58 replies to this topic

[Mahnmut]

NOTE: Re-posting this here instead of suggestions forum as suggested (from here). Mod's - feel free to merge and/or close the other topic.


The idea of having hard point restrictions has been suggested many times but not considered by devs since it would limit mech customization. I tend to agree with the devs but at the same time I do think that hard point limits would solve in-game balance issues.

So, rather than having hard limits on weapon hard point sizes, why not impose a soft limit where each hard point location would have a default size (similar to how missiles currently do)? If you exceed this soft limit than you will impose a penalty for each additional crit slot used.

For example:
Energy - Heat penalty (1 Hps)
Ballistic - Tonnage penalty (0.5t or 1t)
Misslies - Soft limit already exists so no need to change.

If an energy hard point had a soft limit of 1 and you placed a LL in that location you would incur a 1 Hps penalty. If you placed a PPC in the same spot a 2 Hps penatly would apply. Similar would apply for ballistic weapons except that it would cost you tonnage.

Using this system you will still be able to customize your mech how you see fit, however you need to make a decision if the heat/weight penalty is worth it. It would also address the issue of large weapon alpha builds that is currently an issue.

Thoughts?

[AntiCitizenJuan]

I would welcome any Hardpoint Limitation system at this point. This game is ******* ********, and I can barely stomach playing more than a few games a day.

[Pater Mors]

Just copying my reply over from the other thread:

It's a good idea, but I still think there are simpler ways of fixing MWO's current problems without needing to add any additional systems.

I don't like HP restrictions. The only reason people are talking about them is the current Alpha Strike meta and there are heaps of good ways of changing that without taking a hit to customization.

[Mahnmut]

The thing is though, it wouldn't really restrict you from customizing you mech. You just have to make some trade-offs which adds a little more depth to how you build your mech. Currently it's all about cramming the biggest weapons you can carry making a smaller number of builds viable anyway.

For the sake of discussion which other options do you think are the better solutions?

[Pater Mors]

Mahnmut, on 15 June 2013 - 10:24 PM, said:

The thing is though, it wouldn't really restrict you from customizing you mech. You just have to make some trade-offs which adds a little more depth to how you build your mech. Currently it's all about cramming the biggest weapons you can carry making a smaller number of builds viable anyway.

For the sake of discussion which other options do you think are the better solutions?

See my signature, but in a nutshell:

A lowered heat cap with higher dissipation and properly implemented heat penalties. Stops the massive Alpha meta without stopping Alpha's completely. Lowers overall Alpha damage but increases overall DPS meaning that armor values can be returned to normal (or at least, closer to normal). Makes smaller weapons more viable although they still need some serious looking at anyway. All builds are still viable but super-boats require much more skill to pilot effectively, which is as it should be. Even benefits builds like the swayback if you run it with ML's in banks of 3 instead of Alpha Striking everything in sight (higher diss means much better heat management for something like a swayback).

All of that can be done with the current systems in place, without having to add any additional systems or remove any customizability.

[Mahnmut]

Pater Mors, on 15 June 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

See my signature, but in a nutshell:

A lowered heat cap with higher dissipation and properly implemented heat penalties. Stops the massive Alpha meta without stopping Alpha's completely. Lowers overall Alpha damage but increases overall DPS meaning that armor values can be returned to normal (or at least, closer to normal). Makes smaller weapons more viable although they still need some serious looking at anyway. All builds are still viable but super-boats require much more skill to pilot effectively, which is as it should be. Even benefits builds like the swayback if you run it with ML's in banks of 3 instead of Alpha Striking everything in sight (higher diss means much better heat management for something like a swayback).

All of that can be done with the current systems in place, without having to add any additional systems or remove any customizability.

I do like the idea. It does help solve the energy weapon issues - but what about ballistic weapons where heat isn't such an issue?

[One Medic Army]

Mahnmut, on 16 June 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

I do like the idea. It does help solve the energy weapon issues - but what about ballistic weapons where heat isn't such an issue?

AC/20s do cost quite a bit of heat, as do AC/2s.
AC/5 and AC/10 are pretty cool, Gauss is very cool, but Gauss explodes, which makes boating it fairly hard since the only safe place for it is in the arm.
AC/5 and AC/10 are already listed as fairly weak weapons, since they rely on DPS rather than instantaneous dmg, and they weigh quite a lot for the DPS they put out.

Really its just Gauss and UAC/5s that'd cause issues.

[Pater Mors]

Mahnmut, on 16 June 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

I do like the idea. It does help solve the energy weapon issues - but what about ballistic weapons where heat isn't such an issue?

Ballistics should suffer convergence issues as any real life ballistic weapon will no matter how sophisticated. CryEngine already has mechanics for realistic ballistics and I think they need to be used a lot better than the hitscan like system we have at the moment. I keep going back to this example, but what we currently have is a Jeep with three .50 cal machine guns on the top and we can put as many bullets as we like through the bullseyes of targets at 100, 200, 300 and 472m within the space of a few seconds while moving parallel to the targets at 120kph. That just needs to be dropped from the game entirely. It's arcade like.

Edited by Pater Mors, 16 June 2013 - 12:20 AM.

[Mahnmut]

One Medic Army, on 16 June 2013 - 12:07 AM, said:

AC/20s do cost quite a bit of heat, as do AC/2s.
AC/5 and AC/10 are pretty cool, Gauss is very cool, but Gauss explodes, which makes boating it fairly hard since the only safe place for it is in the arm.
AC/5 and AC/10 are already listed as fairly weak weapons, since they rely on DPS rather than instantaneous dmg, and they weigh quite a lot for the DPS they put out.

Really its just Gauss and UAC/5s that'd cause issues.

That is a good summary. I proposed my idea more as a reaction to the devs solution of heat penalties which I didn't like but I'm happy to lend my support to Pater's idea. It is a much cleaner solution than the dev's so I've added my vote in support.

[Sybreed]

you know why I like this idea?

It would make the Awesome the PPC assault it's supposed to be. All other mechs strapping PPCs where MLasers used to be would have to deal with increased heat/slower ROF, etc

Hell, it's better than Paul's proposed alpha heat penalty system.

Good idea.

Pater Mors, on 15 June 2013 - 10:43 PM, said:

See my signature, but in a nutshell:

A lowered heat cap with higher dissipation and properly implemented heat penalties. Stops the massive Alpha meta without stopping Alpha's completely. Lowers overall Alpha damage but increases overall DPS meaning that armor values can be returned to normal (or at least, closer to normal). Makes smaller weapons more viable although they still need some serious looking at anyway. All builds are still viable but super-boats require much more skill to pilot effectively, which is as it should be. Even benefits builds like the swayback if you run it with ML's in banks of 3 instead of Alpha Striking everything in sight (higher diss means much better heat management for something like a swayback).

All of that can be done with the current systems in place, without having to add any additional systems or remove any customizability.

If you keep convergence, you can never go back to normal armor values.

[3rdworld]

Mahnmut, on 16 June 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

I do like the idea. It does help solve the energy weapon issues - but what about ballistic weapons where heat isn't such an issue?

Ballistics are so heavy / large which generally places the limits on how many you can really use.

In a situation which favors DPS (what he is trying to accomplish) increasing their CD would probably be the best "nerf".

Gauss is a good weapon, but the best mech for carrying them, can only use 2. Not to mention 12v12 is going to put even larger ammo constraints on all ballistics.

[Sybreed]

Mahnmut, on 16 June 2013 - 12:00 AM, said:

I do like the idea. It does help solve the energy weapon issues - but what about ballistic weapons where heat isn't such an issue?

could be a ROF "nerf"

edit`: 3rdWorld beat me to it

Edited by Sybreed, 16 June 2013 - 08:59 AM.

[Sybreed]

bumping this cause this deserves more attention

[Otto Cannon]

Utterly pointless. This wouldn't solve anything at all and it would make the game much less fun. We already have hardpoints that were never in Battletech.

When the game is balanced properly it doesn't matter what you build in the mechlab because it won't give you an advantage.

[RG Notch]

Still posting these suggestions since CB and not the slightest indication that these limitations will ever occur. I salute the dedication of these folks, of course knowing when to quit is a good idea but keep at it, maybe the 10,000th time will be the charm.

[Sybreed]

Otto Cannon, on 16 June 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Utterly pointless. This wouldn't solve anything at all and it would make the game much less fun. We already have hardpoints that were never in Battletech.

When the game is balanced properly it doesn't matter what you build in the mechlab because it won't give you an advantage.

this game will also be pointless when everyone will be gone and believe me, CW is not this game's savior.

RG Notch, on 16 June 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Still posting these suggestions since CB and not the slightest indication that these limitations will ever occur. I salute the dedication of these folks, of course knowing when to quit is a good idea but keep at it, maybe the 10,000th time will be the charm.

you haven't even read the OP have you? What he suggested lets you keep your precious customization but makes you think twice before putting the biggest weapon on every hardpoint available.

[One Medic Army]

Sybreed, on 16 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

this game will also be pointless when everyone will be gone and believe me, CW is not this game's savior.

you haven't even read the OP have you? What he suggested lets you keep your precious customization but makes you think twice before putting the biggest weapon on every hardpoint available.

Here's the problem.
Much of the variety in the lighter categories (Medium, Light) comes from mounting larger weapons than intended in some of the hardpoints.
Said mechs are also already very tight on heat/tonnage, due to needing to be able to damage assault mechs while still running at 150kph, or running standard engines.

Is anyone arguing that a Hunch-P mounting a few large lasers or a pair of PPCs needs to be nerfed? The Hunch-P mounting 9 ML is by far the stronger build.
Same deal with the Blackjack-1 and 1DC, they come stock with AC/2s. Are you really going to nerf 2 of the crappy blackjacks by making them pay even more tonnage to mount a ballistic that isn't crap?

Edited by One Medic Army, 16 June 2013 - 11:38 AM.

[Tsig]

Honestly, I would dearly love something similar to the customization from MW4. You get a certain number of slots for weapons, each weapon takes up a certain number of slots. If you can't fit the weapon in, you can't take it.


Let's use the Hunchback 4P for an example. 6 Medium Lasers in the hunch. Each laser takes up 1 slot. Large Lasers take up 2 slots, PPCs take up 3. So you could fit 3 LLs or 2 PPCs into the hunch, provided you free up the tonnage for it.

Instant balance without screwing over customization. You can be your own unique little snowflake, just like everybody else. Get rid of this crap High-Alpha meta and bring back the actual gameplay.

[RG Notch]

Sybreed, on 16 June 2013 - 11:29 AM, said:

this game will also be pointless when everyone will be gone and believe me, CW is not this game's savior.

you haven't even read the OP have you? What he suggested lets you keep your precious customization but makes you think twice before putting the biggest weapon on every hardpoint available.

Still not getting any hard point limits so why bother reading it? Is this really different from the previous 9,999 attempts to remove the mech lab? That's all these restrictions boil down to. When there is any hardpoint limitation other than we have now, feel free to bring this post up and you can tell me so.
I get some people don't want any customization and want mechs to be what they are "supposed" to be, whatever that means. They have stopped saying it directly because it gets little traction so they try to spin it in new ways. All this will lead to is different mechs being the popular ones and not add any real diversity. The only way to get real diversity is real balance in weapons. Making it so you can't or don't want to take certain combos only make other combos better if weapons remain unbalanced. You want more diversity, fix balance or remove min maxers. Min maxers won't be foiled by less options, in fact that just makes it easier for them to find the next FotM.
So don't let me stop you from posting your great plan to fix the game by removing customization, although you should probably let the devs ignoring it constantly give you pause. Still like I said 10,000X the charm perhaps.

[Tsig]

RG Notch, on 16 June 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Still not getting any hard point limits so why bother reading it? Is this really different from the previous 9,999 attempts to remove the mech lab? That's all these restrictions boil down to. When there is any hardpoint limitation other than we have now, feel free to bring this post up and you can tell me so.
I get some people don't want any customization and want mechs to be what they are "supposed" to be, whatever that means. They have stopped saying it directly because it gets little traction so they try to spin it in new ways. All this will lead to is different mechs being the popular ones and not add any real diversity. The only way to get real diversity is real balance in weapons. Making it so you can't or don't want to take certain combos only make other combos better if weapons remain unbalanced. You want more diversity, fix balance or remove min maxers. Min maxers won't be foiled by less options, in fact that just makes it easier for them to find the next FotM.
So don't let me stop you from posting your great plan to fix the game by removing customization, although you should probably let the devs ignoring it constantly give you pause. Still like I said 10,000X the charm perhaps.

You keep harping on about the people wanting limited customization. Saying we "Want to remove the Mechlab." Honestly, I don't want the Mechlab to go anywhere, but I don't think we should be able to fit a Gauss Rifle into the same slot that was occupied by a Machine Gun just a few seconds ago.