197 replies to this topic

[Jakob Knight]

<Sigh> This argument just won't go away, no matter how much you try to reason with people.

So. Again. For the dim of memory/mind....

Full customization has always been part of Battletech, and of the majority of MW games. -FULL- customization. This means everything and anything was customizable.

For MWO, the devs decided to institute the hardpoint system -only- as a means of restricting the builds from the more unreasonable builds that they felt had no justifiable reason to exist (24 machinegun mechs, for example). These restrictions were not something the playerbase wanted or liked, but we accepted it as the price to keep -some- customization without restricting things to the point that we might as well not have it at all.

Then some player began to whine that heavy mechs were going 'too fast', that 'that mech shouldn't be as fast as me'. The result? Engine restrictions to prevent mechs that were already sacrificing huge amounts of tonnage from weapons and armor from attaining the normal maximum speed possible for that mech. All in the name of appeasing the crybabies who had their preconceptions of what X mech 'should be' bruised by the reality of what they always could be.

Then some players began to whine that they were being killed by mechs which had too many heavy weapons on them. Surprise! They died to mechs with -lots- of -big- guns. So, they cried to the devs to do something about their own lack of tactical skill. End result: We have a set of counters in the work that will handicap mechs that take more of a certain type of weapon than the chassis should carry...-AS DETERMINED OUT OF HAND BY THE DEVS-.

But now, that isn't good enough. Now, once again, we have people saying that won't solve their problems (maybe because it was never about overgunned mechs). Now, they say we have to restrict weapons to -only what should be in the mounts-. And don't try to say that isn't the goal, because we all know this stemmed from the old argument that the CPLT-K2 Ballistic hardpoints should be restricted to Machine Guns because 'that's what the hardpoints were for'.

Fine. Here is the plain truth. MWO is already much more restricted in mech customization than any previous MechWarrior game, in violation of the original Battletech -AND- MechWarrior games. If that isn't good enough for you, then let's be quite plain with what you must argue for if you want even more restrictions...

You want to get rid of the Mechlab altogether, and just have people run whatever stock mechs are put in by the Devs. Fine, let's do that then. No customization for anyone, and you people will be happy then (you -better- be happy, or you are simply being deceptive to both the readers and yourself). Don't keep layering one call for more restriction after another, when it is customization at all you hate.

So. Either ask for all customization to be removed, or quit harping on more and more restrictions, since that is exactly what you are advocating (no matter what you say to the contrary). Either you allow people to customize their mechs -their- way (not yours), or you don't allow any customization at all.

Decide.

Edited by Jakob Knight, 29 June 2013 - 10:57 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Jakob Knight, on 29 June 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

<Sigh> blah blah blah patronizing empty ad-hominum argument here blah blah blah

This argument just won't go away, no matter how much you try to reason with people.

So. Again. For the dim of memory/mind....

Yes, it has (almost) always been a part of the game, and has also been abused in every form of the game, where you always end up with a hand full of "viable/Competitive builds", and the rest is superfluous.

So again, we can let a BAD tradition be our guideline (more likely just happen to be a metarapist ourselves and can't adapt without), or we can finally address what has long been the biggest issue in the Mechwarrior (franchise) Online Odyssey, since common sense, Game Masters and Repair and Refit are not here to help keep serial meta-abusers in check.

You decide.

ps.... at least try to have a shred of actual fact in your argument, and have a clue what the actual OP is about.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 June 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[Finn McShae]

Boom.

[Bishop Steiner]

Finn McShae, on 29 June 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

Boom.

goes the dynamite.

[Ialdabaoth]

Jakob Knight, on 29 June 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

<Sigh> This argument just won't go away, no matter how much you try to reason with people.

So. Again. For the dim of memory/mind....

Full customization has always been part of Battletech, and of the majority of MW games. -FULL- customization. This means everything and anything was customizable.

For MWO, the devs decided to institute the hardpoint system -only- as a means of restricting the builds from the more unreasonable builds that they felt had no justifiable reason to exist (24 machinegun mechs, for example). These restrictions were not something the playerbase wanted or liked, but we accepted it as the price to keep -some- customization without restricting things to the point that we might as well not have it at all.

Then some player began to whine that heavy mechs were going 'too fast', that 'that mech shouldn't be as fast as me'. The result? Engine restrictions to prevent mechs that were already sacrificing huge amounts of tonnage from weapons and armor from attaining the normal maximum speed possible for that mech. All in the name of appeasing the crybabies who had their preconceptions of what X mech 'should be' bruised by the reality of what they always could be.

Then some players began to whine that they were being killed by mechs which had too many heavy weapons on them. Surprise! They died to mechs with -lots- of -big- guns. So, they cried to the devs to do something about their own lack of tactical skill. End result: We have a set of counters in the work that will handicap mechs that take more of a certain type of weapon than the chassis should carry...-AS DETERMINED OUT OF HAND BY THE DEVS-.

But now, that isn't good enough. Now, once again, we have people saying that won't solve their problems (maybe because it was never about overgunned mechs). Now, they say we have to restrict weapons to -only what should be in the mounts-. And don't try to say that isn't the goal, because we all know this stemmed from the old argument that the CPLT-K2 Ballistic hardpoints should be restricted to Machine Guns because 'that's what the hardpoints were for'.

Fine. Here is the plain truth. MWO is already much more restricted in mech customization than any previous MechWarrior game, in violation of the original Battletech -AND- MechWarrior games. If that isn't good enough for you, then let's be quite plain with what you must argue for if you want even more restrictions...

You want to get rid of the Mechlab altogether, and just have people run whatever stock mechs are put in by the Devs. Fine, let's do that then. No customization for anyone, and you people will be happy then (you -better- be happy, or you are simply being deceptive to both the readers and yourself). Don't keep layering one call for more restriction after another, when it is customization at all you hate.

So. Either ask for all customization to be removed, or quit harping on more and more restrictions, since that is exactly what you are advocating (no matter what you say to the contrary). Either you allow people to customize their mechs -their- way (not yours), or you don't allow any customization at all.

Decide.

In the tabletop game, "Full Customization" actually requires a hell of a lot of work.

Yes, there are rules in the basic tabletop game for designing your own 'mech. That's pretty awesome, and one of the biggest draws to Battletech.

If you pay attention to the full rules of the game, though - *especially* the rules in books with 'Mechwarrior' in the title - it gets more complicated than that.

Sure, you can design a brand new chassis, slap any engine, structure, armor, and weapons on it, and go to town. It'll be expensive and you'd better have the full economy of one of the Great Houses behind you.

*Or* you can take an old, battered Battlemech and customize it. Happens all the time. And yeah, you can achieve nearly the same results. Sometimes.

But if you look at the refit rules in Mechwarrior (or nowdays in books called "Tactical Operations" and "Strategic Operations"), you'll notice that it's actually pretty hard to *consistently* take, say, an Atlas and upgrade all its weapons willy-nilly.

Slot limits, for example, are explicitly spelled out in Strategic Operations; you can exceed them, but only if you have a REALLY good engineer. And swapping out an engine takes access to a large, non-mobile mech repair facility, and will take twice as long if you're upgrading from standard to XL. And Endo Steel basically requires shipping you 'mech back to the factory where they strip it down for parts and attach all the parts onto the skeleton of a brand new 'mech, paint it up to look like your old 'mech, and ship it back to you so you can pretend it's still the same ride.

We have a name for people who demand to play fully-customized Battlemech designs in otherwise-realistic battlefield scenarios and pretend like they're part of the canonical universe. They're called "munchkins".

There's a time and a place, kids, and it's called Solaris.

[General Taskeen]

... And full customization wasn't a problem in MW3 and MW4? I thought that's like the mainthing people point out about those games and what was bad about them. Its the SAME thing in MWO, with a system that is sort of like MW4.

What those games did have, in context, was good aspects of balance outside of the full customization. They had some good idea's for certain weapon types and also equipment. Like those games though, boating in full customization brings out the issues. Full Customization does cause issues and always has, MWO is not absent from that. Combining idea's from MW2/3/4/LL/MWO could be a super grand Mechwarrior game.

Edited by General Taskeen, 29 June 2013 - 01:13 PM.

[TehSBGX]

Ialdabaoth, on 28 June 2013 - 07:04 PM, said:

Yep. Definitely need hard point restrictions.

I think an ideal solution would be the following:

Energy Weapons
Any configuration which has a Small Laser or Small Pulse Laser in its default configuration has a Small Energy Hardpoint. A Small Energy Hardpoint can mount any energy weapon that fits into 1 space.

Any configuration which has a Medium Laser or Medium Pulse Laser in its default configuration has a Medium Energy Hardpoint. A Medium Energy Hardpoint can mount any energy weapon that fits into 2 spaces.

Any configuration which has a Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, PPC, or ER PPC in its default configuration has a Large Energy Hardpoint. A Large Energy Hardpoint can mount any energy weapon.

Ballistic Weapons
Any configuration which has a Machinegun in its default configuration has a Small Ballistic Hardpoint. A Small Ballistic Hardpoint can mount any ballistic weapon that fits into 3 spaces.

Any configuration which has an AC/2, AC/5, or Ultra AC/5 in its default configuration has a Medium Ballistic Hardpoint. A Medium Ballistic Hardpoint can mount any ballistic weapon that fits into 7 spaces.


Any configuration which has an AC/10, LB-10X, or AC/20 in its default configuration has a Large Ballistic Hardpoint. A Large Ballistic Hardpoint can mount any ballistic weapon.


Missile Weapons

Any configuration which has an SRM-2, Streak SRM-2, SRM-4 or LRM-5 in its default configuration has a Small Missile Hardpoint. A Small Missile Hardpoint can mount any missile weapon that fits into 2 spaces.

Any configuration which has an SRM-6, LRM-10, or Narc launcher in its default configuration has a Medium Missile Hardpoint. A Medium Missile Hardpoint can mount any missile weapon that fits into 4 spaces.


Any configuration which has an LRM-15 or LRM-20 in its default configuration has a Large Missile Hardpoint. A Large Missile Hardpoint can mount any missile weapon.

That way, you are never locked into "sidegrade"-only; you can always upgrade weapons to the next size bigger, but not two or more sizes bigger. I.e., a Machinegun could become an AC/2 but not an AC/5; a Medium Laser could become a Large Laser but not a PPC.


Note that several 'mechs have more hard points than weapons. This is always to allow "splitting" - for example, an Awesome 8Q has 3 PPCs, but each PPC location actually has two hard points. In such situations, the 'extra' hard points should always be one size *smaller* than the actual weapon - so the Awesome 8Q would have 3 Large Energy Hardpoints, and 3 Medium Energy Hardpoints, allowing it to boat 6 Large Lasers but only 3 PPC's. The Catapult A1 has an LRM-15 in each arm; thus, each arm has one Large Missile Hardpoint and two Medium Missile Hardpoints.

(Also note that this returns the Awesome-8Q to its original role as the only 'mech *designed* to PPC-boat.)

This seems like it could really work. If the heat thing PGI is gonna implement doesn't fix anything they should try this.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Shhh! Nobody needs sized hardpoints, you're totally wrong!

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Oh oh I just remembered something...what was it ah yes that is it!

This is Mechwarrior Online, this is not its ******** cousin Mechwarrior Tactics (sorry niko).

If you feel the game "needs" size limited hard points go play MW:T and tell me what you think.

This game is fine with only one exception and I have yet to understand why they didn't do it. The heat scale yes players hate randoms but they could do some ingenious things like for the +1 to hit mod it could mean the weapon fires slower OR it has a longer recharge. For the +1 to movements you lose 10-20% of your speed cap and in random shut downs and ammo explosions and I will be a happy camper. Oh and the infamous if you way way overheat we can call it 150% you go BOOM!

This kind of system would make boating a hell of a lot less of a problem.
Well I fired off 6 PPCs now I shut down and I have a 6-7 second extra wait recharge on PPCs, Thats on top of a scaling heat cool down so you could be out for 30 seconds total. Oh you love that high heat dual ac/20 Jager lets go ahead and ad in random chances for your ammo to explode starting at 33% heat at 10% chance then a 40% chance then if you in the 90s a 80% chance.

Lets see how fast things get wrangled in. Hardpoints are restricted enough its time they did the heat scale right.

[Josef Nader]

Ugh, gods no. The last thing we need is further restrictions on how we build our mechs. The alpha tards suck eggs, don't get me wrong, but the solution to that is not to force even more restrictive builds onto players.

[Bishop Steiner]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 29 June 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Oh oh I just remembered something...what was it ah yes that is it!

This is Mechwarrior Online, this is not its ******** cousin Mechwarrior Tactics (sorry niko).

If you feel the game "needs" size limited hard points go play MW:T and tell me what you think.

This game is fine with only one exception and I have yet to understand why they didn't do it. The heat scale yes players hate randoms but they could do some ingenious things like for the +1 to hit mod it could mean the weapon fires slower OR it has a longer recharge. For the +1 to movements you lose 10-20% of your speed cap and in random shut downs and ammo explosions and I will be a happy camper. Oh and the infamous if you way way overheat we can call it 150% you go BOOM!

This kind of system would make boating a hell of a lot less of a problem.
Well I fired off 6 PPCs now I shut down and I have a 6-7 second extra wait recharge on PPCs, Thats on top of a scaling heat cool down so you could be out for 30 seconds total. Oh you love that high heat dual ac/20 Jager lets go ahead and ad in random chances for your ammo to explode starting at 33% heat at 10% chance then a 40% chance then if you in the 90s a 80% chance.

Lets see how fast things get wrangled in. Hardpoints are restricted enough its time they did the heat scale right.

guess we are gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Unlimited hardpoints always have been a draw, and also the major bane of any attempts to maintain balance and diversity to the MW franchise. Heat, damage and weapons have been done well before, in previous versions (making it all the more baffling they can't figure it out here).

And yet every previous Online, Multiplayer MW title has been plagued by Poptarts, Alpha Boats and limited diversity due to super optimized chassis.

I remember MW3..... where the only difference between the Atlas and Annihilator wasn't the load out. It was the animation.

And sadly, for all their crappy art designs, MW:Tactics might already be AHEAD of MW:O on concepts like balance (tun based IS easier to control, admittedly). But their hardpoints certainly aren't a major limitation.. their lack of chassis is. And for the record, I play Tactics a lot. Far from perfect, but it's workable. I miss MechCommander, what can I say?

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 29 June 2013 - 03:15 PM.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 June 2013 - 03:13 PM, said:

guess we are gonna have to agree to disagree on this one.

Unlimited hardpoints always have been a draw, and also the major bane of any attempts to maintain balance and diversity to the MW franchise. Heat, damage and weapons have been done well before, in previous versions (making it all the more baffling they can't figure it out here).

And yet every previous Online, Multiplayer MW title has been plagued by Poptarts, Alpha Boats and limited diversity due to super optimized chassis.

I remember MW3..... where the only difference between the Atlas and Annihilator wasn't the load out. It was the animation.

And sadly, for all their crappy art designs, MW:Tactics might already be AHEAD of MW:O on concepts like balance (tun based IS easier to control, admittedly). But their hardpoints certainly aren't a major limitation.. their lack of chassis is. And for the record, I play Tactics a lot. Far from perfect, but it's workable. I miss MechCommander, what can I say?

So you don't think a revamp of the old TT heat scale would be a suffice change promoting the balance, as it was the almighty balance back in the day.

I would like some input to why it would not be. Do you think it would push players away?

[Bishop Steiner]

Eric darkstar Marr, on 29 June 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

So you don't think a revamp of the old TT heat scale would be a suffice change promoting the balance, as it was the almighty balance back in the day.

I would like some input to why it would not be. Do you think it would push players away?

No. I think it DOES need a revamp.

But the Heatscale was not an issue in MW2, 3 r 4. Overall neither were weapon balance, damage, etc.
But their Multiplayers were abused to heck, because of the unlimited customization in the mechlabs. That is why I have been stumping for the Hardpoints as one part of the changes. Heat, Convergence and many other things (like simply balancing weapon damage and such) need to be done, too.

[Iron Hyena]

No, no no no. Anything that takes away from customization is *******

*Edited myself for profanity*

Edited by Dornhal, 29 June 2013 - 03:39 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Dornhal, on 29 June 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

No, no no no. Anything that takes away from customization is *******

*Edited myself for profanity*

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.

[Sybreed]

Dornhal, on 29 June 2013 - 03:38 PM, said:

No, no no no. Anything that takes away from abusing the hell out of the gameplay mechanics is *******

*Edited myself for profanity*

There, fixed it for you.

[Sybreed]

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.

This. Facking this. There is no diversity in this game. All mechs are the same except for a few very arbitrary hardpoint allocations and tonnage difference. The only thing that will differentiate the Battlemaster and the Stalker is the energy hardpoint placement on them which will determine how quick they'll be able to fire up a hill (although this is about to change). Oh, one of them will be able to fit more PPCs maybe, or maybe have a build similar to the misery. Who knows, same stuff in the end and they could have just skipped putting the Battlemaster in the game since we already have a 85 tonners with crapload of hardpoints.

edit: Lol... in the end, PGI is probably wondering "Do we fix convergence? Or do we fix the hardpoints?" Because that's probably the choice they'll have to make.

Edited by Sybreed, 29 June 2013 - 05:32 PM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sybreed, on 29 June 2013 - 05:29 PM, said:

This. Facking this. There is no diversity in this game. All mechs are the same except for a few very arbitrary hardpoint allocations and tonnage difference. The only thing that will differentiate the Battlemaster and the Stalker is the energy hardpoint placement on them which will determine how quick they'll be able to fire up a hill (although this is about to change). Oh, one of them will be able to fit more PPCs maybe, or maybe have a build similar to the misery. Who knows, same stuff in the end and they could have just skipped putting the Battlemaster in the game since we already have a 85 tonners with crapload of hardpoints.

edit: Lol... in the end, PGI is probably wondering "Do we fix convergence? Or do we fix the hardpoints?" Because that's probably the choice they'll have to make.

when the obvious answer should be "WHY NOT BOTH?!??!?!?!"

[Sybreed]

Bishop Steiner, on 29 June 2013 - 08:28 PM, said:

when the obvious answer should be "WHY NOT BOTH?!??!?!?!"

Well, I'll give you a serious answer.

First, resources. While I would appreciate having both, I doubt they have the time nor the resources to implement both systems. At least, not until late late after launch.

Second, ******* the munchkins off. They already know tweaking some core mechanics would **** some loud mouths off even if it's in the best interest of the game. I doubt they'd want to throw in too many changes at the same time risking to **** off too many players at once. It's better to start with one of the 2 options, see how things go and decide whether to implement the other change or not...

/Being slightly off-topic here, any Star Citizen fan should go check the homepage for new Spaceship designs... they. look. amazing.

/done being off-topic.

Bryan said in ATD that hardpoint sizes are under review... can't wait to see how things go.

Edited by Sybreed, 30 June 2013 - 09:32 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Sybreed, on 29 June 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Well, I'll give you a serious answer.

First, resources. While I would appreciate having both, I doubt they have the time nor the resources to implement both systems. At least, not until late late after launch.

Second, ******* the munchkins off. They already know tweaking some core mechanics would **** some loud mouths off even if it's in the best interest of the game. I doubt they'd want to throw in too many changes at the same time risking to **** off too many players at once. It's better to start with one of the 2 options, see how things go and decide whether to implement the other change or not...

/Being slightly off-topic here, any Star Citizen fan should go check the homepage for new Spaceship designs... they. look. amazing.

/done being off-topic.

Bryan said in ATD that hardpoint sizes are under review... can't wait to see how things go.

Exactly. So even if it isn't the fix some people desire, it will fix a lot of things, break literally NOTHING, and is something the Devs at least have under consideration, whereas the heat cap they have categorically shot down every time.