110 replies to this topic

[Tarrasque]

Shalune, on 11 June 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

I'd agree, but add that anything approaching strict realism is rarely ideal for an interesting game. If freely customizing weapons is over the top, then what does that say about changing engine sizes, or switching to XL or ES?

Unless someone makes a Battletech game modeled after EVE Online then-... Yeah, okay, there's nothing I want more in the world than exactly that. But my point stands!

I can appreciate that - I hadn't considered Endo. I think of it analogously like a car: you buy a model of a vehicle, you can swap an engine in that, as theyre made to be moved in and out, but you're not going to change the body style without serious modification, modification that would be prohibitively expensive.

In any of the fluff, you see that mechwarriors have little ability to alter the weapons and systems in their mechs. I'm not saying that it should be like that at all, I'm just trying to advocate mechs being relatively predictable in their loadouts, so when I get a visual on one, I can guess what it will generally be trying to do. It follows war far more closely than if people went to war willy nilly and had no plan of attack.

Again, the D&D nerd in me demands accountability!

[Tezcatli]

It's not entirely reasonable that a smaller mech would not be able to accommodate a larger weapon. And the thing with the missile tubes makes sense. And in my head I like it. It certainly differentiates mechs a bit. And it could also add something variants that are considered weaker, they could give them that one hard point the others lack.

But this does do away with some of the freedom people enjoy. I'm not sure which I like more.

However excessive boating of PPCs might change if they add in the function to inflict damage on yourself when you overheat too much. They mentioned it in one of the podcasts.

[Shalune]

Yeah, increased readability on mechs would be very nice. In that sense I agree with you. It's strange to catch glimpse of a JM you're closing with and not know which one of you is headed into a death trap.

While I don't like it in that regard, I think it's a double edged sword. The lack of certainty increases the skill cap, and places added importance on scouting and managing information in combat.

[Kell Commander]

The only times boating really becomes an issue (based on my play experience) is when I end up playing against a team that about 5 of 8 are boating. This doesn't happen that often and is more just bad luck than bad design.

People are saying you are trying to dictate what style of play people should play because you don't like certain others but I do not think that was your intention. While I do not think it was your intention, that is essentially what you are doing.

The mech I have used the most is a Cataphract 1X that has 1 AC 20, 1 LL, and 3 ML and have great success with it. Even against mechs that boat because of the tactics I use while playing it. Sometimes I pop around a corner and take 6 PPC's to the CT and just drop, but it's part of the game.

What draws a lot of new players to this game is the LACK of limitations on customization. What you are suggesting will KILL this game by 1: greatly dropping the number of new players and 2: ruining valid builds that the community has come to enjoy playing.

[Rebas Kradd]

Acid Phase, on 11 June 2013 - 05:03 AM, said:

Let's put this a lot more simple. To achieve overall balance (Hardpoint Restrictions + Convergeance + DHS Heat Threshold Removal + Heat Penalties = Balance). Plain and simple, stops the boating and will stop the most outrageous builds such as putting an AC20 on a Raven.

It will also create an entirely new game that people have to adjust to, negating months' worth of familiarization. And for the record, any Raven who is able to actually get kills with an AC/20, deserves them.

[EvilCow]

dimstog, on 11 June 2013 - 03:34 AM, said:

The main reason is that you are practically pigeonholing each variant into a specific setup. Which then creates the question why even have the hardpoint limitations in the first place ?

Good point but consider that a more strict hardpoints system will give each variant a more defined role which is good. We are already at the point where adding new unique variants is very difficult because there is a lot of overlapping among them. See the stalkers for example, they are basically all the same as hardpoints with minimal variatios. Another example is the role overlapping in the 50T class.

If well done a more strict hardpoints system would enrich the game in my opinion.

The advantage would go var beyond simply "balance".

Excellent suggestion OP, already discussed to death but still a good idea. The post is above average at least

[Acid Phase]

Rebas Kradd, on 11 June 2013 - 09:21 AM, said:

It will also create an entirely new game that people have to adjust to, negating months' worth of familiarization.

I'm willing to go through that if it meant MWO is to shift it's way into some balance. I believe if they were to implement over heat penalties, it's going to be a huge improvement. Some players might actually show skill in piloting their mechs and shooting appropriately for a change.

[Snowhawk]

Hmm... I'm not really fan of too much restrictions...

Would not it be better if they introduce hardpoint restrictions just for the so-called "Lame-Builds" (for example 5/6 Ppc-Stalker or the Highlander with 3 Ppc's and Gauss)...?

[mania3c]

Acid Phase, on 11 June 2013 - 09:38 AM, said:

I'm willing to go through that if it meant MWO is to shift it's way into some balance. I believe if they were to implement over heat penalties, it's going to be a huge improvement. Some players might actually show skill in piloting their mechs and shooting appropriately for a change.

slowly we are getting there.. i am here just from december but I played hundreds if not thousands games..and game is really in better shape balance wise than 4 months ago..hell..even 1 month ago..

The worst thing what they can do is make balance changes with sledgehammer .. also I like their ideas..at least a little what they hinted..permanent heat damage could change a lot.. also they have some ideas about boating and how to deal with it..let's wait and see what they have in their minds..

[Kell Commander]

Snowhawk, on 11 June 2013 - 10:07 AM, said:

Hmm... I'm not really fan of too much restrictions...

Would not it be better if they introduce hardpoint restrictions just for the so-called "Lame-Builds" (for example 5/6 Ppc-Stalker or the Highlander with 3 Ppc's and Gauss)...?

Then every single person would have to agree on what a "lame build" is. That will never happen because anyone that uses a build I think is lame would probably think my balanced brawler mech is lame due to requiring the use of tactics to win.

[John MatriX82]

So, for now thanks for anybody that took part in this discussion, lots of efforts were put into it not only by me.. by the time I got back the thread arised pretty much, with a lot of valid points!

At the moment I can't re-develop everything and I can't answer to everybody due to the huge amount of quotes that would be necessary, indeed there's been a lot of brainstorming and it took a while to read everything.

It's clear that I needed a feedback especially on certain variants; yet I believe missile limitation system is the most valid point, but clearly ballistic and energy ones aren't and I must think otherwise, but at the moment nothing simple comes into my mind.

The idea of awarding bonuses to certain variants is something to be considered as well.