110 replies to this topic

[Soy]

...le sigh...

[AndyHill]

I'm all for hardpoint limitations and the elimination of pinpoint alpha -boating, but to me the former is not a solution for the latter. Hardpoint limitations are mostly for variety in 'mechs and actually implementing them kind of necessitates some kind of a solution for boating to exist, because otherwise the natural boats will be completely dominant builds.

[AVABOBAH]

Hardpoint restrictions is another "solution from boating". May be it is better to wipe all light mechs from game instead? If they irritate people so much? We already lost tanks and battle armor from the game because they dont make any difference in combat against assault mechs. So, some people want to make only assaults to have choice of loadout? Strange.

Edited by AVABOBAH, 11 June 2013 - 04:54 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

This argument is always LOL-worthy... So, Mr. Jack, you believe that an attempt to bring the actual loadout of a mech more in line with the purposes of the mech as per canon and eliminate massive unintended missile boating is someone trying to 'dictate how everyone else plays'?

What does that say about your system we're running now? Are you not (or PGI anyways) doing the same with the many people who think that this massive alpha boating meta is the only way to play? You're dictating that I should have to play with a bunch of people who play this game like a job, who could care less about the background behind the game and see it solely as a modified shooter?

By the way, mechs were 'pigeonholed' by design since BT and MW's inception. What the hell is the point of a support mech if you can outfit it with the equipment to make it a brawler?

To have fun with a cool looking mech you like in a role you prefer to fight in.

Limiting customization - if you do it right - will enforce mechs to be played as they were designed to be played. But you also remove the option of doing your own thing. How can you deny that is not dicating how everyone else plays?

And customization limitations are not the only feasible limitation to alpha-boating.

• Removal of variable/automatic Convergence for anyone not having a full set of actuators in his arms.
  
• Global Weapon Cooldowns / Enforced Chain-Fire.
  
• Lowering the Heat Capacity and/or adding heat penalties that most of the boats run into heat problems when alphaing but you can avoid it with chain-firing (aka "Heat Management").
  
• Even cone of fire

Before you remove so much player freedom, think about what other options you have.

Quote

What the hell is the point of omni-slots in the eventual clan invasion if we..... already essentially have that ability?

What's the point of limiting customization to avoid unbalanced builds if you add omni-tech that just brings all the problems back?

[Acid Phase]

John MatriX82. First I'd like to say I am quite possibly a huge advocate of harpoint restrictions. So obviously I'm going to +1 this idea. Nothing more I can say on this topic other than to direct you to this thread I started weeks ago over the same topic. Please read and compare the ideas. Also if you feel highly about it, maybe you'd like to shoot over the idea to the devs via twitter, as I have done as well.

[Fooooo]

Ralgas, on 11 June 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

As always no just one change is going to fix everything, and all sides have drawbacks simply due to the limitations and variation the pen and paper balance has once translated into realtime. Check my sig link for my thoughts...

Removing convergance would solve most of the problems imo.

If a boater can no longer get all 6 - 9 weapons to hit the 1 spot instantly (say 6ppc stalker or 9ML HBK which imo are pretty useless anyway atm) then there is no need to adjust anything else.

Let them boat whatever they want, they wont be able to alpha and hit 1 spot, they will have to stagger fire (because they would have to aim differently for each side of their mech etc).

More skill, more fun.....imo anyway.



For the OP's idea, I would prefer a simple Large and normal HP. Large holds any size weapon of that class. (energy, ballistic etc) Normal cannot equip the largest weapons. (LRM20, ac/20, gauss, ppc etc)

It makes it a little easier to keep every stock mech exactly how they are, but tune certain problem mechs if they happen to arise. (rather than having 3 teirs of weapon HP etc)


Hardpoint limitations, whilst I'm not totally against, I don't think are exactly needed if you just remove convergance from torsos and arms without lower actuators.

[Acid Phase]

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.

[AVABOBAH]

Alright. Bring hardpoint limitations to game. You will see about 10 possible mechs in every session. Other will gone with the wind. Especially lights. What remains would be stock boats with cosmetic changes.

[Tarrasque]

I'll take this a half at a time -

MustrumRidcully, on 11 June 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

To have fun with a cool looking mech you like in a role you prefer to fight in.

Limiting customization - if you do it right - will enforce mechs to be played as they were designed to be played. But you also remove the option of doing your own thing. How can you deny that is not dicating how everyone else plays?

First off, I didn't deny that the idea OP suggested wasn't dictating what others must play, it absolutely is. My argument, is 'how is that any different than what we've got?'. How is deciding that anyone can put anything on their mech that matches 3 general dividers (energy, missile, ballistic) not dictating that I have to play my Mechwarrior game in a way that I deem 'wrong'?

I was defending the ridiculous notion that limiting what people can do is not 'dictating', or if it is, that is what's being done to us now. No one loses their **** because you can't pick any class in a role play game, or that you can't carry every gun at once in a shooter. Why is this any different? If anything, roles should be MUCH more heavily enforced here, because as it stands, one of the pillars of Community Warfare is in fact role warfare, which is nonexistent.

MustrumRidcully, on 11 June 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

And customization limitations are not the only feasible limitation to alpha-boating.

• Removal of variable/automatic Convergence for anyone not having a full set of actuators in his arms.
  
• Global Weapon Cooldowns / Enforced Chain-Fire.
  
• Lowering the Heat Capacity and/or adding heat penalties that most of the boats run into heat problems when alphaing but you can avoid it with chain-firing (aka "Heat Management").
  
• Even cone of fire

Before you remove so much player freedom, think about what other options you have.

I'm well aware of alternate possibilities to mitigate many of the meta concerns we have now, and I agree with most of what you put on there, save a cone of fire, but again, why is player freedom so much more preferable to the game playing well and much more in the spirit of how it was designed originally? Why is the ability to mount stupid tech on mechs that were never designed for it so important to you people?

MustrumRidcully, on 11 June 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

What's the point of limiting customization to avoid unbalanced builds if you add omni-tech that just brings all the problems back?

The point, sir, is that the clan tech, omni points and all, are supposed to be a MASSIVE upgrade, and is one of the reasons that the Inner Sphere has a hard time matching up with them. What's the point of the Clans if the IS is already on point with half of their advantage?

Beyond that, there's no reliability as to looking at a mech and saying 'this is how this lancemate can help me'? I have no idea what to expect from my lancemates, as I can't see their builds, and cannot reliably identify their role with the chassis they've selected.

What we have right now is a glorified shooter, which makes me sad. I simply defend the more sim aspects that I've grown to love about MW, and that's not the direction 'unlimited freedom' goes. I prefer to work with less and make more happen, because being limited in what I can load makes me feel like I'm actually fulfilling a role, not just running around with an XL and as many weapons as I can possibly cram on my mech, trying to get the most kills like everyone else.


/.02

Edited by Tarrasque, 11 June 2013 - 05:08 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

John MatriX82, on 11 June 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

Hm that wasn't the true intention, as I said the idea was to try to get more balanced builds, so that if you want to snipe ok, but on a certain chassis maybe you're locked into a GR+ERPPC combo option rather than being able to place 3-4-5-6 ppcs.

So is the heat penalty for boating the only way?

You're already locked into certain options for certain roles on different chassis. That's what hardpoints, crit slots ans weight limits do. The problem is, you have a certain vision of what is "balance" and believe everyone should be forced to accommodate your vision. You get to run whatever the hell you want, because, to you, it balanced. Others can also run what they want... but only if it's the same as what you want. If they want something else, it's "broken" or "cheese" and had to be "fixed."

No, I don't think the proposed heat penalty is the only way, or even a good one. Increased heat for multiple of the same weapon, but not for multiple weapons of different types, is idiotic, and I hope they re-think it. Personally, I think that slightly slower convergence should be the answer. It doesn't have to be a lot to make a big difference, and doesn't have to greatly impact the ability to aim. You just get a little spread, based on weapon location, if you take snap-shots, while pinpoint shots would require taking a little more time, thereby leaving yourself more vulnerable.

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 04:18 AM, said:

OP, I definitely like the suggestion - size hardpoints are far more true to the way that mechs have been and are supposed to be built.

Basically what it always comes down to, is having the min/maxers crying because they can't make every concievable build, claiming that it ruins the game to have any sort of limitations, and the BT/TT crowd will usually support measures like this, because they don't see the fun in building cheese.

"Supposed to be built" according to who? Go ahead and quote stock mechs, and I'll point out that customization and full mech-building rules have been in TT since it's inception, and with a lot more freedom than MWO. The way you say they are "supposed to be built" is nothing but your opinion, and we all know what opinions are like.

Your generalizations are crude and pathetic. I've been a TT player since it came in a white box, with cardboard mechs. I've never been a power-gamer in any game except M:tG, and usually played stock/canon variants over many years of play (I spent a good many years having a weekly BT game, typically lasting 6-10 hours, plus smaller games whenever I had the chance). But I've also always enjoyed making custom variants, or entirely custom mechs, and chopped up $100's (retail) worth of mechs (when they were still lead) to build minis for them. You really don't want to know how many mechs I dismantled that are now "unseen" and impossible to find. I even played ClickyTech for awhile to get my fix after BT had died. Later (after Catalyst got it), I opened a store and was personally responsible for bringing TT back into play in my area. I'm about as big a BT fan as one can be without resorting to dressing up in silly costumes.

I'm not overly concerned with power, but I do care about variety and versatility, and I'll fight for those.

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

This argument is always LOL-worthy... So, Mr. Jack, you believe that an attempt to bring the actual loadout of a mech more in line with the purposes of the mech as per canon and eliminate massive unintended missile boating is someone trying to 'dictate how everyone else plays'?

What does that say about your system we're running now? Are you not (or PGI anyways) doing the same with the many people who think that this massive alpha boating meta is the only way to play? You're dictating that I should have to play with a bunch of people who play this game like a job, who could care less about the background behind the game and see it solely as a modified shooter?

By the way, mechs were 'pigeonholed' by design since BT and MW's inception. What the hell is the point of a support mech if you can outfit it with the equipment to make it a brawler? What the hell is the point of omni-slots in the eventual clan invasion if we..... already essentially have that ability?

See above.

And in addition to the customization/mech-building rules, I'll point to the plethora of "field modifications" and personalized mechs in canon, many of which are vastly different from the originals. The advantage of OmniMechs has never been that they were the only mechs that could be customized, but that they could be done quickly in response to mission parameters. Perhaps that will be their role in MWO, as well. I don't know.

[OneEyed Jack]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

First off, I didn't deny that the idea OP suggested wasn't dictating what others must play, it absolutely is. My argument, is 'how is that any different than what we've got?'. How is deciding that anyone can put anything on their mech that matches 3 general dividers (energy, missile, ballistic) not dictating that I have to play my Mechwarrior game in a way that I deem 'wrong'?

I was defending the ridiculous notion that limiting what people can do is not 'dictating', or if it is, that is what's being done to us now. No one loses their **** because you can't pick any class in a role play game, or that you can't carry every gun at once in a shooter. Why is this any different? If anything, roles should be MUCH more heavily enforced here, because as it stands, one of the pillars of Community Warfare is in fact role warfare, which is nonexistent.

That's a nonsense argument. Any game must have some kind of rules and limitations. By deciding to play the game, you are implying that you agree to use those rules. It's kind of what defines it as a game and separates it from other games. In this case, the basic rules were set down long ago. PGI has chosen to build a game based on those rules, adapted for a different format. Since they are the ones making the game, they get to set the rules, and by playing, you are tacitly agreeing to their terms.

I never suggested that he IS dictating, since he doesn't have the power to enforce his ideas. I said that he WANTS to dictate. He takes a game that we all presumably enjoy to some extent, and impress his perceptions of what the game is supposed to be on everyone else. We can see this is what he wants by the fact he spent so much effort devising and detailing a system that he wants support from us for PGI to implement.

So, yes. PGI is dictating rules, but we accepted that when we created accounts and downloaded the game. It's even theoretically possible that they could adopt the OP's idea, or something similar, and dictate that those are the new rules. But they can't force us to play, so they can't dictate that we play a game we don't agree with, as you suggest.

[Zyllos]

Here are two good examples of why more hardpoint limitations are needed:

AWS-8Q
HBK-4G

Why play the Awesome 8Q for PPCs when you can do that on the Stalker? Why player the HBK-4G when you can play the HBK-4H?

More hardpoint limitations are there to make each mech individual. Sure, mechs that are allowed to get away with boats because they are boats will be gravitated to, but I, for some reason, doubt everybody will jump to the Awesome because it's the only way to boat PPCs. Most boats are balanced by their physical size.

Tonnage is also another way to balance this, but with the current system, 85t Stalker vs 80t Awesome is not going to help much.

Also, additional hardpoint limitations are not going to fix all the boating problems now and in the future. It will have to be implemented along side a system that curbs the current high, up front, single location meta we have now. This also includes implementing a new heat system, tonnage system, ect.

[MustrumRidcully]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 05:05 AM, said:

I'm well aware of alternate possibilities to mitigate many of the meta concerns we have now, and I agree with most of what you put on there, save a cone of fire, but again, why is player freedom so much more preferable to the game playing well and much more in the spirit of how it was designed originally? Why is the ability to mount stupid tech on mechs that were never designed for it so important to you people?

Because people have fun with their customized mechs and exploring the number of mech lab options. Since Mechwarrior 3 at least, this has been a major fun element of Mechwarrior titles.

Quote

The point, sir, is that the clan tech, omni points and all, are supposed to be a MASSIVE upgrade, and is one of the reasons that the Inner Sphere has a hard time matching up with them. What's the point of the Clans if the IS is already on point with half of their advantage?

If people find 40 damage alpha strikes at 540m range unfun right now, they won't like 60 damage alpha strikes at 690m no less fun.
Everyone (except the noble exceptions that will rise up in protest to this post) will want Clan Tech if it is's more powerful than IS tech. And the gameplay will be less fun as a result, but you cannot afford to not take them, because your enemy might.
This is a great way of destroying the game.

Quote

Beyond that, there's no reliability as to looking at a mech and saying 'this is how this lancemate can help me'? I have no idea what to expect from my lancemates, as I can't see their builds, and cannot reliably identify their role with the chassis they've selected.

Clearly a UI problem - why can't you see what your lance mate is carrying, but you can see what your enemy is carrying?

Quote

What we have right now is a glorified shooter, which makes me sad. I simply defend the more sim aspects that I've grown to love about MW, and that's not the direction 'unlimited freedom' goes. I prefer to work with less and make more happen, because being limited in what I can load makes me feel like I'm actually fulfilling a role, not just running around with an XL and as many weapons as I can possibly cram on my mech, trying to get the most kills like everyone else.

Hardpoint restrictions do not make this game more "sim". They are just a mechanic, but there is nothing it can really simulate, because there is no "real" thing to simulate. The closest to "real" thing to emulate is the canon description of mechs, and there aren't any mentions of fixed hard points. There are mech variants, and there are sometimes customized mechs. The limits are only defined by tonnage and crit slot requirements of gear and the available space and weight aboard the mech.

You could have just as much "sim" in this game if the mech models would show all the actually equipped gear on the mech.

[Koreanese]

I like this idea. A lot. Only mech capable of boating 2+ ppc should be awesome. Thats what makes awesome so awesome!

[3rdworld]

Zyllos, on 11 June 2013 - 05:29 AM, said:

Here are two good examples of why more hardpoint limitations are needed:

AWS-8Q
HBK-4G

Why play the Awesome 8Q for PPCs when you can do that on the Stalker? Why player the HBK-4G when you can play the HBK-4H?

More hardpoint limitations are there to make each mech individual. Sure, mechs that are allowed to get away with boats because they are boats will be gravitated to, but I, for some reason, doubt everybody will jump to the Awesome because it's the only way to boat PPCs. Most boats are balanced by their physical size.

Tonnage is also another way to balance this, but with the current system, 85t Stalker vs 80t Awesome is not going to help much.

Also, additional hardpoint limitations are not going to fix all the boating problems now and in the future. It will have to be implemented along side a system that curbs the current high, up front, single location meta we have now. This also includes implementing a new heat system, tonnage system, ect.

It is easy to look at 2 mechs it may help. But what about the huge majority it will completely bone?

It would also not be hard to get people to use the 8Q for PPCs.

Synergy: The Awesome 8Q does 10% more damage and generates 10% less heat with PPCs.

Synergy: The HBK-4G runs 15kph faster and takes 20% less damage to the right torso when equipped with a AC/20.

Buffs are always better at getting the desired response from a population than nerfs.

Edited by 3rdworld, 11 June 2013 - 05:37 AM.

[mania3c]

it's bad idea and it should stay outside of this game.... there is multiple threads about it..and in every single thread are people showing how it is not good idea..yet it still comes up in new thread again..people just don't see what this would cause and can't think outside the box..period..

[Tarrasque]

OneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

You're already locked into certain options for certain roles on different chassis. That's what hardpoints, crit slots ans weight limits do. The problem is, you have a certain vision of what is "balance" and believe everyone should be forced to accommodate your vision. You get to run whatever the hell you want, because, to you, it balanced. Others can also run what they want... but only if it's the same as what you want. If they want something else, it's "broken" or "cheese" and had to be "fixed."

Actually, no, I never said any of that, but alright. If you think that my opinion is that anything other than stock loadouts or whatever is 'cheese' to me, you're wrong. All I want is for a mechs to fulfill the purpose intended by the creators of Battletech and the original Mechwarrior games, not as I see fit, believe me.

OneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

No, I don't think the proposed heat penalty is the only way, or even a good one. Increased heat for multiple of the same weapon, but not for multiple weapons of different types, is idiotic, and I hope they re-think it. Personally, I think that slightly slower convergence should be the answer. It doesn't have to be a lot to make a big difference, and doesn't have to greatly impact the ability to aim. You just get a little spread, based on weapon location, if you take snap-shots, while pinpoint shots would require taking a little more time, thereby leaving yourself more vulnerable.


"Supposed to be built" according to who? Go ahead and quote stock mechs, and I'll point out that customization and full mech-building rules have been in TT since it's inception, and with a lot more freedom than MWO. The way you say they are "supposed to be built" is nothing but your opinion, and we all know what opinions are like.

So what you're telling me is that, according to lore and what the designers of Battletech intended, a Catapult C1 is intended to be able to fight face to face with other heavy and assault mechs? Then why were mechs designed as they were? Why does the Awesome have huge torsos if it's meant to be played in every way possible? It isn't. It's meant to be a fire support mech that stands off away from the fray, and thus the design serves a purpose.

Why is everyone trying to homogenize everything into a lowest common denominator where your only actual choices to be competitive are to take as many gauss and PPC as you can? This is not my doing, I don't have any ulterior motives here, man. I'd like to see this game be as balanced and incorporate as many weapons systems and mechs as possible while still retaining an element of role warfare that was so touted early in this game's development.

OneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

Your generalizations are crude and pathetic. I've been a TT player since it came in a white box, with cardboard mechs. I've never been a power-gamer in any game except M:tG, and usually played stock/canon variants over many years of play (I spent a good many years having a weekly BT game, typically lasting 6-10 hours, plus smaller games whenever I had the chance). But I've also always enjoyed making custom variants, or entirely custom mechs, and chopped up $100's (retail) worth of mechs (when they were still lead) to build minis for them. You really don't want to know how many mechs I dismantled that are now "unseen" and impossible to find. I even played ClickyTech for awhile to get my fix after BT had died. Later (after Catalyst got it), I opened a store and was personally responsible for bringing TT back into play in my area. I'm about as big a BT fan as one can be without resorting to dressing up in silly costumes.

I'm not overly concerned with power, but I do care about variety and versatility, and I'll fight for those.

Awesome, what's your point? I wasn't speaking specifically about you, but about players in general who rail against any sort of limitations in order to preserve their min/max tendancies. I'm not going to debate with someone who resorts to ad hominem attacks, so...

OneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 05:07 AM, said:

See above.

And in addition to the customization/mech-building rules, I'll point to the plethora of "field modifications" and personalized mechs in canon, many of which are vastly different from the originals. The advantage of OmniMechs has never been that they were the only mechs that could be customized, but that they could be done quickly in response to mission parameters. Perhaps that will be their role in MWO, as well. I don't know.

I didn't say that omnimechs were the only mechs capable of customization. What I'm saying is that it makes zero sense for a CPLT-K2 to mount two gauss rifles where the mech was intended to have machine guns. Those are two very different things. Lastly, personalized mechs in canon belonged to some of the most battle hardened, storied mechwarriors in the galaxy. They were extremely rare and expensive, things that kept their uniqueness and power relevant.

[SirSlaughter]

I agree with OP: the game needs a more deeper system to balance weapons, mechs and variants. Heat, damage & cooldown are not enough.

I think it's a good starting point. Sure it needs some tweak, but the path is right. I really hope devs will think about this!

[Acid Phase]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

I didn't say that omnimechs were the only mechs capable of customization. What I'm saying is that it makes zero sense for a CPLT-K2 to mount two gauss rifles where the mech was intended to have machine guns. Those are two very different things. Lastly, personalized mechs in canon belonged to some of the most battle hardened, storied mechwarriors in the galaxy. They were extremely rare and expensive, things that kept their uniqueness and power relevant.

This. A million times THIS!

For the longest time I've been saying that weapon tweaks as PGI has been doing from the begining of closed beta has not addressed the issues. Weapon tweaks are not the issue. Customization Abuse is the issue. Hardpoint restrictions is a nudge into proper balance. Anyone against this proposal are afraid that their high alpha boats and their grandmas won't be as useful as they see it now. Get real. We want balance over FoTM buillsh*ts!

Edited by Acid Phase, 11 June 2013 - 05:51 AM.

[Tarrasque]

3rdworld, on 11 June 2013 - 05:36 AM, said:

It is easy to look at 2 mechs it may help. But what about the huge majority it will completely bone?

It would also not be hard to get people to use the 8Q for PPCs.

Synergy: The Awesome 8Q does 10% more damage and generates 10% less heat with PPCs.

Synergy: The HBK-4G runs 15kph faster and takes 20% less damage to the right torso when equipped with a AC/20.

Buffs are always better at getting the desired response from a population than nerfs.

Really, really like this idea