125 replies to this topic

[Suprentus]

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Before I address the quoted part, I largely agree with you on 'Mech personality. I think there is already quite a bit of personality to each 'Mech. The Misery, for instance, has to worry less about low-mounted weapons clipping buildings as compared to the ASx-x 'Mechs. With that being said, more personality is never a bad thing, especially if that personality matches the descriptions from the source universe.

Hm, I never really considered that about the Misery. Personally, that's not enough to redeem it for me, but it is an interesting and valid consideration.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

As far as comparing Trial 'Mechs to customized ones, I claim that it's a very fair comparison. The real comparison going on, of course, is that of a canon loadout compared to a customized one. Not many people run canon loadouts on their non-trial 'Mechs, but just about everyone has run Trial 'Mechs(and every new player from here on out will have to as well).

If customization were truly balanced, then a canon config would be just as viable as a customized one. Remembering how many battles a new player has to go through in a trial 'Mech is an indication that this is not a problem that that never presents itself.

Then isn't that more indicative that the problem is a system that requires new players to run trial Mechs? I think PGI even addressed this at some point, and I vaguely remember something they said once about giving new players their own Mech to customize right off the bat. I can't remember where I saw that...damn, now that's gonna drive me crazy.

[Thomas Hogarth]

Suprentus, on 23 May 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Hm, I never really considered that about the Misery. Personally, that's not enough to redeem it for me, but it is an interesting and valid consideration.

I'm in the same boat as you. Looks neat, has SOME advantages, but the AS7 is still able to mount more armor. If heavier 'Mechs were to cost more to repair it might be a different story, but as it stands, I see no reason to not just drive an AS7.

Suprentus, on 23 May 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Then isn't that more indicative that the problem is a system that requires new players to run trial Mechs? I think PGI even addressed this at some point, and I vaguely remember something they said once about giving new players their own Mech to customize right off the bat. I can't remember where I saw that...damn, now that's gonna drive me crazy.

As it stands right now, it strikes me as entirely unfair to new players to run trial 'Mechs. They're clearly inferior to customized machines, and I know four players locally that have written off MWO due to this fact. From where I'm standing, there's four ways to make it fair for new players:

1) Just say screw Trial 'Mechs and give new players something they can customize right off the bat. My two issues with this is that it basically admits that most canon configurations are not, and will never be viable. It'd be nice if we could arrange games with like-minded individuals, but we don't have that capability at this time. My second issue is that there is a golden opportunity to increase sense of ownership in the game through Trial 'Mechs. Welp, I'm sucking it up with this borrowed ride. Oh look, I've made enough to buy a 'Mech. This is MY 'Mech. I've earned it. Sweet.
(not to mention a potential profit center for PGI in people that wish to skip the Trial 'Mech phase)

2) Another avenue that might be worth exploring is to just make it so that canon configs(be them trials or just individuals that haven't modified their 'Mechs) could only play others that run trials or run canon setups. I have no doubt that these sort of battles will always be populated to some degree - between the dudes in Trial 'Mechs and the guys that prefer to run canon configs for one reason or another(I'd probably be one of them).

3) Balance weapons, heat, recycle times, and armor amounts(read: just about everything) to make canon configs viable compared to customized builds. Now Trial players will be at far less of a disadvantage, and those choosing to run canon configs can have fun as well.

4) Introduce out-of-match mechanics that render customized machines more expensive to operate, thus requiring running a less-customized or canon config to 'pay the bills' as it were.

There's no reason that multiple solutions cannot be introduced either. Pairing 3&4 would be my ideal solution(since there are zero issues with splitting playerbase), but 2&3 could work too. It's hard to argue against 1&3, but 1&4 might work well too.

I have to go take a final that won't budge my very average B grade, but I wanted to say that it's been a pleasure communicating with you, Suprentus. Hardly any name calling or feces throwing, and I think we actually tried to see the issues from each others perspective. This cannot become the norm, or we will be forced to change our opinions of the state of the forums.

As a parting shot before I return:

Do you think that introducing more inaccuracy would lead to less power distance between canon configs and customized machines?

/ducks

[Fate 6]

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

This is just completely wrong and bad. If you want to limit boating use heat generation and weapon tonnage to do it. 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.

Limiting builds is a bad idea as one of this games big selling points to the more casual player is the ability to build a custom mech. Limiting builds artificially will reduce the games appeal. It needs to be done with weapon balancing.

So you want to nerf the weapon as a stand-alone to nerf boating? That will make boating even more likely, actually. If I have to make more sacrifices to try to put together a balanced build, don't you think I'm going to just say the hell with it and make a specialized build?

You can almost always get the weapons loadout you want if you just pick the right chassis for it. Isn't that the point of different chassis? If you look at the medium mechs, you can basically get any setup you want by picking the right one, even if we have hardpoint restrictions.

Instead you want to balance out a 4PPC Stalker build by making a 1-2 PPC medium mech build worse as well. [insert insult to your intelligence here]

Edited by Fate 6, 23 May 2013 - 08:29 AM.

[Lightfoot]

Sybreed, on 22 May 2013 - 08:23 PM, said:

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

It is and that is why it's done. Go try shooting an LRM20 through 4 missile tubes. It comes out in 5 volleys over 4 seconds and the LRM20 doesn't start recharging untill it's done with the 5 volleys which doubles the recharging time. On the receiving end most of those missiles can be shot down by a single AMS. Some will get through, but it negates the use of an LRM20 or LRM15 on that mech. Some players mistakenly load LRM20/15s on these mechs, but it's mostly wasted.

As for boating. In MechWarrior many mechs are boats in their stock configuration. Super Nova, Novacat, Behemoth, Crab, Awesome, Catapult, many more. Maybe you want hardpoints with a size value, but there is no support for an anti-boating meme in MechWarrior or Battletech. Adapt.

Edited by Lightfoot, 23 May 2013 - 08:56 AM.

[Suprentus]

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

As it stands right now, it strikes me as entirely unfair to new players to run trial 'Mechs. They're clearly inferior to customized machines, and I know four players locally that have written off MWO due to this fact.

Yeah, same here.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

From where I'm standing, there's four ways to make it fair for new players:

1) Just say screw Trial 'Mechs and give new players something they can customize right off the bat. My two issues with this is that it basically admits that most canon configurations are not, and will never be viable. It'd be nice if we could arrange games with like-minded individuals, but we don't have that capability at this time. My second issue is that there is a golden opportunity to increase sense of ownership in the game through Trial 'Mechs. Welp, I'm sucking it up with this borrowed ride. Oh look, I've made enough to buy a 'Mech. This is MY 'Mech. I've earned it. Sweet.
(not to mention a potential profit center for PGI in people that wish to skip the Trial 'Mech phase)

Like I said, I vaguely remember reading that PGI plans to do this eventually. I just can't remember where. Also, I think this is a good idea.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

2) Another avenue that might be worth exploring is to just make it so that canon configs(be them trials or just individuals that haven't modified their 'Mechs) could only play others that run trials or run canon setups. I have no doubt that these sort of battles will always be populated to some degree - between the dudes in Trial 'Mechs and the guys that prefer to run canon configs for one reason or another(I'd probably be one of them).

I like this idea as well. They could just implement a canon-variants only mode. Maybe expand the amount of trial Mechs from 1 of each class, to 3 or so.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

3) Balance weapons, heat, recycle times, and armor amounts(read: just about everything) to make canon configs viable compared to customized builds. Now Trial players will be at far less of a disadvantage, and those choosing to run canon configs can have fun as well.

I don't like this idea, though. The canon variants were designed for an entirely different nature of game.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

4) Introduce out-of-match mechanics that render customized machines more expensive to operate, thus requiring running a less-customized or canon config to 'pay the bills' as it were.

I'm very iffy about this one. It's essentially R&R. On one hand, any system that requires economy for balance isn't a very good one, and favors rich players. On the other, if it were within a strict reason (e.g. making at least some profit, no matter how the match turns out), I could be in favor of it, but only for the sake of immersion and not balance.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

There's no reason that multiple solutions cannot be introduced either. Pairing 3&4 would be my ideal solution(since there are zero issues with splitting playerbase), but 2&3 could work too. It's hard to argue against 1&3, but 1&4 might work well too.

lol, well for me, 1&2 seems the most reasonable.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

I have to go take a final that won't budge my very average B grade, but I wanted to say that it's been a pleasure communicating with you, Suprentus. Hardly any name calling or feces throwing, and I think we actually tried to see the issues from each others perspective. This cannot become the norm, or we will be forced to change our opinions of the state of the forums.

Good luck, man. And likewise, I liked debating with you too. These forums are indeed usually pretty bad otherwise.

Thomas Hogarth, on 23 May 2013 - 08:25 AM, said:

As a parting shot before I return:

Do you think that introducing more inaccuracy would lead to less power distance between canon configs and customized machines?

/ducks

lol, like the cone of fire argument? You *******. Seriously though, I'm not in favor of a mechanic that starts to take skill out of the equation and replaces it with chance.

[Lightfoot]

If new players are having problems place them in their own bracket untill they start using Mechlab with their own mech. But you know, if someone can't handle a few losses at entry levels they won't like MechWarrior. ELO kind of ensures you will always lose half your matches and if you don't you get moved up to face more skilled players or down to face less skilled players.

[Vodrin Thales]

Acid Phase, on 22 May 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

Let's make it more like Battletech, shall we.

When I see statements like this I wonder how long you played battletech. How many here played the game when it was first introduced? I had the original box set and I cannot ever remember having "hardpoints" at all. Whenever I participated in tournaments back then the only stipulations would be whether or not custom mechs were allowed. If so, the only limits were what would fit in the mech from a tonnage/crit standpoint. I remember playing against a guy running a dragon with 16 machine guns on it. The mech was very fast and depended on armor skipping crit roles to win. So lets not pretend highly specialized custom mechs are not in keeping with Battletech. Much of what many now consider cannon to battletech was added long after many of us played the game.

[Asmudius Heng]

Vodrin Thales, on 23 May 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

When I see statements like this I wonder how long you played battletech. How many here played the game when it was first introduced? I had the original box set and I cannot ever remember having "hardpoints" at all. Whenever I participated in tournaments back then the only stipulations would be whether or not custom mechs were allowed. If so, the only limits were what would fit in the mech from a tonnage/crit standpoint. I remember playing against a guy running a dragon with 16 machine guns on it. The mech was very fast and depended on armor skipping crit roles to win. So lets not pretend highly specialized custom mechs are not in keeping with Battletech. Much of what many now consider cannon to battletech was added long after many of us played the game.

Battletech is more than just the TT game. There is a huge amount of fiction, lore, fluff etc that make up what Battletech is. The sprit if battletech is more important to me than the exact rules. The sprit if BT is not about massive customisation ... But I do like customisation within reason.

So please do not confuse BT with TT rules. Most posters do not mean that and it is a huge distraction from the main discussions

[Shadelen]

One thing I will say is the customization draws a lot of players so taking it away would be the worst idea because that's what part of the series is and how it was made.I dont mind balancing.They are ATLEAST BALANCING.

[Kaspirikay]

So, OP, you want to stop customised builds? Okay, I'll just buy the most OP'd configuration. I'm sure everyone else will, too.

[Sybreed]

MustrumRidcully, on 23 May 2013 - 07:49 AM, said:

I will instead ask PGI to work on their game balance and make these weapons so that they are effective but not overpowered when boated.

There's your problem right here. If you want to make weapons not overpowered when boated, you need to make them very poor when NOT boated and it will result in hurting those who like to play balanced builds. Unless there is a way to fix boating once and for all without limiting customization, I don't see this game balanced in a very long time.

[Nation Uprise]

Kaspirikay, on 23 May 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

So, OP, you want to stop customised builds? Okay, I'll just buy the most OP'd configuration. I'm sure everyone else will, too.

Thats what everyone is doing right now. The PPCs were buffed; everyone used the mechs with the most energy slots to equip PPCs. The LRMs got buffed; everyone uses the mechs with the most missile slots to equip LRMs. And the same will happen the next time PGI decides to "balance" another weapon. It's all about what mech(s) can hold the most of the "it" weapon right now.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 23 May 2013 - 05:33 PM.

[Kaspirikay]

Nation Uprise, on 23 May 2013 - 05:33 PM, said:

Thats what everyone is doing right now. The PPCs were buffed; everyone used the mechs with the most energy slots to equip PPCs. The LRMs got buffed; everyone uses the mechs with the most missile slots to equip LRMs. And the same will happen the next time PGI decides to "balance" another weapon. It's all about what mech(s) can hold the most of the "it" weapon right now.

Exactly. This is why set configs won't change anything.

Edited by Kaspirikay, 23 May 2013 - 05:55 PM.

[Sybreed]

Kaspirikay, on 23 May 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Exactly. This is why set configs won't change anything.

really, you think the game would turn into Awesomes Vs K-2s?

Doubtful my friend.

[Kaspirikay]

Sybreed, on 23 May 2013 - 05:43 PM, said:

really, you think the game would turn into Awesomes Vs K-2s? Doubtful my friend.

No, but when you're given configs, its just better to get the most effective. Its the same as builds.

In essence, what OP is saying is that set configs will solve balance issues. My point is that it won't because people will just go for the most powerful config in the end.

[Acid Phase]

Kaspirikay, on 23 May 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Exactly. This is why set configs won't change anything.

Are you under the impression that we're talking about stock configs? Cause that is not what I'm talking about. I hope you can tell the difference between strict customization with hardpoint restrictions from just running stock builds.

[Kaspirikay]

Acid Phase, on 23 May 2013 - 06:05 PM, said:

Are you under the impression that we're talking about stock configs? Cause that is not what I'm talking about. I hope you can tell the difference between strict customization with hardpoint restrictions from just running stock builds.

Well, won't people still go for better hardpoint configurations? Eve Online uses hardpoint configs and some ships still see way more use than others.

[Nation Uprise]

Let's say hardpoint sizes were implemented, and a specific mech had "OP" hardpoints, it would be easier to tweak that mech's specific hardpoints than it would be to balance out an individual weapon. Changing a weapon's stats affects every mech that can use that weapon, whether they can equip only 1 (not so powerful) or 4 (very powerful), but changing a mechs hardpoint only affects that one mech variant. Which is why its the easiest; cleanest way to bring balance to this game.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 23 May 2013 - 07:21 PM.

[Acid Phase]

Kaspirikay, on 23 May 2013 - 06:14 PM, said:

Well, won't people still go for better hardpoint configurations? Eve Online uses hardpoint configs and some ships still see way more use than others.

That is far from what I'm talking about. Let me give you more examples. Just keep in mind, these are ideas. Everyone is entitled to give your feedback. Just don't shut it down without elaborating as to why you are against the idea of hardpoint restriction.

Idea 1:

Dimitry Matveyev, on 22 March 2013 - 05:10 PM, said:

Some thoughts about a hardpoint system.
The hardpoint size system from MW4 was good, but it didn't consider the number of misile tubes and the number of hardpoints. Below is what I think should work just fine.




As you can see Cat A1 has 2 big missile racks with 15 misile tubes, each can hold up to 3 different misile launchers. Depending on it's size a launcher takes from 1 (LRM5) to 4 (LRM20) slots in the missile rack. A1 Cat has big missile rack with 3 slots (not 3 missile hardpoints!) so the biggest launcher it can store - LRM15 (15 tubes allow that). But it CAN'T store a LRM20, because it needs bigger missile rack with 4 slots (like in the Cat C4) and 20 tubes. A1 has 3 hardpoints in each rack, so it can mount a variety of launchers in each rack, but not more than 3 (harpoint limitation), taking no more than 3 slots (missile rack size limitation - 3 slots) and having no more than 15 rockets in a rack (the number of tubes limitation - 15).
On the Cat C1 there also are 2 big missile racks with 3 slots and 15 tubes each, but with only 1 hardpoint. So you can mount only 1 missile launcher in each missile rack. And it can't take more than 3 slots and have more than 15 tubes.
Cat C4 has bigger missile racks with 4 slots, 20 tubes and 2 hardpoints each, so it can mount max. 2 missile launchers in each rack, but launchers can't take more than 4 slots per rack and 20 tubes per rack.

More examples, to make it more clear:

Ravens has 1 medium (2 slots) missile hardpoint in RT with 6 tubes. It can mount only 1 launcher (hardpoint limit), it can be small (1 slot) or medium (2 slots) with max. 6 tubes. For example - LRM 5 is OK (1 hardpoint - ok, 1 slot - ok, 5 tubes - ok), LRM10 - NOT OK (1 hardpoint - ok, 2 slots - ok, 10 tubes - fail).

Dragon 1N - has medium (2 slots) missile rack in CT with 2 hardpoints and 10 tubes. It can mount max. 2 launchers (hp limit), which takes 2 or less slots and having 10 or less tubes. Examples - LRM5 and SRM4 - OK (2 hp - ok, 2 slots - ok, 9 tubes - ok), LRM10 - OK (1 hp - ok, 2 slots - ok, 10 tubes - ok), SRM6 and SRM4 - NOT OK (2 hp - ok, 3 slots - fail, 10 tubes - ok).

The other weapons can be treated the same way.
For example - energy.
Flamer - 1 (or two? never used them )
Small laser/ Small pulse laser - 1 slot
Medium laser/ Medium pulse laser - 1 slot
Large laser/ ER Large laser/ Large pulse laser - 2 slots
PPC/ ER PPC - 3 slots

Give 3 slots energy hardpoins to those mechs, which were designed to have PPCs, other can use variety of lasers.

I will not write balistics, at this point (I hope! ) you should understand the idea.
What this or similar system would give? Balanced system, where LRM-SRM-PPC and other OP boats can't be made due to hardpoint size or missile tubes number limitation, will make different chasises and variants more unique. But after that the damage of different weapons can be tweaked, to make even small rocket launchers and MG more usable.

P.S. I'm sorry for mistakes, english is not my mother-language.

Idea 2:

Darius Deadeye, on 10 March 2013 - 05:25 AM, said:

It makes sense to have the various hardpoints allow differently sized weaponry.

• Some hardpoints should only be able to accomodate small weaponry; SL, SPL, MG, Flamer, etc
  
• Some hardpoints should only be able to accomodate medium weaponry; ML, MPL, AC/2 - 5, LRM-10-15, etc
  
• Some hardpoints should only be able to accomodate large weaponry; PPC, LL, LPL, AC/20,
  
• Medium can accomodate small, Large can accomodate medium and small, not vice versa.

Fix the size of these hardpoints, but allow for any weapons (in that size category) to be installed within the usual tonnage and critical slot limits.




Instant game fix, instant better/longer and more balanced matches.

The current fit everything everywhere model makes no sense imo.

edit: The biggest, most fun and most beneficial change would be a BIGGER SPREAD in variation of used weaponry.

It would make small weapons viable. It would reduce boating and/or "cheese" builds.

Example: you might not WANT to use that laser hardpoint for a small laser/flamer, but you have no choice due to game restrictions. It could be a way to make some (currently) unused mech models viable due to ie having fewer hardpoints, but larger hardpoints.

Games could potentially be more challenging, colourful, varied.

Thats all!

2nd edit: Maybe this thread belongs in GAME BALANCE?

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Suprentus, on 23 May 2013 - 12:49 AM, said:

You either have full customization or you don't. If it's any less than full, then it's not full. You can't say it's kind of fully customizable, or it's half fully customizable, because that doesn't make sense. MW3 had full customization, this does not. Any claim otherwise is a blatant lie.

And really, there's no abuse to speak of. I don't know what to tell you if you can't figure out how to fight a certain build. I outlined quite a few tips to dealing with certain builds that are commonly referred to as abuse or whatever.

You can modify the quote however you choose its still a fact, mechlabs are bad of Battletech. Full quote incoming: Anyone who's played TT battletech or league MW titles for the PC knows that the mechlab was one of the key factors in the games losing any follow quickly. What's sad here is even in MWO "beta" state, that is easy to recognize as being in the same place as all the follow titles and TT version, there has been nothing but the continued march towards a FPS, magic consumable, 3rd person POS, that no one was promised or supported. Say what you will, MECHLABS killed the last games, and are well on there way to accomplishing the same task here. Added with the insane weapon viability swing due to half a$$ patching, and convergence, this game is basically FoTM with meks coming in or out of use depending mostly on what weapons that PGI has screwed up this patch or the last. When I'm saying the TT hasn't a following that's not 100% true, there are plenty of guys out here ( me included ) that love the TT game, and still play it in some form or fashion. I venture a guess this crowd made up a large portion of the founders. Any group of TT guys who have played for more than a month together will tell you, they limit what you can do in the mek lab. Otherwise someone pulls the same kind of crap you see in MWO, except with TT you'll have some ***** carrying 2 clan LPL, and 7/11/7 movement.

Edited by Zerstorer Stallin, 23 May 2013 - 10:14 PM.