197 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

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

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

quite wrong.

But I do love your approach....

fixing one problem might not fix all the problems in the world, so why bother fixing the one problem?

Way to become part of the problem hoss.

And guess what? Against a 3 PPC mech, a balanced build has a chance, because that ain't a boat. (not to mention few mechs can carry 2 AC20, and you give up everything to do it). And again, Medium lasers baots are effective, but not meta-breaking. So whoop-de-do.

What it wiould do is preserve diversity and feed people playing mechs closer to their own strengths, instead fo forcing everyone to have to join the metarape if they want to be "effective".

But perhaps the issue is you only want to view it from a narrow view because you drive a PPC-Stalker? (Much like the Poptarters crying over JJ shake?)

Elyam, on 28 June 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

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

convergence fix alone won't nerf boating or reward balanced mech builds/diversity. Without diversity, it's a lose scenario for the game, longterm, and negates any reason really for introducing more chassis.

[Finn McShae]

My secondary support for size-hardpoints is because some things (like AC/20 Ravens) are just silly. They had to make an ENTIRE MEDIUM MECH (Hollander) to support a Gauss. And we can cram one in a spider (not really, or can we? I don't do spiders)?

When I see lights toss several large lasers at me, it annoys me. Not from a game mechanic standpoint (I can twist and they'll run away when I return fire and hopefully someone fast'll get em) but from a "how the heck did they fit all those in that little thing?" standpoint.

But that's just me.

[Waking One]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

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.


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 .

May i remind you they weren't used even after the buffs putting them to the current speed and heat levels. All because of terrible hit detection and pings being all over the place with no HSR.

Stuff is a lot different now.

[Adridos]

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

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

They will slow it down, but generally, it really doesn't change anything about how PPCs are simply the best option.

[hammerreborn]

No, the game needs a heavy nerfbat to heat cap calculations. Stalkers shouldn't have over double the heat cap of TT, that's what allows for the ridiculous 6 ppc builds in the first place.

Remove the pilot skill tree unlock, make all heat sinks 1 heat cap (which would buff the validity of single heat sinks), raise ppc heat by 1, and all of a sudden 4 ppc stalkers are at 80-100% shutdown depending on movement and map.

Hardpoints are a bandaid solution that just moves the problem to a different mech. While I'd love to see more Awesomes making them the defacto PPC boat doesn't fix the problem of boating in any way.

Edited by hammerreborn, 28 June 2013 - 11:13 AM.

[Bagheera]

Adridos, on 28 June 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

They will slow it down, but generally, it really doesn't change anything about how PPCs are simply the best option.

True enough - PPCs need to be addressed pretty directly. Right now there's not much of a case for using much else - even if you can only fit 1 or 2.

I'm a little more optimistic, but it will mean that people are just using PPCs while navigating the heavily affected maps different. The Forest Canyon ones, for example, won't change much at all.

[Bishop Steiner]

Waking One, on 28 June 2013 - 11:03 AM, said:

May i remind you they weren't used even after the buffs putting them to the current speed and heat levels. All because of terrible hit detection and pings being all over the place with no HSR.

Stuff is a lot different now.

and again, i trot out my (admittedly very tired, but effective) exhibit A. the K2 and AWS-8Q. Load with 2 or 3 PPC and appropriate support weapons.

Come back and tell me how game changing, breaking, dominating they were. Feel free to post screen shots.

"But Bishop" you say, what about the 3 PPC + Gauss Highlander build??!! BROKEN!"

And I say: "+ GAUSS, all hitting with perfect convergence to one spot"
(note I agreed with Black Widow that Convergence DOES need fixing, too, simply that convergence in itself won't stop boating. Also, I am fine with all weapons in one location hitting together, but LT + RT should have some lack of convergence (unless one has plenty of time to line up the shot, the way one used to have to with PPCs)

I have yet to feel a need to run screaming like a little girl from an Awesome 9M/8Q or PPC packing K2.. (though I have had good fights and been killed by such)

[Praehotec8]

I like the idea someone on here made about hardpoint sizes with soft limits. For example, your mech has 2 large energy and one small energy points. You can still install a large energy weapon in the small point to boat 3 PPCs, but there is a heat penalty for doing so.

[Bishop Steiner]

hammerreborn, on 28 June 2013 - 11:12 AM, said:

No, the game needs a heavy nerfbat to heat cap calculations. Stalkers shouldn't have over double the heat cap of TT, that's what allows for the ridiculous 6 ppc builds in the first place.

Remove the pilot skill tree unlock, make all heat sinks 1 heat cap (which would buff the validity of single heat sinks), raise ppc heat by 1, and all of a sudden 4 ppc stalkers are at 80-100% shutdown depending on movement and map.

Hardpoints are a bandaid solution that just moves the problem to a different mech. While I'd love to see more Awesomes making them the defacto PPC boat doesn't fix the problem of boating in any way.

agree with the heat cap. disagree with hard points, and have yet to see a single argument to show how they are a band-aid,

And a "de-facto" PPC Boat firing 30 pt alphas is a HELL of a lot better than one firing 60 pts.

Praehotec8, on 28 June 2013 - 11:23 AM, said:

I like the idea someone on here made about hardpoint sizes with soft limits. For example, your mech has 2 large energy and one small energy points. You can still install a large energy weapon in the small point to boat 3 PPCs, but there is a heat penalty for doing so.

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......"

*edit

adding this point to the OP, as I meant to do so in the first place, in the "spoiler" box.

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

[John MatriX82]

yep, 7 total energies, 2 ballistics slot in the LA and 1 missile in the RT. We desperatedly need hardpoint restrictions for good, heat penalties won't do anything.. Neat mech though, but if PGI won't listen for giving us a choice to pick up 1/2 mechs from the pack I'll wait January, since basically it's the only mech I'm interested about of the whole phoenix.

[hammerreborn]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 June 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

agree with the heat cap. disagree with hard points, and have yet to see a single argument to show how they are a band-aid,

And a "de-facto" PPC Boat firing 30 pt alphas is a HELL of a lot better than one firing 60 pts.




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......"

*edit

adding this point to the OP, as I meant to do so in the first place, in the "spoiler" box.

But with a solid nerf to the heat cap, 3 PPCs will become the efficient build (as 4 will make you explode very quickly), but you aren't making it so you can only run "the PPC holder" chassis. Couple that with an explosion limit of 115-120% and you've effectively killed a 4PPC + build on any mech but the most daring pilots.

Not to mention with hardpoint sizes what do you do with all the "made up" hardpoints? The 8Q does have the ability to mount 6 PPCs after all, while stock is 3 and a medium laser. What size do you make those last 2 energy hardpoints? Large, and you have the same issue with being able to boat.

Edited by hammerreborn, 28 June 2013 - 11:31 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

hammerreborn, on 28 June 2013 - 11:30 AM, said:

But with a solid nerf to the heat cap, 3 PPCs will become the efficient build (as 4 will make you explode very quickly), but you aren't making it so you can only run "the PPC holder" chassis. Couple that with an explosion limit of 115-120% and you've effectively killed a 4PPC + build on any mech but the most daring pilots.

Not to mention with hardpoint sizes what do you do with all the "made up" hardpoints? The 8Q does have the ability to mount 6 PPCs after all, while stock is 3 and a medium laser. What size do you make those last 2 energy hardpoints? Large, and you have the same issue with being able to boat.

excercise some common sense when they are added? It's pretty obvious any "extras" should not allow meta-breaks, and thus would be by default, "Small".

It makes sense one could cram 2-3 1 ton medium lasers where a PPC once was, doesn't make sense that a Mech chassis not able to handle, and not designed for it, would carry twice the heavy weapons it was meant to.

At some point, you have to accept there is no "perfect" answer to solve every potential problem and stop using "fear of the dark" reasoning as a reason to leave things broken.

[Peiper]

Bishop Steiner: Sized hardpoints? What? You want the mechs to LOOK like they are armed with what they are armed with? You mean, you don't want the Battlemaster to have 6 gigantic bug-eyes on it's chest? Pshaw... Instead, let's come up with a rule that exponentially increases heat for mechs boating PPC's or other things that penalize people for boating...

I have always been against anything that would push people to make loadouts that are logical and ephasize the uniqueness of any of the mechs. Anything that pushes people toward only a few builds, rather than a great variety of mechs, I'm all for. In fact, there are several mechs we could just get rid of right now, because other mechs can boat better in the same weight class and there's no point to having them in the lineup.

[Sybreed]

Peiper, on 28 June 2013 - 11:36 AM, said:

Bishop Steiner: Sized hardpoints? What? You want the mechs to LOOK like they are armed with what they are armed with? You mean, you don't want the Battlemaster to have 6 gigantic bug-eyes on it's chest? Pshaw... Instead, let's come up with a rule that exponentially increases heat for mechs boating PPC's or other things that penalize people for boating...

I have always been against anything that would push people to make loadouts that are logical and ephasize the uniqueness of any of the mechs. Anything that pushes people toward only a few builds, rather than a great variety of mechs, I'm all for. In fact, there are several mechs we could just get rid of right now, because other mechs can boat better in the same weight class and there's no point to having them in the lineup.

oh stop making sense you

[hammerreborn]

Yes, but it's also ease of change. What is easier to change, redoing every single chassis and variants hardpoints, making up solutions for each additional hardpoint, and doing this forever....or changing DHS = 1.4 -> 1.0 to heat cap?

Just the last change brings Stalkers heat effiency before the pilot tree bonus from 61.2 to 48, an effective 22% heat nerf.

Increase heat of ppcs/erppcs by 1, and only in alpine would you not shut down firing 4 ERPPCs. 4 regulars would bring you to
75% heat before accounting for movement and map, and the second shot in all but alpine is likely to be a death sentence.

Add the 120% limit, and a second shot = death.

But this method also allows you to use a quickdraw with ppcs, or any other various builds that SHOULD BE allowed.

Flamers finally become useful because currently due to the heat cap difference between a Jenner and a Stalker the Jenner can never push a Stalkers heat to the 90% limit. Now they can!

[Lukoi Banacek]

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.

*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.

This ignores the statements from the Devs regarding the heat changes coming for "boating" weapons. Since that might be coming out before the Battlemaster arrives in October, I think I'll let that play out before worrying about it. Meta might be significantly different by October.

[Bishop Steiner]

hammerreborn, on 28 June 2013 - 11:40 AM, said:

Yes, but it's also ease of change. What is easier to change, redoing every single chassis and variants hardpoints, making up solutions for each additional hardpoint, and doing this forever....or changing DHS = 1.4 -> 1.0 to heat cap?

Just the last change brings Stalkers heat effiency before the pilot tree bonus from 61.2 to 48, an effective 22% heat nerf.

Increase heat of ppcs/erppcs by 1, and only in alpine would you not shut down firing 4 ERPPCs. 4 regulars would bring you to
75% heat before accounting for movement and map, and the second shot in all but alpine is likely to be a death sentence.

Add the 120% limit, and a second shot = death.

But this method also allows you to use a quickdraw with ppcs, or any other various builds that SHOULD BE allowed.

Flamers finally become useful because currently due to the heat cap difference between a Jenner and a Stalker the Jenner can never push a Stalkers heat to the 90% limit. Now they can!

still doesn't encourage role and chassis diversity, which still leaves the introduction of additional chassis largely worthless.

And addressing the issue NOW, before they have 100 chassis that are broken makes a hell of a lot more sense than later. Again, the Heat Cap, like Convergence is only PART of the solution, of which Hard Point sizes is also a part, but the Hard Point addresses more in one change. I would also note in one of the ask the Devs (ok, bad memory, could have been a Bryan/Garth twitter comment too) they said that hard point sizes were at least a consideration, which means it is more likely on the table than the heat cap which they have flat out crushed the idea of, pretty much every mention.

[sarkun]

Elyam, on 28 June 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

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

^This.

Also - I like OPs solution a lot - all hardpoint sizes solutions I saw to date were a mess - but this, with just the two sizes is elegant and clean. If PGI ever decides to go this way, I hope it's along this lines.

[Bishop Steiner]

Lukoi, on 28 June 2013 - 11:42 AM, said:

This ignores the statements from the Devs regarding the heat changes coming for "boating" weapons. Since that might be coming out before the Battlemaster arrives in October, I think I'll let that play out before worrying about it. Meta might be significantly different by October.

actually, if you read the post, it does NOT ignore it. It acknowledges it.

Having to wait .5 seconds between loosing volleys of 2-3 PPC hardly nerfs it, and the "damage threshold" is too high (over 150%) and mechs cool off too fast for this to be too severe a nerf. (especially since without RnR, blowing up to core out that mech and help the team get the win is only a big deal if you are a twitch shooter worried about his KDr like the Quimstar people I got stuck dropping with last night) All that will change is we get hit with 2 volleys of 3 PPC a half second apart.

Minimal fix at best.

[Sen]

First off, I have to nitpick: The "head" of the battlmaster is WAAAAY to small . . .

But I digress.

Honestly though, if your really REALLY wanna fix heavy weapon boating, simply add a power consumption component. I know mentioning Stackpole is the devil around here, but the fight between Phelan and Vlad, where the 'mech had to cycle weaponry to power every weapon in sequence because it couldn't handle the power requirements of an alpha?

Yeah. THAT. Max output can be based on engine size, etc. THAT will fix those pop up one shot problems, and at least force the boater out in the open, require he keep the reticle on target, and sit through the weapon cycle.

you could even do a cool little graphic where all the cockpit gauges/lights dim from having all the power sucked out of the engine