125 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

Lightfoot, on 22 May 2013 - 07:32 PM, said:

They already have Missile Hardpoint restrictions in the number of missile tubes. Keeps you from getting hit by LRM60-80 at once from one mech.

Supposedly it's based on the original stock configuration of the variant, but this has nothing to do with Battletech and is a bit misleading to players who don't know to go to a third party website to find out how many missile tubes the mech actually supports.

I am fine with the current hardpoint functionality, but advise getting rid of the missile tube thing, one way or another.

what are you smoking? Missile tubes counter is no limit to the number of LRMs a mech can shoot.

supernachos, on 22 May 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Adapt and overcome.

Or, in this case, try it and get bored.

Mechwarrior is supposed to be fun. Boatwarrior isn't. I'm going back to my balanced builds even if it means I'll perform less than all the cool-boating-kids.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

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.

Because anyone who's played any of the games on PC or the table top know that full out customization is a terrible idea. Only people who like it are the guys who can find the most abusive current build and giggle like the child they are, as they ruin yet another Battletech game.

Edited by Zerstorer Stallin, 22 May 2013 - 09:16 PM.

[Suprentus]

Zerstorer Stallin, on 22 May 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

Because anyone who's played any of the games on PC or the table top know that full out customization is a terrible idea. Only people who like it are the guys who can find the most abusive current build and giggle like the child they are as they ruin yet another Battletech game.

Good thing we don't have full out customization then. Unless you really do think my Spider is OP and ruins your game.

Edited by Suprentus, 22 May 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

I have asked for an explanation about his tweet in the ask the devs OP.

As much as I would like size restrictions to hardpoints - i really just want to know if it will ever be considered again, or if not - what was the rationale. Then i can lay that issue down and weep for it.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Ransack, on 22 May 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

So, if they implement hard-point restrictions now, how in the world will they ever be able to implement the Clans with their Omnimechs? They need to allow a certain degree of customization because as the are, the stock mechs suck donkey ballz.

The easy answer there is omni slots(which is a whole other bag of problems), or make it so the omnis are limited to the canon configs, but can switch between the variants before the drop. Long-range map? Load a long-range omni config. Short range map? Load a short range config. Etc, etc.

Vodrin Thales, on 22 May 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Weapons should be too heavy (with ammo) or generate too much heat (in the case of energy weapons) to make stacking too many of any one powerful weapon practical.

This will make some canon variants impossible to build, so... no thanks.

Zyllos, on 22 May 2013 - 06:21 AM, said:

Lenient hardpoint restrictions are not the whole problem, but part of a grander range of issues that leads to the current game's swingyness.

Pin Point Convergence
Hardpoint Restrictions
Heat Scale/Dissipation
Weapon RoF/Damage/Heat/Ammo
SHS/DHS imbalances (both SHS vs DHS and inside vs outside DHS)
Tonnage Restrictions

All of these have to be changed at the same time to get balance to where it needs to be. To have each mech be unique and provide a special function. To not have specific weapons completely outclass other weapon systems. To have balance between choosing to have a slow mech and a fast mech within all weight classes (even Lights).

A thousand times this, although mucking with heat sink efficiency leads to certain canon configs being even less usable than they are now.

Megalosauroid, on 22 May 2013 - 06:29 AM, said:

If they add hardpoint restrictions you're just going to cut down the number of overpowered chassis from a handful of varied ones to one from each weightclass. Then we can all play in the one light/heavy/assault mech with decent hardpoints and ignore the rest. How is that a solution.

How about remove the particularly overpowered variants? Most of them aren't common enough in the setting to really be missed. Refund full c-bill cost and be done with it. Other than that, muck with the soft stats of that particular variant: reduce torso twist speed and rate, lower acceleration, increase likelyhood of falling(due to instability), reduce efficiency of heat sinks for that particular variant(poor cooling system).

Zyllos, on 22 May 2013 - 06:48 PM, said:

Agreed.

Less pin point convergence, more hardpoint restrictions, better heat system with balanced DHS (instead of inside/outside DHS giving bonuses to larger engines), balanced tonnage (I think this one is coming with the lobby system and Dropship mode), and number tweaks in weapons.

Again, agreed with the caveat of the inside/outside heat sink issue. In my mind, balance should make a decent canon 'Mech config as effective or nearly as effective as a customized one. This is for a multitude of reasons, but the two most obvious are giving a nod to the setting and making sure that new players in trial 'Mechs have a fair, fun, and competitive introduction to the game(leading to increased likelihood of long-term financial viability).

[Mass Fogger]

I love to Customize mechs, that probably takes up 1/3 of my time in the game. However I do fine it funny that Hard-points That were intended to be for lets say an SRM's, Are turned into LRM'S. That I'm willing to Live with, If its something to the effect of SRM6 TO LRM5, Or a AC/2 to an AC/5. But to turn a Small Hard-point Into a Massive Weapon Seem a bit out there.You can put in new limits in, to have only some kinds of weapons that can be put onto what slots by chassis type.
If you want to pull it into the more "Realistic Game".

What ever is done to correct or not will not change my view, that the biggest weapon that helps you win is the pilot.

Edited by Mass Fogger, 22 May 2013 - 09:38 PM.

[James DeGriz]

supernachos, on 22 May 2013 - 07:34 PM, said:

Adapt and overcome. That is central to any battlefield "real or not" I love boaters when in my spider. Makes for a giggle to leg them and ripm' to bits.
I am fairly sure alot of other pilots would agree. Every platform has a weakness that can be used against them.
My ELO isnt great so i havent seen crazy amounts of poptarts or superstalker ppc platforms. But when i do catch one they iz ded!
I have seen so much talk about abuse about boaating poptarding streakcating or any other cheese build it honestly seems like most people just gripe about these things to vent.

Funny thing, "Balance" discussions in this forum amount to being in one of two camps:

"It killed me! It's OP!"

"I killed it! It's working as intended".

[Suprentus]

Quote

[DELETED CONTENT]

I was referencing one of my earlier posts:

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

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?

[Adridos]

Ransack, on 22 May 2013 - 06:11 AM, said:

They need to allow a certain degree of customization because as the are, the stock mechs suck donkey ballz.

First, he's not against all customisation.

Second, stock builds suck, because the weapon balanced made them unusable. Look at BT3025 and how many people on these boards "worship" the game, altough it only had stock builds for everyone. Or MW:LL, which also remains with the real BTech, or so called stock configs and also is a blast to play.

[CancR]

The real customization problem is mech tonnage with no restrictions.

when players are allowed to stuff as many heavy and assaults they want, then there isn't room for role warfare, strategy, or skill. Just forward +m1.

Having 200 ton limit per lance will cause an evolving metagame where all roles will be able to contribute and not just the ones that pack CoD press m1 to get kill bs.

[Khobai]

The problem isnt customization.

Let's use Rock, Paper, Scissors as a very simple example of customization in a game. In RPS, you get to choose between one of three options, each with their own strength and weakness. But because all three choices are equal there is no inherent advantage in picking one over the other. Rock, Paper, Scissors is the perfect example of how you can have customization without it being problematic because every choice the player can make has an equal payoff.

The problem with customization in MWO isn't that customization exists. The problem is that the payoff for the different weapons is unequal. In other words, the weapons are not reasonably balanced with eachother. That is why you see a heavy bias towards weapons like PPCs.

[MasterErrant]

I'm sorry you are wrong. this is another nerf cycle fix...the real issue is the heat. system.

it is what allows the use of uber boats. size limits to an already stupid HP system will destroy any hope of balanced buuikds

[Thomas Hogarth]

Suprentus, on 22 May 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

I was referencing one of my earlier posts:

Ah, alright, I'm seeing where you're coming from. But while your spider may be a fair, balanced and fun machine for both you and your opponents, I find it difficult to believe that you'd draw a direct similarity between your machine and some of the ridiculous machines out there that make it extremely difficult for someone on trial to enjoy the game.

In other words, I can see where you're coming from. Can you see where we're coming from?

Adridos, on 22 May 2013 - 09:51 PM, said:

Second, stock builds suck, because the weapon balanced made them unusable. Look at BT3025 and how many people on these boards "worship" the game, altough it only had stock builds for everyone. Or MW:LL, which also remains with the real BTech, or so called stock configs and also is a blast to play.

Exactly. Although MW:LL lost me a bit with the tanks carrying DHS... Whatever, it's still a good comparison between locked configs and a surprising lack of zero fun. Weirdly enough, people had a lot of fun in MW:LL! And people had a lot of fun in BT3025 - which is still held up as the best iteration of BT-themed first person 'Mech simulations by many - despite the lack of pinpoint accuracy.

I want to see the 'Mechs that define the setting be more common. Twin gauss catapult? Sure. Possible. Rare. You shouldn't EXPECT a Cat to be that way(And that seems to be over anyhow). Triple LRM15 Atlas? Sure. Possible. Rare. I shouldn't expect it. PPC apocalypse Stalker? Sure. Possible. Rare. I want to see one and go "holy crap". I want to see most Stalkers loaded out like... Stalkers.

I know that PGI has said that balancing via in-game currency shouldn't come to pass. I question why it shouldn't. My original suggestion was this:

Stock 'Mechs: Most common variants(CN9-A, AWS-8Q, AS7-D, SDR-5V) generate 100% earning. Maybe go crazy and increase earnings to make these more profitable than they are compared to current earnings. Less common variants make less of a percentage. Example, the CN9-AH, a rather rare variant, produces only 60% the earnings of a CN9-A. This makes climbing the skill tree more challenging, and thus more fun.

Field refit kits: Simple swaps. Swap a PPC for a LL and two heat sinks. Swap an LRM-20 out for a LRM-15 with an extra ton of LRM ammo and a pair of HS. ML for two SL. These packages should be offered per-mech, balanced by PGI, and not be extremely inexpensive as customization is now. 'Mechs with these types of refits can expect to produce 20-30% less income than what the 'Mech produced before the refit kit was applied.

Factory refits: Exactly what we have now, although should be a lot more expensive. The parts involved with customizing a walking tank are a but a small part of the total cost of customization. But when it's done well, it's brutally effective. 'Mechs with these types of refits can expect to produce 40-60% less income than before the refit was performed.

Two things:

First:
But Thomas, you say, why would a 'Mech produce less income just because it's been refitted? Excellent question, and I agree - earnings based on performance shouldn't be reduced just because you have a customized 'Mech. It wouldn't make sense that they would be. Refitted 'Mechs, however, are more expensive to repair. If repair costs were working, we could just increase those - thus leaving the reward for doing exceptionally(as in not taking much damage) intact.

Secondly,
There is an appeal to putting crazy builds together and trying them out without paying huge sums of cbills. I think there should be an 'unlimited' game mode, where people can use the factory refit tool with wild abandon. Test out prospective builds, have some crazy time, and not worry too much about balance. Maybe this is a game mode you select under Launch, maybe this is a lobby that you invite people to. Earnings shouldn't be equal to the normal game mode, but repair costs(if ever implemented) shouldn't come into play in this mode.

Of course, all of the above is based on the idea that PGI balances weapons, heat, and accuracy in such a way that makes stock configurations viable choices - which seems like a no-brainer to me.

[MustrumRidcully]

Customization is not abused. Convergence and/or Heat Capacity are abused.

[Asmudius Heng]

Restricting customisation is not about balance primarily - that is a myriad of other things.

Restricting customisation is about differentiation of mechs and more interesting choices.

Balance has to come first, but mech differentiation as more mechs come out is needed - it also makes it feel much more Btechy to me if anyone still cares about that.

[Mass Fogger]

Thomas Hogarth, on 22 May 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

There is an appeal to putting crazy builds together and trying them out without paying huge sums of cbills. I think there should be an 'unlimited' game mode, where people can use the factory refit tool with wild abandon. Test out prospective builds, have some crazy time, and not worry too much about balance. Maybe this is a game mode you select under Launch, maybe this is a lobby that you invite people to. Earnings shouldn't be equal to the normal game mode, but repair costs(if ever implemented) shouldn't come into play in this mode.

I think your on to something there. Some people Love the Simulator realism. Others Like a more FPS style, But what I want to know is what is going to happen when they unlock factions. And will that be more Strict on variations VS. PUG's?

[Thomas Hogarth]

Asmudius Heng, on 22 May 2013 - 10:48 PM, said:

Restricting customisation is not about balance primarily - that is a myriad of other things.

Restricting customisation is about differentiation of mechs and more interesting choices.

Balance has to come first, but mech differentiation as more mechs come out is needed - it also makes it feel much more Btechy to me if anyone still cares about that.

I've found that most of the primary Mechwarrior players tend to not care about the source material when it comes to customization Until you talk about limiting Omnis, then they're quick to quote obscure lines out of 20 year old novels.

And yes. 'Mech chassis need to start developing personalities beyond engine caps and FoTM builds.

[Ralgas]

Since it's been raised, i believe the tidbit of an idea we'be been given on heat balancing is the right idea but not on the right scale (ie just common weapons doesn't go far enough). Trying to get my head around the flaws in the sysem (ie gauss, uac's and penalizing multi ac/20's appropriately) before putting an idea up for discussion.

Edited by Ralgas, 22 May 2013 - 10:57 PM.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Mass Fogger, on 22 May 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

I think your on to something there. Some people Love the Simulator realism. Others Like a more FPS style, But what I want to know is what is going to happen when they unlock factions. And will that be more Strict on variations VS. PUG's?

I imagine it would be. Or maybe not, who knows. Let's look at both sides here, and see where we stand.

On one hand, the faction battles are ideally representations of the faction battles described in source material. It's hard to imagine a FWL company going off to battle with dropships full of CPLT-K2s armed with twin gauss rifles and meeting Steiner Raven snipers armed with ERPPCs. At that point, are we even playing in the BT universe? Why not just change all the 'Mech names and call the game something else - I'm sure it'd save money on royalty fees.

On the other hand, faction battles are the big game - the big fights that everyone looks forward to. It stands to reason that people are going to want to bring their best, and give not a care about how many C-Bills they're losing. It's about honor and recognition at that point. Saying "you can't attend the big event with your favorite build" is going to leave a sour taste in the mouths of many.

I'm not sure what the answer is. My shot-from-hip reaction is to make 'big events' that cater to both sides of the fence. Factional warfare for us canon book thumpers, fun-as-hell Solaris matches for the custom guys(and check it out, custom rides make sense there! hell, I'd get in on that!)

[Asmudius Heng]

Thomas Hogarth, on 22 May 2013 - 10:53 PM, said:

I've found that most of the primary Mechwarrior players tend to not care about the source material when it comes to customization Until you talk about limiting Omnis, then they're quick to quote obscure lines out of 20 year old novels.

And yes. 'Mech chassis need to start developing personalities beyond engine caps and FoTM builds.

Personalities - thats the word i keep searching for.

I like that they are going to add some more lore to each mech in the new UI but I believe it needs to be backed up by the game mechanics to reflect that lore, history and battlefield role.

Nearly all the mechs feel 'soulless' to me right now. I am not even a massive BT nut either having only really gotten into the lore and TT game through MW4 ...