58 replies to this topic

[Zultor]

I would love to see something done to limit the mech customization especially cheese builds, however, I am not a fan of gimmick solutions. I would also love to see a return to balanced mech design instead of the current 4 PPC or 9 medium laser strategy.

OP's suggestion to me feels unnatural and ill conceived. Firstly, I think newer players would simply find it confusing as they wouldn't understand why a weapon acts one way in one slot and differently in another slot.

Also I have a real problem with the missile system they have today which the OP wants to keep. How is it that a LRM 20 shoved in a 5 slot missile launcher fires 4 times in a row, to get rid of all 20 missiles, at a faster rate than an LRM5 in that same slot can fire 4 consecutive times. A LRM20 doesn't load missiles faster than a LRM5. The act of firing and moving those missiles is partly responsible for generating heat but isn't taken into account. In the current scheme that LRM 20 should be producing the same heat as the LRM 5 shot 4 times. Similarly a weapon too big to fit in a slot doesn't magically produce more heat. Gimmicks like these aren't good for the game.

I would like to go to a system where mechs were forced to stay within their original design parameters and allowed to be customized one level/tier up or down. For example you could remove a medium laser and put in a small or large but not remove a small and put in a PPC. Similar you can't go from AC/2 to AC/20. Factories do this not grease monkies working in a garage. They can only make minor modifications.

This would also satisfy another one of my pet peeves and that is we need to go back to a system were mechs were basically known entities especially with ECM blocking identification. When I see a mech at 1000m I shouldn't have to wait to get hit to know what weapons it is carrying. Seeing a mech an experienced player should be able to identify it's general "loadout" (laser, missile, etc) and "role" (long medium, short range, etc) by sight and not have to wait for some 1970-era targeting computer to magically figure it out (how exactly does the computer know a LRM20 is shoved in a LRM 5 slot without the mech firing?).

Edited by Zultor, 19 June 2013 - 12:52 PM.

[Otto Cannon]

Zyllos, on 19 June 2013 - 12:01 PM, said:

No, instead, if following your idea, is that you just take the mech with the best silhouette and there would be no point in playing all other mechs.

That is why there are hardpoint and engine restrictions. So that each mech is unique.

I think you misunderstand, 'my idea' is to leave the mechlab how it is and not add further unnecessary limitations. In a perfect balanced game you could have no limits, but for the game we have in reality I think the mechlab works fine. There are issues with certain builds having too much pinpoint alpha damage, but that needs to be solved by tweaking convergence.

[Pht]

I wonder how many times this is going to come up...








---------------------------------------------

"Blue" is mislabeled. It should be "equipment" which mostly means you can put heatsinks there, maybe ammo.

Should be pretty straight forwards.

Things that those familiar with the MW4 lab and the parent game won't see so obviously:

Don't allow internal structure type to be changed - don't allow engines to be changed (instead, look to the things in Tac Ops, like sprinting, for a wide 'Mech performance envelope). cockpit, gyro, and actuators (hip, arm joints) should not be allowed to be messed with (with the single exclusion of omnimechs with omni arms removing the hand and I think the lower actuators for using ppcs and gauss?).

Omnimechs can't modify their armor or otherwise do anything that would cross over from non-omni areas into omni-slots - otherwise, they're no longer modular, in addition to the above restrictions.

This gives a quick way to resolve penetrating hits and allows for the armor/damage behaviors to be ported with ease in a way that fits the fluidity of a VG with ease, and it stops (as much as the original mechs meant to!) munchkins from lunacy.

Omnimechs might have to be somehow restricted in number, because they'll be (as they should be and as the Lore blurbs them) scary, as far as loadouts are concerned.

One of the other things this would necessarily bring with it is that all the variant chassis of a base chassis (non-omnimech chassis, that is) would actually have to be in the game. There would be a large field to choose from - which would be even more fun if they managed to get the combat setup where they could handle the 'Mech quirks (marauder is supposed to be deadly in combat, that sort of thing).

This would stop the MW3 problem where all 'Mechs are rendered into nothing more than visually different bags full of guns - munchkin min/max Sheol misery, and still allow for a LOT of customization.

so, basically, instead of making a "single base chassis" and trying in vain to represent ALL of the stock builds with hardpoints, you put in ALL of the base chassis with each base chassis's specific hardpoint setup built off of that 'mech's loadout.

Edited by Pht, 19 June 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[PanzerMagier]

good idea, needs exceptions to certain mech variants, like the hunchi 4p.

[Sybreed]

PanzerMagier, on 19 June 2013 - 11:53 PM, said:

good idea, needs exceptions to certain mech variants, like the hunchi 4p.

what do you mean? Exceptions ilke making the 4P able to mount large lasers?

[Jestun]

All this will do is change the FotM mechs from the ones which can currently be customized into the most effecient mechs into the ones which can be customized into the most efficient mechs with the new hardpoint system.

It doesn't resolve the balance issues, it just changes which chassis have the best builds.

[3rdworld]

Jestun, on 20 June 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

All this will do is change the FotM mechs from the ones which can currently be customized into the most effecient mechs into the ones which can be customized into the most efficient mechs with the new hardpoint system.

It doesn't resolve the balance issues, it just changes which chassis have the best builds.

You can tell them that 1,000 times, and they will just ignore it 1,000 times.

[Sybreed]

3rdworld, on 20 June 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

You can tell them that 1,000 times, and they will just ignore it 1,000 times.

first of all, we ignore that "argument" because there's no way to prove it and could be entirely false.

Second of all, I'd take that system described in OP over Paul's heat penalty system any time.

[RG Notch]

Sybreed, on 20 June 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

first of all, we ignore that "argument" because there's no way to prove it and could be entirely false.

Second of all, I'd take that system described in OP over Paul's heat penalty system any time.

Why? Paul's system might be perfect and there's no way to prove it. Oh that only works one way.

[3rdworld]

Sybreed, on 20 June 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

first of all, we ignore that "argument" because there's no way to prove it and could be entirely false.

Second of all, I'd take that system described in OP over Paul's heat penalty system any time.

I can't prove it?

Players play the best mech. The best mech boats the best weapon. Hardpoint restrictions do not remove boating, just limit boats to naturally boating mechs.

Therefore:

As long as there is a mech that in its stock configuration boats which ever weapon is the current best (or its hardpoint cap equivalent), restrictions do nothing as players wishing to play the best, will simply play that mech.

Any system is better than paul's. It is pointless on paper, and will likely be worse in game.

[Sybreed]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

Why? Paul's system might be perfect and there's no way to prove it. Oh that only works one way.

we already know it won't affect any of the 3 PPC + Gauss builds and his ideas are clear enough to extrapolate how it will affect the game

If you can't do the math...

3rdworld, on 20 June 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

I can't prove it?

Players play the best mech. The best mech boats the best weapon. Hardpoint restrictions do not remove boating, just limit boats to naturally boating mechs.

Therefore:

As long as there is a mech that in its stock configuration boats which ever weapon is the current best (or its hardpoint cap equivalent), restrictions do nothing as players wishing to play the best, will simply play that mech.

Any system is better than paul's. It is pointless on paper, and will likely be worse in game.

Of course, I also thought of that. For that system to make sense, all weapons need to be balanced. But, I also said elsewhere that there are numerous issues at perfect weapon balance won't fix.

Edited by Sybreed, 20 June 2013 - 10:16 AM.

[RG Notch]

Sybreed, on 20 June 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

we already know it won't affect any of the 3 PPC + Gauss builds and his ideas are clear enough to extrapolate how it will affect the game

If you can't do the math...


Of course, I also thought of that. For that system to make sense, all weapons need to be balanced. But, I also said elsewhere that there are numerous issues at perfect weapon balance won't fix.

If you can't understand how min maxers work ... ( I can do this all day and you'll still be wrong)

[Sybreed]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 10:21 AM, said:

If you can't understand how min maxers work ... ( I can do this all day and you'll still be wrong)

you haven't made a single point so far, all you do is say something that makes you sound smart and end it with an emoticon. Especially that last post which actually provided nothing to boost your point of view. That doesn't make me wrong a little bit, sorry. But, I'm gonna stop answering to you as this would detract from the brilliant idea in the OP, and I wouldn't want that

Edited by Sybreed, 20 June 2013 - 10:34 AM.

[RG Notch]

Sybreed, on 20 June 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

you haven't made a single point so far, all you do is say something that makes you sound smart and end it with an emoticon. Especially that last post which actually meant nothing in the current discussion. That doesn't make me wrong a little bit, sorry. But, I'm gonna stop answering to you as this would detract from the brilliant idea in the OP, and I wouldn't want that

That's because you either don't understand or won't even try. Don't be sorry, you're still wrong. It's ok people don't like to admit they're wrong. You won't be the first person I've proved wrong who then ignores me. But ignoring me won't make you any more right. you're even wrong about what I post, I don't post things that make me look smart, I post things that make you look dumb. Then you compound it by proving me correct. You post stuff you think makes you look smart but it's not working.
There's little more to be said on topic. People who don't understand the underlying issue continue to try to pointless treat the symptoms while ignoring the real cause. Lack of variety isn't caused by too much customization. Lack of variety is caused by poor weapon balance and the desire of min maxers to play the "best" builds. Min maxers will no more play a variant that isn't the "best" than they would utilize a load out that isn't the "best". So balance weapons or remove min maxers or you won't have variety.

[Jestun]

Sybreed, on 20 June 2013 - 09:26 AM, said:

first of all, we ignore that "argument" because there's no way to prove it and could be entirely false.

Second of all, I'd take that system described in OP over Paul's heat penalty system any time.

Unless you can prove that this suggested change would make the game 100% perfectly balanced then you must concede that certain builds will still be better than others.

And unless every chassis can run that build you must concede that the best builds will still be limited to specific chassis.

So how can you deny that there will still be a FotM?

[Dock Steward]

RG Notch, on 20 June 2013 - 10:41 AM, said:

So balance weapons or remove min maxers or you won't have variety.

Just curious: do you believe you can remove min/maxers or was that rhetorical? If so, how would you go about doing that?

[RG Notch]

Dock Steward, on 20 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

Just curious: do you believe you can remove min/maxers or was that rhetorical? If so, how would you go about doing that?

Sadly you can't really remove them. Most games would be better off without the win at any cost mentality but it will always be there. Some of them really think that gaming the system makes you good at the game or "skilled".

[TsOrion]

i think they really need a hardpoint system be it hard or soft to mitigate qq and facilitate pew pew people still play mw4 and people loved mw LL take some pointers and you will mantain the hard earned balance of those games

[MustrumRidcully]

Don't make it too complicated. We want to stop people from getting all the neat perks of boating, which is all about convergence + group fire.

So, this is the only penalty our hard point system needs is one:

If you exceed a hardpoints size/weight limit with a weapon, that weapon cannot be fired together with any other weapon. Whenever any other weapon fires, the oversized weapon goes on a 0.25 second cooldown, and whenever it fires itself, all other weapons go on a 0.25 second cooldown, too.

People can still build AC/20 Jagermechs and Dual Gauss Catapults and 6 PPC Stalkers or 6 SRM Splatapults or 4 LRM20s Stalkers or whatever. These mechs will be as heat-efficient or heat-ineffecient as they are now. But they are forced to chain-fire, and spread their damage just as badly as a mech with a mixed weapon loadout.

And the beauty of it - you can futureproof it. Should the Thunder Hawk come to M:WO, you can still say. "Sorry, you migh be carrying 3 Gauss Rifles in stock, but only one of those hard points is actually Gauss Rifle sized, you'll have to chain-fire". It's still plenty powerful, but not too powerful. And no one needs to complain that this mech is OP because it gets to break our precaution, nor complain it's gimped because it suddenly produces more heat then it would have in the table top. (Or that the heat it produces is irrelevant since it's boating the most heat efficient weapon in the entire game, bar completely heatless weapons.)