197 replies to this topic

[C A R N A G E]

I'm not pro hard point restrictions but more a heat fix.I'm just curious as to how many ppc or Gauss you would think would be fair for the battlemaster without being considered to be boating or a cheese build?I mostly run balanced builds anyway so whatever they do prolly wont affect me anyhow.I'm all about being able to customize my ride and I don't have a single mech with more than 2 ppc.:-)

[El Bandito]

C A R N A G E, on 30 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

I'm not pro hard point restrictions but more a heat fix.I'm just curious as to how many ppc or Gauss you would think would be fair for the battlemaster without being considered to be boating or a cheese build?I mostly run balanced builds anyway so whatever they do prolly wont affect me anyhow.I'm all about being able to customize my ride and I don't have a single mech with more than 2 ppc.:-)

Heat fix is more of a Band-Aid than real cure.

[Bishop Steiner]

C A R N A G E, on 30 June 2013 - 11:00 AM, said:

I'm not pro hard point restrictions but more a heat fix.I'm just curious as to how many ppc or Gauss you would think would be fair for the battlemaster without being considered to be boating or a cheese build?I mostly run balanced builds anyway so whatever they do prolly wont affect me anyhow.I'm all about being able to customize my ride and I don't have a single mech with more than 2 ppc.:-)

2-3 PPC is about max in most cases. Awesome was DESIGNED to run 3. A Battlemaster was designed around ONE, and 6 smaller energy weapons. If they want to use those points for bigger ones, that is fine, but it should cost more than one hardpoint to do so. So a Mech like the BLR-1G would be able to carry 1 in the RA, and up to 1 per torso, with the final remaining hardpoint going toward a medium laser, tag, pulse laser, etc.

A Mech like the K2 on the other hand could ONLY carry Heavy Energy Weapons in the arms, as the torsos each carry a single small energy hardpoint, and a single small ballistic. SO those would be confined to small energy weapons like Medium, Medium Pulse and below, whereas the ballistic would be no larger than the AC5 family of weapons.

A Stalker could still conceivably carry 4 PPC, but the heat nerf might help with that, and of course the Clan Warhawk is designed around that, so it is doable (and scary) but hopefully is every bit as bad on heat as the TT version.

This is why I say MWO needs BOTH and convergence. One should not be getting something for nothing like in the current meta with the Stalker. One should never see 3-4 PPC Quickdraws running around, and the like. Let each chassis me customized around what it was designed to do. If you want to fulfill a different role, pick a mech chassis meant for that role, and start from there.

[Bishop Steiner]

also, if you run balanced builds you are in the minority on here. And should not be penalized for it. WHich is why I have been against adding heat or slowing down the projectile on the PPC. The weapon itself is fine, as it is now, it is finally usable, but when used in 1-3 hardly game changing. (Though the Awesome SHOULD have to deal with convergence when bringing it's arm PPC into line with it's torso ones.) I hate people having poorly though tout fixes like that that only truly hurt the balanced mechs, or nerf EVERYTHING, and ignore the actual problem (aka Boating with pinpoint accuracy and no vergence issues.)

[Bishop Steiner]

El Bandito, on 30 June 2013 - 11:19 AM, said:

Heat fix is more of a Band-Aid than real cure.

bandaids is PGI's modus operandi, though......

[Jakob Knight]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 June 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

Have you played the other MW titles (not a sarcastic, but honest question)? Unlimited customization has ALWAYS , inevitably led to a few optimized builds, and everything else was obsolete. And the more open ones, like MW3, there was zero point in making more than one 100 ton mech, because they were built exactly the same.

No thanks, by mildly limiting customization, one actually encourages diversity and "role" use of mechs.

Restriction is not diversity. Restriction is the elimination of diversity. We have quite a bit more than 'mild' limiting customization as it is, and it doesn't seem to have promoted diversity but killed it, according to the people claiming that boating has ruined the game (funny how the massive PPC/LRM/AC/ect builds came about after each level of restriction was added, and did not exist prior to that). The point is that it isn't enough for the OP, and never will until the only customizations allowed are the ones the OP wants.

Right now, we have massive restrictions compared to the original TT and MW games. These are accepted, as I said, to stop hugely specialized mechs with 24 MGs (ever wonder why the same people seem to want to lobby MGs to be equal weapons to MLs and PPCs? There is a reason, and it has to do with not being able to get enough MGs to suit them). However, now we have people complaining about anything but what 'mechs should be'. Who determines that? Who is to say that a Battlemaster and Stalker -aren't- the same mech when you mount the same weapons and equipment on them?

This is why it is pointless to keep asking for more and more restrictions on what is supposed to be the ability of players to make the mech they run work for them. People will -always- go for the power builds, no matter what you do, and arbitrary restrictions based on personal bias will only result in a game that might as well have no customization at all (which will result in at least everyone being in the same boat rather than catering to one player/dev's opinion of what is 'supposed to be').

Funny how it seem people still think a mech with a ballistic slot in a torso location should not be allowed anything but the smallest weapon in the game, when a comparable mech should be allowed to have the largest. Double standard here, and in the name of 'weapon size restriction'. All because some players can't accept anything but their own tiny concept of what a given mech 'should be'.

So. Get rid of customization. That will make everyone who is so concerned that mechs 'should be' what they are designed as. That, or quit asking for more and more restrictions which have the same goal. Stop lying to the players about what you want.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 30 June 2013 - 07:03 PM.

[El Bandito]

Jakob Knight, on 30 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

People will -always- go for the power builds, no matter what you do, and arbitrary restrictions based on personal bias will only result in a game that might as well have no customization at all (which will result in at least everyone being in the same boat rather than catering to one player/dev's opinion of what is 'supposed to be'). Funny how it seem people still think a mech with a ballistic slot in a torso location should not be allowed anything but the smallest weapon in the game, when a comparable mech should be allowed to have the largest. Double standard here, and in the name of 'weapon size restriction'. All because some players can't accept anything but their own tiny concept of what a given mech 'should be'.

1. Those "power builds" are too much right now and is having huge negative impact on the gameplay. Size restrictions can make those power builds more manageable to deal against and bring back players.

2. Allowing only certain mechs to have certain sized hard points is called "diversity". If PGI have any brains, they should first implement hardpoint restrictions and then balance those hardpoints per chassis to bring in more balanced gameplay with less cheese builds.

3. Instant convergence and/or Big Alphas need to be addressed first. Removing Alphas can be a good idea in that regards.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jakob Knight, on 30 June 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

whinge whinge, QQ, blather, rant

actually read the posts, understand the point, THEN comment. "Unlimited" customization always leads to minimal choices, because once the "optimal" build is identified, that is all that will be used. History has proven it. Nice rhetoric, but not actually born out by fact.

MW3 had truly unlimited customization. And ZERO point for making more than one mech of any weight.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 30 June 2013 - 07:20 PM.

[Gaan Cathal]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 June 2013 - 07:19 PM, said:

actually read the posts, understand the point, THEN comment. "Unlimited" customization always leads to minimal choices, because once the "optimal" build is identified, that is all that will be used. History has proven it. Nice rhetoric, but not actually born out by fact.

MW3 had truly unlimited customization. And ZERO point for making more than one mech of any weight.

And hardpoint restrictions mean there will be one mech that can fit the optimal build. And only that mech will be used.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gaan Cathal, on 30 June 2013 - 08:51 PM, said:

And hardpoint restrictions mean there will be one mech that can fit the optimal build. And only that mech will be used.

*rolls eyes*

actually it doesn't, but I see no reason to keep trying to convince you. The hardpoint restrictions mean there is no ONE singular go to mech.

[Gaan Cathal]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 June 2013 - 08:56 PM, said:

actually it doesn't, but I see no reason to keep trying to convince you. The hardpoint restrictions mean there is no ONE singular go to mech.

Ok. Let's assume a fit is optimal. Say...4PPC. Now lets say there are four mechs that can fit 4PPCs, one of which fits sufficient canon ordinance to run four in MW:O - lets say a hypothetical Battlemaster variant with a PPC on both arms, and three medium lasers in each side torso per your hardpoint system (checking Sarna it's possible the BLR-1Gb would be capable of exactly this). Now if your hardpoint system is limited the 4PPC build remains available, and optimal, but only for one chassis - the BLR variant in question. Player population drift towards optimal build means that the BLR-? will pick up more or less all the pilots who ran 4PPCs in the other three variants prior to the hardpoint restriction.

Same goes for other builds, both hypothetical and otherwise - the various Gauss+PPC combos. It'd also have the effect of tonnage-weighting even more since the assaults are by far most likely to canonically tote that kind of accumulated firepower.

I'm not dismissing the notion of hardpoint restrictions out of hand, for reference, I'm pointing out flaws in the concept which have - to my mind - not been adequately addressed in any of the proposals for introducing it. Likewise, I've yet to be really convinced by the responses to "how do you do it with ballistics?". It's very easy to go "well one slot = one slot, two = two and three = three" for energy weapons because of the relative size parity. Taking that logic for ballistics essentially means actually upgrading to a heavier gun will be essentially impossible on all but a tiny handful of mechs, and that's the only response I've heard to the ballistics question.

[Bishop Steiner]

Actually pretty obvious you haven't read what I post. I never once say anything about 1 crit, 2 crit 3 crit, etc.

Read the op and my replies to you. TWO hard point sizes, regardless of total crits. Large. Small. 2 small in one location can be combined to become a large. 1 large can be broken into 2 small. Got 2 small ballistic crits in a location, like say a Jagermechs arm? Ok, you can use them BOTH to mount a gauss, or ac10/20 there. but that jager could NOT turn it's torso mounted medium laser into a PPC, because it has a single energy hardpoint there.

Got a PPC (large slot) in your K2s arm you don't like? Cool, turn that large hard point into two small and slap on 2 medium pulse. But those machine guns can only be upgraded to an an2/5/uac5.

The number of crits only matter for determining if the whole thing can fit into the mech, but has nothing to do with your upgrades, aside from determining what is a large or a small weapon in it's respective class, to begin with.

what did we do? Take 2 65 ton mechs, and use their hard points to preserve their identities, while still being able to customize, but nerfing boating in the process. In this illustration, if you want heavy ballistics, you take the Jager, if you want heavy energy, the K2.

I'd also advise getting used to the idea. No clue what the final product will look like, but hardpoint restrictions already have considerably more traction with the Devs than heat cap.

[Augustus Martelus II]

Damn I hope PGI take a look on MW4 Weapon Hardpoint and armor....Even if this game wasnt good as the other games....this thing was good!

Plz PGI take a look at this....i wouldnt mind if all my mechs have all their weapons remove in a update.

[Sybreed]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 June 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Actually pretty obvious you haven't read what I post. I never once say anything about 1 crit, 2 crit 3 crit, etc.

Read the op and my replies to you. TWO hard point sizes, regardless of total crits. Large. Small. 2 small in one location can be combined to become a large. 1 large can be broken into 2 small. Got 2 small ballistic crits in a location, like say a Jagermechs arm? Ok, you can use them BOTH to mount a gauss, or ac10/20 there. but that jager could NOT turn it's torso mounted medium laser into a PPC, because it has a single energy hardpoint there.

Got a PPC (large slot) in your K2s arm you don't like? Cool, turn that large hard point into two small and slap on 2 medium pulse. But those machine guns can only be upgraded to an an2/5/uac5.

The number of crits only matter for determining if the whole thing can fit into the mech, but has nothing to do with your upgrades, aside from determining what is a large or a small weapon in it's respective class, to begin with.

what did we do? Take 2 65 ton mechs, and use their hard points to preserve their identities, while still being able to customize, but nerfing boating in the process. In this illustration, if you want heavy ballistics, you take the Jager, if you want heavy energy, the K2.

I'd also advise getting used to the idea. No clue what the final product will look like, but hardpoint restrictions already have considerably more traction with the Devs than heat cap.

I thought the examples were fairly obvious. If you want an energy centric fast 60 tonners, go quickdraw. You prefer long range ballistic support? Go Dragon.

Different mechs for different roles.

[Bishop Steiner]

Since one constant complaint is "what's the point of the QuickDraw, it's just another Dragon", one would think that to make an obvious and telling comparison of the point, yeah. Apparently not, though.

[BlackIronTarkus]

Im for point restriction, as long as only ERPPC, PPC, gauss and AC20 fall into the huge category and can only be fitted in corresonding slot. The other weapons I want as much freedom as possible since only those weapon are problematic in the current meta.

[Gaan Cathal]

Bishop Steiner, on 30 June 2013 - 11:03 PM, said:

Actually pretty obvious you haven't read what I post. I never once say anything about 1 crit, 2 crit 3 crit, etc.

Read the op and my replies to you. TWO hard point sizes, regardless of total crits. Large. Small. 2 small in one location can be combined to become a large. 1 large can be broken into 2 small. Got 2 small ballistic crits in a location, like say a Jagermechs arm? Ok, you can use them BOTH to mount a gauss, or ac10/20 there. but that jager could NOT turn it's torso mounted medium laser into a PPC, because it has a single energy hardpoint there.

Somewhat derp on my part, got my Hardpoint Restriction models mixed up between threads. That concept does avoid the ballistics issues, although I'd be leery about making the AC/10 large personally - it could do with a bit of an edge over the AC/20 as it is.

That said, while the idea itself is definately sound it does still fail to do anything about that potential Gauss+3/4PPC Battlemaster, which would promptly overtake the 4PPC Stalker's current position in the meta if it was available and these restrictions were in - only moreso because it would be the only chassis capable of doing it (as opposed to currently where you can - say - 4PPC Atlas if you so wish). Not saying don't implement your hardpoint concept, saying it needs to come with something to solve the potential narrower FOTM it might engender with regard to high-alpha capable chassis.

[Bishop Steiner]

Gaan Cathal, on 01 July 2013 - 09:17 AM, said:

Somewhat derp on my part, got my Hardpoint Restriction models mixed up between threads. That concept does avoid the ballistics issues, although I'd be leery about making the AC/10 large personally - it could do with a bit of an edge over the AC/20 as it is.

That said, while the idea itself is definately sound it does still fail to do anything about that potential Gauss+3/4PPC Battlemaster, which would promptly overtake the 4PPC Stalker's current position in the meta if it was available and these restrictions were in - only moreso because it would be the only chassis capable of doing it (as opposed to currently where you can - say - 4PPC Atlas if you so wish). Not saying don't implement your hardpoint concept, saying it needs to come with something to solve the potential narrower FOTM it might engender with regard to high-alpha capable chassis.

well, it would actually only be able to mount 3 PPC, and a Gauss, which is not ideal, but I did acknowledge no perfect answer. I think the AC/10 mass and crits call for Large, but I think the AC/10 needs a buff, also which would help it meriting being with the big boys. It is in the same damage class as the PPC though. I think convergence and the Heat Penalty (a cap fix WOULD be better) will also help.

Biggest thing is they NEED to balance the bloody weapons already. The number one thing I think they di wrong, was introduce ANY Star League tech before they had the basic level 1 tech essentially set in stone. And they have been on the buff/nerf yo-yo ever since. Sadly it's pretty much too late to do that, even if they would admit they screwed the pooch there. The level 1 tech should have been the foundation that everything else was built around.

Weapon Balance (rough not set in stone) that would help.

FLAMERS- 1-2 DPS, 3 Heat to target, 2 to user
MG- Double Current DPS, halve ammo (be able to do SOME real damage allowing lights to use their ballistics to effect, but also making them have to worry about ammo

SRMs - 2.0 dmg, no splash
.
SSRM- 1.5 damage (compensate for their auto hit/ ammo efficiency

LRM- Damage stays same, increase speed

AC/10- buff cooldown by .5-1 second, increase projectile speed

LB-X- needs solid slug, but maybe at "normal specs" with slower projectile speed and no ammo increase.

GAUSS- add 1-2 HP (also since in lore Gauss was a massive energy hog, and the computer gave it first priority, perhaps there should be a .5 second pause before energy weapons can fire, and they cannot "alpha" together (see Phelan Kell's Trial of Position for fluff description)

NARC- increase projectile speed and hit points

Large Pulse Laser, reduce heat, or beam duration.

Medium and Large Lasers- same beam duration, .75-1 second, to help explain the 4 extra tons. (don't remember if they already are, but they should be. Large should dump more damage in the same length of time, at better range, to compensate for huge weight difference)

jsut a few rough ideas.....

most of the rest are pretty solid as is, though small tweaks, here or there are doubtless needed.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 01 July 2013 - 11:26 AM.