197 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

First, Alex did a bang up job on re-designing the BLR, IMO (no wonky hands or pinky thumbs to mess up an otherwise cool design this time). Kudos to a nod to Smithson's Chinese Bandits, too.

That said......

6 forward mounted, cockpit level energy hardpoints? Let's see,,,,,, the FOTM Metabreaker right now is 4-6 PPC Stalkers.... same tonnage as this guy (and technically it has a 7th, but low mounted energy hardpoint just in case the Alpha Warriors want to try SEVEN PPCs somehow (and yes, they will try it.).

So by design, the mech should have six, SMALL weapons for CQB, and it's big gun is supposed to be the arm mounted PPC. What we will see instead is 4 high mounted PPC and the arm will probably be empty or have a TAG or the like.

So the mech doesn't function "as intended" and the Metarape continues with "Peek-Tarting". And continue to get people QQing about PPCs, when the issue is actually the ability to BOAT large weapons, and a laughable Heat System (Sorry PGI, people will simply fire 3 PPCs, step back, step up and fire the other 3. Minimal fix at best...... and probably BETTER for their heat maangement)

All which could be solved simply with Sized Hard-Points, (as has been proposed since Closed Beta by non Meta-Abusing Players), which would also nerf those "horrible" BoomCats and BoomJagers everyone is crying about.

For those unfamiliar with the concept:

Spoiler

Sized Hard-points is a system where weapons fall into different "size" categories. Small Weapons can be fitted into larger slots, but large weapons cannot fit into smaller slots. This system was effective in MW4, and works well in MW:Tactics)

So Small weapons would include:
Small and Medium Lasers (and their pulse versions)
AC2 and AC5 (and advanced UAC and LB-X versions)
LRM5 and LRM10
SRM2 and SRM4 (and their Streak versions)

Large would be:
Large Laser and PPC (and advanced versions)
AC/10, AC/20 and Gauss Rifles (and advanced versions)
SRM6 (and SSRM version)
LRM15 and LRM20 (and advanced versions)

And ideally there would be a "Support Hard-point" (whihc mya or may not be dedicated, like ECM slot)
for MG and Flamer (these would be "small weapons" if no support hard-point is used)
BAP, TAG, ECM, Command Console, AMS, etc.

*EDIT* Forgot to add this to the OP, which I am doing now, since another post reminded me of it........
"My alternate solution would be to allow a large weapon in a small hardpoint... IF there were multiple small hardpoints in that location. It would simply use 2 such hardpoints up, forcing one to decide if 2 large weapons are worth the trade-off for 4 smaller ones.

also, (IMO) makes a hellofalot more sense than saying "Hey, cramming this 14 ton/10 Crit AC20 into a machine gun slot is doable...it'll just make you run a little hotter......" "

The overall effect?
No more Gauss Rifles in slots designed for a .5 ton machine gun. A Stalker might mount 2 ER PPC, but then it would have 4 slots for Medium lasers or such. Yes the stalker COULD mount 6 medium lasers still, just as the Awesome can toss on 8 Mediums, but in reality, in slow giant targets those are laughably bad builds. I really don't see people fleeing from a 6 Medium laser "boat" doing 54 kph.

Overall effect, is mechs are still customizable, but the basic chassis is still largely dedicated to the role it was DESIGNED for, instead of everyone running to see how they can abuse the Meta. This would also largely negate most of the Heat and Weapon QQing, which in actuality is largely the prolem of Boating, not the weapons themselves. (When is the last time you saw a 2 ER PPC Catapult K2 and said "OMG!!!! Imma gonna die?!?!?!?!?)

I know the Pro-Gamer crowd will mock, deride and ridicule, but their Meta-abusing antics are doing more to drive people away from the game than PGI is (PGI is aiding and abetting by NOT nerfing this capability)

Just my 2 cts as a dedicated Battletech fan and Mechwarrior player of 25 years, who desires the game to be successful.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 28 June 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[Spheroid]

(1) PPC boating is being addressed (2) high torso < high arm. Stalker still the king.

[Bagheera]

I'm waiting to see what the new climbing movement models do to peek-tarting.

[Bishop Steiner]

Spheroid, on 28 June 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

(1) PPC boating is being addressed (2) high torso < high arm. Stalker still the king.

1) PPC boating is being addressed in a laughable method, as mentioned in OP (will be truly shocked if it makes a difference in game)

2) High torso mount and high arm mount will prove to be the same as you need the cockpit to clear to see (and it is mounted lower on the Stalker exposing torso anyhow) plus the BLR-1G will be able to high mount 6 PPC instead of 4, AND a LRM launcher. (well, most likely would be 4 PPC and an LRM, plus TAG, as generally 4 PPC perform better anyhow)

[Finn McShae]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Good stuff

I agree, completely.

[Bishop Steiner]

Bagheera, on 28 June 2013 - 09:49 AM, said:

I'm waiting to see what the new climbing movement models do to peek-tarting.

that will likely be the only semi-saving grace. Waiting half a second to unload the other barrel will probably just encourage more people to go back to the 6 PPC and fire 3 and 3 instead of 4 at once.

I would LOVE to see them stop the downhill slide before it becomes an avalanche, and can only hope these first baby-steps lead to actual across the board fixes, instead of tossing bandaids on top of bandaids trying to stop what is becoming an arterial bleed (mostly due to the "buff this/nerf that" approach then breaking and unbalancing other aspects of the game)

[El Bandito]

Hard-point restriction is long overdue.

[Gulinborsti]

I very much like the size restrictions hardpoints

[Bishop Steiner]

El Bandito, on 28 June 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

Hard-point restriction is long overdue.

SHHHHH!

stop speaking sense, you!

[InRev]

Love it. Gives certain chassis unique roles (PPC Awesomes, LRM Catapults, Flexible weapon system Stalkers) without creating wacky, wonky and arbitrary stacking penalties like the proposed system would.

[Lightfoot]

Sized hardpoints are a good idea. So far only Missiles have sized hardpoints, which works by limiting the size of each salvo fired, so an SRM 4 slot will take 3 seconds or so to finish firing an LRM20. I don't want to get blamed for extrapolating this sizing method into Energy and Ballistics so I won't.

Only in MWO is 4 PPCs a shocker though. The Supernova has a stock variant that carries 4xERPPC's at 60 heat/ 60 damage per salvo. It's designed to fire them all at once too. Pretty slow though, it's all DHS pretty much too. So I always have to resist a roflmao when players cry Inner Sphere PPC's are OP. Most good MWO Ballistic configs can do 2x to 3x the DPS of a PPC config, because they never shutdown, except for massed AC2's. You just have to do the math honestly on this to see it's true.

WARNING: DHS 1.4 will be meaningless once the Clans arrive. It will only nerf Inner Sphere mechs at that point.

[sj mausgmr]

Hardpoint sizes is without a doubt, the best solution.

[Blackfire1]

I remember back in Early Closed when PPC's were NOT the energy version of the sniper rifle. They were the Energy Version of the AC10.
Personally I think their speed needs to be dropped back to ac5- ac10 range. It makes the weapon more skill friendly and less "Click your dead."

Gauss rifles I have NO problem getting sniped into stupidity with. Because that is there design.

PPC's Not to much.

[BlackWidow]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

All which could be solved simply with Sized Hard-Points, (as has been proposed since Closed Beta by non Meta-Abusing Players),

Also what would solve this issue and MOST (imho) of the weapon balance weapons is NON-pinpoint convergence.

[Nunspa]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

First, Alex did a bang up job on re-designing the BLR, IMO (no wonky hands or pinky thumbs to mess up an otherwise cool design this time). Kudos to a nod to Smithson's Chinese Bandits, too.

That said......

6 forward mounted, cockpit level energy hardpoints? Let's see,,,,,, the FOTM Metabreaker right now is 4-6 PPC Stalkers.... same tonnage as this guy (and technically it has a 7th, but low mounted energy hardpoint just in case the Alpha Warriors want to try SEVEN PPCs somehow (and yes, they will try it.).

So by design, the mech should have six, SMALL weapons for CQB, and it's big gun is supposed to be the arm mounted PPC. What we will see instead is 4 high mounted PPC and the arm will probably be empty or have a TAG or the like.

So the mech doesn't function "as intended" and the Metarape continues with "Peek-Tarting". And continue to get people QQing about PPCs, when the issue is actually the ability to BOAT large weapons, and a laughable Heat System (Sorry PGI, people will simply fire 3 PPCs, step back, step up and fire the other 3. Minimal fix at best...... and probably BETTER for their heat maangement)

All which could be solved simply with Sized Hard-Points, (as has been proposed since Closed Beta by non Meta-Abusing Players), which would also nerf those "horrible" BoomCats and BoomJagers everyone is crying about.

For those unfamiliar with the concept:

Spoiler

Sized Hard-points is a system where weapons fall into different "size" categories. Small Weapons can be fitted into larger slots, but large weapons cannot fit into smaller slots. This system was effective in MW4, and works well in MW:Tactics)

So Small weapons would include:
Small and Medium Lasers (and their pulse versions)
AC2 and AC5 (and advanced UAC and LB-X versions)
LRM5 and LRM10
SRM2 and SRM4 (and their Streak versions)

Large would be:
Large Laser and PPC (and advanced versions)
AC/10, AC/20 and Gauss Rifles (and advanced versions)
SRM6 (and SSRM version)
LRM15 and LRM20 (and advanced versions)

And ideally there would be a "Support Hard-point" (whihc mya or may not be dedicated, like ECM slot)
for MG and Flamer (these would be "small weapons" if no support hard-point is used)
BAP, TAG, ECM, Command Console, AMS, etc.

The overall effect?
No more Gauss Rifles in slots designed for a .5 ton machine gun. A Stalker might mount 2 ER PPC, but then it would have 4 slots for Medium lasers or such. Yes the stalker COULD mount 6 medium lasers still, just as the Awesome can toss on 8 Mediums, but in reality, in slow giant targets those are laughably bad builds. I really don't see people fleeing from a 6 Medium laser "boat" doing 54 kph.

Overall effect, is mechs are still customizable, but the basic chassis is still largely dedicated to the role it was DESIGNED for, instead of everyone running to see how they can abuse the Meta. This would also largely negate most of the Heat and Weapon QQing, which in actuality is largely the prolem of Boating, not the weapons themselves. (When is the last time you saw a 2 ER PPC Catapult K2 and said "OMG!!!! Imma gonna die?!?!?!?!?)

I know the Pro-Gamer crowd will mock, deride and ridicule, but their Meta-abusing antics are doing more to drive people away from the game than PGI is (PGI is aiding and abetting by NOT nerfing this capability)

Just my 2 cts as a dedicated Battletech fan and Mechwarrior player of 25 years, who desires the game to be successful.

So basically only allow "side ways" upgrades.

Oh oh... I can have medium PULSE lasers! wooooo hoooooooo!

Guess what, you will still have boating.. people will ONLY play mechs with 3 PPCs (Dragon) or mechs like the King Crab (2 AC/20)

Suddenly the Illa is OP (3 Ultras in a world without many boats)

all you do is change the meta from "build your own" to "what the hell are you doing in THAT mech?"

and people will cry when all they see are 3 ERPPC dragons running around

Edited by Nunspa, 28 June 2013 - 10:39 AM.

[Sybreed]

BlackWidow, on 28 June 2013 - 10:37 AM, said:

Also what would solve this issue and MOST (imho) of the weapon balance weapons is NON-pinpoint convergence.

I'd agree with you BlackWidow, but what about the Awesome? Will fixing pinpoint convergence make it viable again vs the Stalker?

[Bishop Steiner]

Lightfoot, on 28 June 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Sized hardpoints are a good idea. So far only Missiles have sized hardpoints, which works by limiting the size of each salvo fired, so an SRM 4 slot will take 3 seconds or so to finish firing an LRM20. I don't want to get blamed for extrapolating this sizing method into Energy and Ballistics so I won't.

Only in MWO is 4 PPCs a shocker though. The Supernova has a stock variant that carries 4xERPPC's at 60 heat/ 60 damage per salvo. It's designed to fire them all at once too. Pretty slow though, it's all DHS pretty much too. So I always have to resist a roflmao when players cry Inner Sphere PPC's are OP. Most good MWO Ballistic configs can do 2x to 3x the DPS of a PPC config, because they never shutdown, except for massed AC2's. You just have to do the math honestly on this to see it's true.

WARNING: DHS 1.4 will be meaningless once the Clans arrive. It will only nerf Inner Sphere mechs at that point.

Actually, it's the Warhawk that comes with 4 ER PPC standard. The Supernova is 6 ER Large Lasers in it's base model.

And the Warhawk will simply fire 2 and 2, but at least they are low, arm mounted weapons, like the ones on the Cataphract, which will limit peek-tarting.

[Harabeck]

Lightfoot, on 28 June 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Most good MWO Ballistic configs can do 2x to 3x the DPS of a PPC config, because they never shutdown, except for massed AC2's. You just have to do the math honestly on this to see it's true.

That's completely irrelevant. Alpha is better than DPS.

[Bishop Steiner]

Blackfire1, on 28 June 2013 - 10:27 AM, said:

I remember back in Early Closed when PPC's were NOT the energy version of the sniper rifle. They were the Energy Version of the AC10.
Personally I think their speed needs to be dropped back to ac5- ac10 range. It makes the weapon more skill friendly and less "Click your dead."

Gauss rifles I have NO problem getting sniped into stupidity with. Because that is there design.

PPC's Not to much.

I agree and disagree. Again, you take the model of a 2 PPC K2 or 3 PPC Awesome, and they don't real inspire panic. They are effective, but need skill to work. It's when you start seeing 4-6 PPC that people go "OH CR*P!!!". Even with the pinpoint convergence (which should also be fixed, as we have those idiotic Pilot Tree slots we have to pay xp for, if for no other reason) 2 to 3 are hardly game breaking. That says it's not the weapon, but the boating, and the pinpoint aim on all 4-6.

I remember Closed Beta PPCs..... there was a reason (beside damage splashing) they weren't used. Because a lightning bolt traveling at a leisurely pace across the screen was crap (and stupid). And it was compounded by wonky damage, high heat.

I see no reason to Punish Dragons, K2s and Awesomes for finally being semi-usable (would be totally usable when the MetaRape Boats go the way of the DODO).

I would prefer not to punish Peter for John's transgressions, as it were.

Lightfoot, on 28 June 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

Sized hardpoints are a good idea. So far only Missiles have sized hardpoints, which works by limiting the size of each salvo fired, so an SRM 4 slot will take 3 seconds or so to finish firing an LRM20. I don't want to get blamed for extrapolating this sizing method into Energy and Ballistics so I won't.

Only in MWO is 4 PPCs a shocker though. The Supernova has a stock variant that carries 4xERPPC's at 60 heat/ 60 damage per salvo. It's designed to fire them all at once too. Pretty slow though, it's all DHS pretty much too. So I always have to resist a roflmao when players cry Inner Sphere PPC's are OP. Most good MWO Ballistic configs can do 2x to 3x the DPS of a PPC config, because they never shutdown, except for massed AC2's. You just have to do the math honestly on this to see it's true.

WARNING: DHS 1.4 will be meaningless once the Clans arrive. It will only nerf Inner Sphere mechs at that point.

Also, DPS is pointless in this game, especially in this Meta. Seldom can one maintain contact long enough to deliver anywhere near their potential DPS, before getting Alpha-Cored^tm .

[Elyam]

Best-case scenario: no to sized hardpoints and yes to proper targeting/aiming with deviation as per BT norms

Next-best-case scenario: since we are almost surely stuck with simultaneous fire and absolute crosshair accuracy for the life of MWO, then yes to sized hardpoints

Edited by Elyam, 28 June 2013 - 10:56 AM.