110 replies to this topic

[mania3c]

Acid Phase, on 11 June 2013 - 05:44 AM, said:

This. A million times THIS!

They already fixed this by showing real models for weapons..yes..stock have MG here..but look..you can put AC20 if you want.. I really don't see where is the problem.. so basically we have to be somehow bind to stock variants and basically make most variants useless?? Yea..great idea..

For now.. I am happy PGI is making rules, not people who are just somehow locked into some weird illusion what should and what shouldn't be possible..

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Really, really like this idea

Nice to see that you are starting to see things differently..there are tons of other options... hardpoint size is probably the worst one..

Edited by mania3c, 11 June 2013 - 05:49 AM.

[Tarrasque]

mania3c, on 11 June 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

For now.. I am happy PGI is making rules, not people who are just somehow locked into some weird illusion what should and what shouldn't be possible..

One question, is it possible to mount a cannon on a tank that is 100 times larger without hindering the tank in any way? Methinks the tank would likely have a large number of problems due to the original design not taking such a drastic change in armament into question.

I know we aren't trying to compare the BT universe to real life, but physics still apply guys....

mania3c, on 11 June 2013 - 05:48 AM, said:

Nice to see that you are starting to see things differently..there are tons of other options... hardpoint size is probably the worst one..

...as though I said the only way to do this was via hardpoint sizes?

Read my posts, man, I said the opposite multiple times. I may have conviction for the things I think, but I am not closed-minded. That doesn't mean that I agree with unlimited customization, but I'm also not the person who says 'it has to be this way or I'll quit/cry/whatever".

I love this game, as it is. If they stopped development now, I'd be disappointed, but still play it. It's that fun to me. It'd be INFINITELY more fun if it played out as a game in which we all acted as pilots of what are essentially tanks (don't start telling me to go play WoT everyone) who fulfill a role in large-scale combat situations, simulating what it would be like in a 31st century war.

The notion that every Mechwarrior pilots a highly expensive and customized tank that may or may not conform to the (purported) engineering or structural designs they're based on is pretty ridiculous to me. It's like saying that every soldier carries the top possible weaponry that they choose by hand every time they go into combat. You work with what you have, and the simulator lover (and Dungeons and Dragons nerd) in me wants to see those limitations accounted for, thats all.

That is what I've always seen Mechwarrior as, and always hoped one day when we had the technology, I'd see it. This is probably my best chance at that, so I espouse the route of developing this game that errs to that side of discussions.

[mania3c]

I know you said you don't want any real life examples..and compare BT 3050 to current time and mechanics...but you did it..
If you really want apply any physics or whatever you want..These mechs..walkers are SUPER en-effective... if you have so big engine..and so much metal to make armor, internals and weapons.. it's much better to have HUGE tanks...it's much easier to put couple tons of weapons on tank, armor is more effective, lower profile ....so in fact..our mechs could be easily defeated by some huge tanks..but that wouldn't be much fun right?


Put real life examples away and look just gameplay mechanics..this is important part..

We have little weapons like MG...and even huge weapons like AC20... but fact that you can use MG hardpoint for AC20 (and vice versa) is just opening very fun options and customization is one of the strong aspects of the the game..

You are saying that AC20 is top weapon and not every mech should be able to mount it...first..not every mech is able to mount it..but also AC20 while is top weapon, it also have HUUUGE disadvantages ... 14 freakin tons .. without ammo..it's not like I can swap AC20 and MG without thinking of consequences.. if raven want have AC20..he has to build everything around that..and this is awesome.. it's something what is so much fun..thinking outside the box when you are trying to customize your mech..and hardpoint size/tiers is just taking this away..

I am not saying that every weapon is in sweet spot or is perfectly balanced..and I am not even saying some mechs are not worse than others..or that boating is okey..but there are better ways to deal with these things .. hardpoint size wouldn't even fix these problems anyway...

Edited by mania3c, 11 June 2013 - 06:26 AM.

[Tarrasque]

mania3c, on 11 June 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

I know you said you don't want any real life examples..and compare BT 3050 to current time and mechanics...but you did it..
If you really want apply any physics or whatever you want..These mechs..walkers are SUPER en-effective... if you have so big engine..and so much metal to make armor, internals and weapons.. it's much better to have HUGE tanks...it's much easier to put couple tons of weapons on tank, armor is more effective, lower profile ....so in fact..our mechs could be easily defeated by some huge tanks..but that wouldn't be much fun right?

If you read more closely, I actually said that while I don't have an issue with suspending my disbelief to allow for plenty of mechanics, the notions of gravity and mass are difficult for me to shake. I have a hard time reconciling that where an engineer designed a mech to fit a machine gun, they also accounted for putting a massive cannon. It doesn't make sense.

mania3c, on 11 June 2013 - 06:19 AM, said:

Put real life examples away and look just gameplay mechanics..this is important part..

We have little weapons like MG...and even huge weapons like AC20... but fact that you can use MG hardpoint for AC20 (and vice versa) is just opening very fun options and customization is one of the strong aspects of the the game..

You are saying that AC20 is top weapon and not every mech should be able to mount it...first..not every mech is able to mount it..but also AC20 while is top weapon, it also have HUUUGE disadvantages ... 14 freakin tons .. without ammo..it's not like I can swap AC20 and MG without thinking of consequences.. if raven want have AC20..he has to build everything around that..and this is awesome.. it's something what is so much fun..thinking outside the box when you are trying to customize your mech..and hardpoint size/tiers is just taking this away..

I am not saying that every weapon is in sweet spot or is perfectly balanced..and I am not even saying some mechs are worse than others..or that boating is okey..but there are better ways to deal with these things .. hardpoint size wouldn't even fix these problems

That's not the argument though, the point is that hardpoint sizes would keep mechs closer to the roles they were designed to fill on the battlefield, giving us more variety in what choice people make, rather than driving them to min/max the one chassis with the most hardpoints (Stalker usually).

It's the reason Sarna.net has entries like this for mechs:

Quote

The Catapult is an offense oriented, second-line fire-support BattleMech initially produced on a limited contract for the Terran Hegemony. Its ten tons of armor, fifteen heat sinks and top speed of 64.8 km/h allows the Catapult to deliver its payload of Long Range Missiles on an enemy from great distances without the risk of return fire. The use of four jump jets gives the Catapult a jumping distance of one hundred and twenty meters and the ability to pace faster units over broken terrain.

Why does the source material for this universe contain explicit references as to the intentions of the designs of these mechs if there isn't supposed to be any use for it?

This describes a Catapult as a 'second line mech' that uses its JJs to traverse rough terrain in order to maintain firing position. I'm not saying it isn't more fun for people to put a bunch of SRMs on it, what I'm saying is that we're playing Mechwarrior, a Battletech game. It should follow the intentions of its designers, because you could just as easily make a mecha game that doesnt conform to the details in BT/MW. Circumventing what made this game unique is destructive to the less tangible aspects of the game, aspects many people play the game for to begin with.

Edited by Tarrasque, 11 June 2013 - 06:28 AM.

[OneEyed Jack]

Koreanese, on 11 June 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

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

People are saying you quit.

I'll respond to the following using italics instead of breaking it down.

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

Actually, no, I never said any of that,...
I wasn't responding to you.

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...
No, I'm saying that the designers intended a game where we could CUSTOMIZE, or even custom build. The Catapult is a heavy mech, capable of carrying considerable armor, and there's no reason it should be forced to hide behind hills firing LRMs. There's even a canon custom mech designed for brawling. Picking the C1 is a strawman, because it's just a variant of the chassis, and the variants picked for MWO are just so they can have different variants with different hardpoint allocations. A customized mech is not longer just the variant that was picked because of it's hardpoints.

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.
No one is doing that. But the key is to make a system where choices are still available, with as little advantage between one choice and another as possible. Not to take away the choices.
The vision of the game has changed since those very early days. The role warfare they envisioned back then simply isn't going to happen, because they've abandoned the idea as development progressed. That's something you're just going to have to live with.

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...
I didn't attack anyone. You made a generalization and tried to take the stance that real BT fans support your way of thinking and that those who don't are QQ'ing min/maxers. You want to dismiss any disagreement by belittling anyone who disagrees. I'm a huge BT fan, and not a min/maxer, and I disagree with you. That was the point.

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.
It makes perfect sense, because the intention is just in your mind. The fact that you can accept the K2 at all shows that you're willing to accept that the chassis can be built in a way the original design wasn't intended, yet you rail against other modifications. That's simply a mental block in your own perception of customization. The K2, like every other variant in MWO, is just there because the devs wanted to limit customization far more than the original creators ever did. If the guys from FASA hadn't intended customization, they wouldn't have had the rules in the game from inception. If the MWO devs had wanted to limit the K2 to MGs in those ports, they would have used a more limiting system from the beginning. They don't always get a lot of credit, but I think they're probably smart enough to realize that people would put larger guns there.

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.
Incorrect. Many of the personalized mechs are simply a note in the description saying that someone once used a mech modified such and such a way, sometimes with a name tacked on that is usually never mentioned again. And it doesn't even address field modifications, which are mentioned in numerous listings in the TROs, where it mentions that commanders or pilots were unhappy with a certain system and it became common practice for them to replace that system. Sometimes with a weapon of a different type, even (i.e.: swapping ballistic for energy). I'd have to do more searching than I'm willing to do, but I believe some of the "canon" variants are nothing more than field mods.

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

Why does the source material for this universe contain explicit references as to the intentions of the designs of these mechs if there isn't supposed to be any use for it?

This describes a Catapult as a 'second line mech' that uses its JJs to traverse rough terrain in order to maintain firing position. I'm not saying it isn't more fun for people to put a bunch of SRMs on it, what I'm saying is that we're playing Mechwarrior, a Battletech game. It should follow the intentions of its designers, because you could just as easily make a mecha game that doesnt conform to the details in BT/MW. Circumventing what made this game unique is destructive to the less tangible aspects of the game, aspects many people play the game for to begin with.

Um... because that part of the description is all fluff based solely on the original production design. As mentioned above, the K2 is a canon variant that doesn't even remotely match that description. Nor does the Butterbee.

Edited by OneEyed Jack, 11 June 2013 - 07:02 AM.

[3rdworld]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

That's not the argument though, the point is that hardpoint sizes would keep mechs closer to the roles they were designed to fill on the battlefield, giving us more variety in what choice people make, rather than driving them to min/max the one chassis with the most hardpoints (Stalker usually).

But that doesn't happen. More restrictions remove the number of viable mechs it doesn't increase it.

We have seen it first hand when they implemented engine restrictions.

Awesome - dead
Hunchbacks - dead
Centurions not the A - dead
ravens not the 3L - dead

And this is when there were only like 8 chassis to choose from, and it killed around half of them.

Instead lets find a solution to reward players for using a mech how the developers feel it was designed or in a manner to give it a niche, instead of removing options.

[Tarrasque]

OneEyed Jack, on 11 June 2013 - 06:40 AM, said:

Um... because that part of the description is all fluff based solely on the original production design. As mentioned above, the K2 is a canon variant that doesn't even remotely match that description. Nor does the Butterbee.

I can't read the massive block of text you dropped, so I apologize, but as for the K-2:

Quote

CPLT-K2 - Breaking the mold of the Catapult, this House Kurita model removes the LRM-15 launchers and replaces them with two PPCs, allowing the Catapult to act as a direct fire support 'Mech and take a more active role in front line combat. The 'Mech mounts five additional single heat sinks to help dissipate the added heat from the PPCs and two Machine Guns to deter infantry attacks. Space is made by removing the jump jets and two of the medium lasers.

Yep, you're 100% correct (obviously), the K-2 is a refit of the C1 that was meant to be a 'direct fire support' mech. What's your point? I specified one variant because I didn't feel like typing others, I figured readers would get the gist that there are defined roles for variants of each mech.

3rdworld, on 11 June 2013 - 06:42 AM, said:

But that doesn't happen. More restrictions remove the number of viable mechs it doesn't increase it.

We have seen it first hand when they implemented engine restrictions.

Instead lets find a solution to reward players for using a mech how the developers feel it was designed or in a manner to give it a niche, instead of removing options.

I disagree - if you level the playing field for all mechs, then others become more viable, because they excel at filling a certain role. I know what you're saying with XLs, but I think that by giving mechs an identity, if you will, you give more of a reason to pilot them.

Giving each mech a niche is exactly what I am trying to do.

Edited by Tarrasque, 11 June 2013 - 06:50 AM.

[Sug]

Just remove customization.

[Pando]

Excessive boating isn't really the problem. Weapon imbalance is the problem. Though, I dislike your system however I support the idea. I would rather take any stock loadout and give it +1 critical slot for weapon placement. Meaning, a large laser could upgrade to a PPC (+1 slot see?) and a medium laser could upgrade to a large laser (+1 slot see?).

[BlackIronTarkus]

Wow I must say that the amount of work you did is incredible! I have a lot of respect for that because I know how hard it is.

But as you can see, you will hurt a lot of feelings with your idea because it limits people builds right now, even those that are not optimal. For exemple I like to run 2 gauss in both arms for cataphract, its not especialy good, but I like to... with your idea I cant anymore.

[3rdworld]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

I disagree - if you level the playing field for all mechs, then others become more viable, because they excel at filling a certain role. I know what you're saying with XLs, but I think that by giving mechs an identity, if you will, you give more of a reason to pilot them.

Giving each mech a niche is exactly what I am trying to do.

But hardpoints sizes aren't a level playing field. There are better stock mechs than others. Certain mechs carry awful/tiny weapon loadouts and will only get worse with restrictions. The 9M is better than the 8Q in every way.

If you want the 8Q to have the identity of being the best PPC boat among the assaults, you will need to do something other than hardpoint restrictions.

And if restrictions don't solve the problem, then they are superfluous and only stand to reduce customization.

[Soy]

If this game didn't have customization, what would be the point again?

Playing an even more limited experience with even more linearity?

*projectile vomits onto the OP*

[Acid Phase]

BlackIronTarkus, on 11 June 2013 - 06:58 AM, said:

For exemple I like to run 2 gauss in both arms for cataphract, its not especialy good, but I like to... with your idea I cant anymore.

Well you see, that's the beauty of it. The 4X stock brings 2-AC5s. Harpoint restrictions would allow you to mount ballistics on those arms close to that variant. It's a 4 slot Auto canon, so the sensible transition would be to mount 2-AC2s per arm. Not a crazy transition from 4 slot to 7 slot weapon. It's meant to make the customization make sense.

[Tarrasque]

3rdworld, on 11 June 2013 - 07:00 AM, said:

But hardpoints sizes aren't a level playing field. There are better stock mechs than others. Certain mechs carry awful/tiny weapon loadouts and will only get worse with restrictions. The 9M is better than the 8Q in every way.

If you want the 8Q to have the identity of being the best PPC boat among the assaults, you will need to do something other than hardpoint restrictions.

And if restrictions don't solve the problem, then they are superfluous and only stand to reduce customization.

So we need to have one solution to rule them all? We couldn't have multiple solutions to one problem?

Why does everyone have the impression that this is the only thing anyone wants to do, with no further balancing? This would solve a good half of the problem, in my summation. It's absolutely not superfluous to give certain mechs identities in line with what their design is, otherwise, I'd argue that the choice of variants themselves are superfluous - why not just allow mechs to customize as you see fit, and throw out variants altogether?

[Und3rSc0re]

Koreanese, on 11 June 2013 - 05:33 AM, said:

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

Come on koreanese tell me you are joking? If this hardpoint limitation goes through people will switch to awesomes since it doesn't change the current ppc problem.

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

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.

With the synergy thing pgi will shove people into building a mech the same way as every other guy, what happened to build diversity without being gimped on 10% damage?

Edited by Und3rSc0re, 11 June 2013 - 07:10 AM.

[mania3c]

Acid Phase, on 11 June 2013 - 07:06 AM, said:

Well you see, that's the beauty of it. The 4X stock brings 2-AC5s. Harpoint restrictions would allow you to mount ballistics on those arms close to that variant. It's a 4 slot Auto canon, so the sensible transition would be to mount 2-AC2s per arm. Not a crazy transition from 4 slot to 7 slot weapon. It's meant to make the customization make sense.

that's not beauty ..but abomination of current system..what is nice on that anyway??

[3rdworld]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 07:08 AM, said:

So we need to have one solution to rule them all? We couldn't have multiple solutions to one problem?

Why does everyone have the impression that this is the only thing anyone wants to do, with no further balancing? This would solve a good half of the problem, in my summation. It's absolutely not superfluous to give certain mechs identities in line with what their design is, otherwise, I'd argue that the choice of variants themselves are superfluous - why not just allow mechs to customize as you see fit, and throw out variants altogether?

Because I believe you could accomplish the goal of niches or identities to mechs without hardpoint restrictions. And if that is true than restrictions are not needed.

Ideally we would only have a single variant of each mech and it would be completely customizable. But concessions had to be made as selling more mechs is the chosen source of revenue for the game.

[Tarrasque]

Soy, on 11 June 2013 - 07:04 AM, said:

If this game didn't have customization, what would be the point again?

Playing an even more limited experience with even more linearity?

*projectile vomits onto the OP*

I don't think anyone (again) is suggesting no customization man, we're saying that the system in place now is far more free than restrictive, which makes no sense.

I guess what it really comes down to is theres people who don't care if things make sense in a game as long as they can mount the most maxed out possible build, and those of us who are detail oriented (read: OCD) enough that those things distract from enjoyment of the game.

[OneEyed Jack]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

I can't read the massive block of text you dropped,

Bolded your part to separate it better. it was too many points for me to want to break it up with quotes.

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

as for the K-2:

Yep, you're 100% correct (obviously), the K-2 is a refit of the C1 that was meant to be a 'direct fire support' mech. What's your point? I specified one variant because I didn't feel like typing others, I figured readers would get the gist that there are defined roles for variants of each mech.

My point was exactly what I said. It's not like the K2 is the only variant in canon to widely differ from the fluff description, which is based only on the basic model. But you try to use that fluff as support of your position that mechs should only be usable in the battlefield role the original model was designed for.

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 06:50 AM, said:

I disagree - if you level the playing field for all mechs, then others become more viable, because they excel at filling a certain role. I know what you're saying with XLs, but I think that by giving mechs an identity, if you will, you give more of a reason to pilot them.

Giving each mech a niche is exactly what I am trying to do.

Whatever you may be "trying to do," you obviously have no grasp on the power-gamer mentality, or the herd instinct that causes others to follow them.

[Soy]

Tarrasque, on 11 June 2013 - 07:13 AM, said:

I don't think anyone (again) is suggesting no customization man, we're saying that the system in place now is far more free than restrictive, which makes no sense.

I guess what it really comes down to is theres people who don't care if things make sense in a game as long as they can mount the most maxed out possible build, and those of us who are detail oriented (read: OCD) enough that those things distract from enjoyment of the game.

Speaking for myself, I'm not only a practitioner of min/maxing, I'm a practitioner of max/mining.

Stuff like this OPs idea kills both of those. **** arbitrary restrictions.

Edited by Soy, 11 June 2013 - 07:15 AM.