the same emotional reaction, one visual, one conceptual.

Quote

Again, there's way more to it than hardpoints and quirks.

I am not denying that, but when the hardpoints become a trump card to all of this as it often does we have an issue. When the weapons define a mech far more than all those other things, then we have a problem. When mechs are disused because they are not different enough in effectiveness, then we have a problem.

Now i can live without hardpoint sizes. Weapons balance is FAAAAAR more important. However taking the long view, even with good weapons balance it will still feel like mechs are differentiated by tiny margins.

The only other thing I would be happy with was with quirks that give small advantages based on the original concept of the mech. Beyond just the handling.

The other thing that would help is giving very good reasons to take more mixed loadouts on mechs but that i a part of weapons balance.

... sorry for the long post but I think a lot of the nuance of this debate gets very lost.

[Asmudius Heng]

Praehotec8, on 29 May 2013 - 09:35 PM, said:

I do agree to an extent that this is true. More defining features for each chassis would be nice. BUT...I can see the viewpoint of people who want full customization. The issue is that the issue is one of opinion rather than arguing facts. If nothing else, there is a logic behind thoughts such as - "I love the way the catapult looks. I want to drive them and yet make them the mech I want to play also." It's a different opinion, not wrong though, and it seems that that's more the direction the developers have chosen.

It is an emotive issue I will grant that!

The main fact I se is this: As we get more and more mechs, we will have a harder and harder time balancing them out, and a much harder time giving variety and holding peoples engagement with the game. I also see a great business case for PGI in that is no mech can 'do it all' people will need to buy more mechs ... i dont see that as a bad thing.

I feel the positive aspects outweigh the negative aspects as long as you are not heavy handed with the restrictions. However weapons balance is a more important topic.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Lykaon, on 29 May 2013 - 08:04 PM, said:

It is easy to lose perspective on the future of this game as more mechs are added. What roles will they fill if nearly anything can be put nearly anywhere or on whatever?

Let me use your spider as an example.This mech is a fast jumping light mech with an ER-PPC.

Some time further along the Panther mech is added,With an engine upgrade this mech is now a fast jumping light with a PPC but why bother.

The spider can do that already and you already have one,the panther is stillborn because the spider has either more jets or better hardpoint locations or whatever.The Panther at it's inception is a failure so why bother adding it at all?

Hardpoint restrictions does not mean you can't have a jumping light mech with a PPC what it does is make it so any light mech with jets and an energy hardpoint isn't a jumping PPC sniper that is a Panther's role so get a Panther.

We already have this occurring currently.

The Awesome 8Q is an assault mech that mounts three PPCs.But why bother when the Highlander can do it better and jumps? Result? Awesome 8Qs are almost never seen.

Hardpoint restrictions can be used to preserve chassis identity as well as balance chassis abilities.

IMO hard point restrictions do the opposite. They encourage players to pick the chassis that can "boat" the weapon that currently is the most op. If the mech lab was limited and chassis were allowed "upgrades" but those were limited ( some meks could only use FF instead of Endo, SHS instead of DHS, PPC instead of ERPPC, so on and so on) and Weapon load outs where set to a max ( ie no more than one ac 20, 1 gauss, 2 LRM 20 or 15's, 4 Med Lasers ect ect) then you would see all the mechs and it would make the game great again. As it stands its "boat" this or that and change as the wild swinging of the NERF and BUFF hammer flies from PGI's Ars3.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 30 May 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

IMO hard point restrictions do the opposite. They encourage players to pick the chassis that can "boat" the weapon that currently is the most op. If the mech lab was limited and chassis were allowed "upgrades" but those were limited ( some meks could only use FF instead of Endo, SHS instead of DHS, PPC instead of ERPPC, so on and so on) and Weapon load outs where set to a max ( ie no more than one ac 20, 1 gauss, 2 LRM 20 or 15's, 4 Med Lasers ect ect) then you would see all the mechs and it would make the game great again. As it stands its "boat" this or that and change as the wild swinging of the NERF and BUFF hammer flies from PGI's Ars3.

The issue with the efficiency of boating a single weapon vs a varied loadout is, in my mind, a separate issue that needs to be addressed no matter the outcome on customization.

Customization invalidates the lions share of canon designs as competitive designs - including trial 'Mechs. Maybe more limits to customization will go some distance in addressing this issue, or maybe it'll just make 'Mechs perform more like their base variants. Either way, no movement on the boating issue will result in variants capable of boating being preferable to most players.

[Petroshka]

PGI will never give up the free customization, because it's the bread and butter of MWO, it's what makes the game different. I wouldn't be surprised if there are daily internal battles at PGI where people are yelling over hardpoints across a conference table.


edit: i probably will eat banhammer for this, but look at the hardpoint system in MWT (oh **** nda)

Edited by Petroshka, 30 May 2013 - 03:14 PM.