24 replies to this topic

[Petroshka]

The heavy hardpoint is a hardpoint specifically designed to sustain high heat, recoil and mechanical friction generated from certain weapons. In a heavy hardpoint you can of course fit a non-heavy weapon instead of a heavy weapon.

Heavy weapons are:
LRM20
AC/20
Gauss
ERPPC
PPC

The Plan: Re-design some existing mechs to replace one or a couple of their hardpoints for heavy hardpoints.

For example:
- The hunchback 4G gets 1 heavy ballistic hardpoint in its right torso, 1 HB, 2 B
- The jager DD gets 1 heavy ballistic hardpoint in its right arm. 1 HB, 2 B.

etc.

Yeah, this is an attempt to tweak the "instant pinpoint 40+ alpha" situation.

[Gaan Cathal]

Better ways to do it. All this will end up doing is making mechs with a lot of heavy hardpoints the only viable options, thus limiting variety. People won't put a **** build on a mech they like because it's not a allowed a good build. They'll put up with a good mech they like less. What needs to happen is actually making more builds viable, not trying to force people not to run the ones that are.

[Pater Mors]

Yeah sorry, I have to agree with Gaan. Right now we have a bad problem of FOTM builds. All this will do is make one or two certain chassis out of each class the 'best' and you'll see them spammed constantly. There's better ways to fix the current problems in MWO without limiting customization.

[ExtremeA79]

Where is the machine gun here in this poll? I want to vote it as heavy.

[Zyllos]

Gaan Cathal, on 19 June 2013 - 11:50 AM, said:

Better ways to do it. All this will end up doing is making mechs with a lot of heavy hardpoints the only viable options, thus limiting variety. People won't put a **** build on a mech they like because it's not a allowed a good build. They'll put up with a good mech they like less. What needs to happen is actually making more builds viable, not trying to force people not to run the ones that are.

That is assuming you don't enforce tonnage limitations, fixes to pin point convergence, and more weapon balances.

Plus, the same argument can be made with the current hardpoint descriptions, which we already see. The largest of mechs that can equip a fast enough engine, with the most cooling and large weapons, coupled with a good silhouette are the current FOTMs.

Having additional hardpoints like this is to bring uniqueness to each chassis. Want 3+ PPCs? Play an Awesome. Want an AC/20 on a 50t mech? Play the Lo-Wang or HBK-4G.

How many people do you think would continue playing the Stalker if it couldn't equip all it's energy slots with PPCs?

[Petroshka]

Consider that FOTM will always exist no matter what you do. People will always attempt to optimize builds to their fullest, but at least this idea would prevent people from making ridiculous builds such as the 6x PPC insta-corer, or the cheesebomb jager.

Like Zyllos said, it could be used to give certain models or variants a distinct flavor that others do not have.

Quote

All this will end up doing is making mechs with a lot of heavy hardpoints the only viable options,

Well, it's up to the implementation to break it of course. If they put 2 HB on one jager .. obviously this would be the cheesebomber chassis, and that would be a mistake because they want to keep away from the instant 40+ pinpoint alpha.

It's up to the architects to design in the heavy hardpoints so that no chassis is favored.

Edited by Petroshka, 19 June 2013 - 02:22 PM.

[Mudhutwarrior]

The dual gauss dual ac 20 builds don't make sense when assults cant do it. Of course not much here seems to make sense anyways I am finding out.

[Pater Mors]

Petroshka, on 19 June 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

Consider that FOTM will always exist no matter what you do. People will always attempt to optimize builds to their fullest, but at least this idea would prevent people from making ridiculous builds such as the 6x PPC insta-corer, or the cheesebomb jager.

I agree that FOTM will always exist, but there are ways to minimize it without penalizing customization. People should not be prevented from making ridiculous builds. They should be made to understand that ridiculous builds have (in theory) huge weaknesses, far above and beyond the benefit of the ridiculousness even if you have a considerable amount of skill. The problem that we have at the moment is those weaknesses do not exist as they should.

Extreme builds should require extreme skill. Extreme builds should not be eliminated for the sake of a band-aid solution to fix MWO's current problems.

Edited by Pater Mors, 19 June 2013 - 02:32 PM.

[Petroshka]

Pater Mors, on 19 June 2013 - 02:31 PM, said:

Extreme builds should require extreme skill.

That I can agree with. But how do you introduce skill?

My thoughts. Some builds should be safe and recommended, like a family van. The user can slam the gas pedal without worry. He won't go particularly fast, but he won't be in danger either. Other builds should be like an F1 car. Slamming the gas could risk you millions of dollars in damages, and probably would kill you or others around you. The benefit is that you are driving one of the fastest things on four wheels. (In many driving games, RWD cars are hard to control, but often outperform similar FWD cars, which are easier to handle.)

Take an example of a few extreme builds, and lay out your thoughts on how skill could be used to "equalize" them.

[Pater Mors]

Petroshka, on 19 June 2013 - 02:44 PM, said:

That I can agree with. But how do you introduce skill?

Take an example of a few extreme builds, and lay out your thoughts on how skill could be used to "equalize" them.

The first, and one of the biggest, things is to lower the heat cap and raise heat dissipation and introduce penalties for running hot and overheating. Instantly, high end PPC boats become harder to play. You can still definitely run a 4PPC Stalker, but there's now no way you can Alpha without hurting yourself. With Mech Quirks, things like the 3PPC Awesome or the 8ML Hunchback can be given heat benefits when using the loadouts they're designed for.

The second is to introduce realistic ballistics. CryEngine is certainly capable of it. It's arcade point-click at the moment with 100% ballistic accuracy. Ballistics, no matter how far tech goes will always have inherent inaccuracy due to physics.

There are quite a number of other good ideas floating around here in regards to things like making SHS and DHS very different. For example SHS could have lower heat cap, but higher dissipation and DHS has the opposite. That makes them truly different and presents an actual choice on how you're going to run a build.

See my heat penalties topic in my sig for more detail on the heat stuff. I agree with messing with convergence, but I reckon it should come in the form of a heat penalty. So yeah, you can still insta-kill someone with a 4PPC Alpha, but in doing so you've just crippled your convergence, speed and probably fried a bunch of heat sinks in the process. A 6PPC Stalker would likely explode instantly on the first Alpha, however, you can still play a 6PPC Stalker, it just requires a hell of a lot more skill now to decide how many to fire and when so that you don't suffer penalties.

Now, to be skilled, you actually have to consider your build, your heat, your skill with ballistics, when to Alpha and when to chain or bank fire etc etc.

Small weapons make a come back (they still need tweaks though), the flamer has a great place in combat by keeping mechs hot and forcing them to suffer soft heat penalties (see my heat post about the soft penalties), weapons drop off back to ones and twos which is how it's supposed to be. Build variety increases but boats are still very viable in skilled hands.

Edited by Pater Mors, 19 June 2013 - 03:02 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Currently we have a handful of FOTM builds that work on a bunch of random mechs. This would mean we had a handful of FOTM builds that would work on less mechs. Ergo less variety.

[Asmudius Heng]

Hardpoint restrictions are not about balance they are about mech diversity and uniqueness.

Though as a side effect it does allow more ganular changes to varients if they are considered OP for whatever reason for tweaking as needed.

As more and more mechs are put into the game, each mech and varient is beginning to feel less interesting and different - this allows a greater range mech mechs to fill roles rather than a few mechs being able to fill any role.

Balance however is a combination of many other things.

Please stop using hardpoints limitations as a prime balancing factor it is not - it is however a good idea for mech character and dicersity as long as the weapons are better balanced.

[Pater Mors]

Asmudius Heng, on 19 June 2013 - 04:04 PM, said:

Hardpoint restrictions are not about balance they are about mech diversity and uniqueness.

Only in theory. Or TT or fiction novels.

In reality, there will be 5 or 6 best chassis that will be the only ones you ever see in the game. If we achieve weapon balance, as you suggest, that will be better for diversity by far than limiting customization.

Edited by Pater Mors, 19 June 2013 - 04:10 PM.

[Asmudius Heng]

Pater Mors, on 19 June 2013 - 04:09 PM, said:

Only in theory. Or TT or fiction novels.

In reality, there will be 5 or 6 best chassis that will be the only ones you ever see in the game. If we achieve weapon balance, as you suggest, that will be better for diversity by far than limiting customization.

As i said weapons balance first - but there will still be better hit boxed mechs, better agility mechs, mechs with more hardpoints and as such more chance of diversity.

The more mechs we get the more obsolete ones we will have.

The only other idea i would like to see to help create mech character is quirks related to the stock role of he mech that would give small additional bonuses if you stuck to thier original concept. better heat dissipation for an awesome for example, stalker could get some bonuse for having a mix of weapons, the hunchback could perhaps increase the armour on its hunch by more than the usual but have its other torso lessened in max armour.

Things like that that keep the original intent of the design something to aim for without restricting peoples custom fun i would also agree with. I just want each mech to have more soul, more personality, and role warfare to be a higher priority.

There will always be best mechs, best builds - i just want to see more of those on the higher end of competition, and on the mid range many more acceptable and functional builds.

[FupDup]

Hardpoints should just be based on the amount of critical slots that a weapon takes up. For instance, each arm on the Catapult K2 would have 3-4 crits worth of energy slots (i.e. 4 ML, 2 LL, 1 PPC + 1 ML, etc.). Obviously, some variants/chassis would be gifted with more hardpoint space than what their stock config carries (for instance, the Catapult A1 should have most of its arms as missile slots). Light and medium mechs should probably be given much more lenient hardpoints because of their inherently underused nature (whereas assaults and heavies are a little more strict).

Edited by FupDup, 19 June 2013 - 04:37 PM.

[Pater Mors]

Asmudius Heng, on 19 June 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

As i said weapons balance first - but there will still be better hit boxed mechs, better agility mechs, mechs with more hardpoints and as such more chance of diversity.

The more mechs we get the more obsolete ones we will have.

The only other idea i would like to see to help create mech character is quirks related to the stock role of he mech that would give small additional bonuses if you stuck to thier original concept. better heat dissipation for an awesome for example, stalker could get some bonuse for having a mix of weapons, the hunchback could perhaps increase the armour on its hunch by more than the usual but have its other torso lessened in max armour.

Things like that that keep the original intent of the design something to aim for without restricting peoples custom fun i would also agree with. I just want each mech to have more soul, more personality, and role warfare to be a higher priority.

There will always be best mechs, best builds - i just want to see more of those on the higher end of competition, and on the mid range many more acceptable and functional builds.

I believe that with the proper implementation of heat and ballistics; quirks will give Mech's the feel you're looking for since you can do things like give the Swayback a heat bonus quirk only went mounting it's stock loadout or do the same for a 3PPC Awesome etc.

[Asmudius Heng]

Pater Mors, on 19 June 2013 - 04:37 PM, said:

I believe that with the proper implementation of heat and ballistics; quirks will give Mech's the feel you're looking for since you can do things like give the Swayback a heat bonus quirk only went mounting it's stock loadout or do the same for a 3PPC Awesome etc.

No need to restrict them to just stock, as long as it is close to the original intent and role they should get a bonus - this is a way to positivly change behaviour because people cry at nerfs.

[Pater Mors]

Asmudius Heng, on 19 June 2013 - 04:46 PM, said:

No need to restrict them to just stock, as long as it is close to the original intent and role they should get a bonus - this is a way to positivly change behaviour because people cry at nerfs.

Exactly, I was just saying that some of the quirks could be used to represent the original intent of the BT Stock Mech's that people love, without harming the current customization we have.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Had to vote TAG for the heavy option b/c your poll doesn't take into account that someone might vote no and then not have a need to pick one of the buffet of items that comes afterwards.

[Gaan Cathal]

Asmudius Heng, on 19 June 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

Things like that that keep the original intent of the design something to aim for without restricting peoples custom fun i would also agree with. I just want each mech to have more soul, more personality, and role warfare to be a higher priority.

The Butterbee doesn't keep the original intent of the Catapult design, just saying.

Asmudius Heng, on 19 June 2013 - 04:33 PM, said:

There will always be best mechs, best builds - i just want to see more of those on the higher end of competition, and on the mid range many more acceptable and functional builds.

That I agree with. More builds need to be made viable (which can, contrary to popular belief, be done with buffs rather than nerfing everything else). However, these hardpoint restrictions won't produce that in practice. It'll just narrow the meta of what mechs can fit the peak build and thus, as I said, reduce mech variety. It'd also somewhat sadly stop people making a lot of the 'mockup' builds for mechs that don't exist yet.