159 replies to this topic

[Owlfeathers]

No, but only because it's too late now. Adding this at present would cause all sorts of balance issues and make quite a few variants useless.

[Riall]

They don't need to change the hardpoints system. They need to change convergence so that it takes more than a split second to converge on a target 1000m away when you were just aiming at a target 300m away. Add some convergence time in there so your long range boats need to wait before shooting and/or add some functionality to the mouse wheel to let pilots set their convergence manually.

[Thuraash]

Postumus: I'll create a new spreadsheet for a 3-tiered system and see how it looks. Might take a bit, but let me know if you have any input while I'm at it. The reason I brought up a 2-tiered system is because it's less intrusive while still accomplishing the goal the boat tax sought to deal with, and that's such a huge problem with the game right now. Let me know if you have any feedback while I'm prepping the sheet!

Owlfeathers: Most variants already ARE useless. I don't know if you play comp and already know this, but there are maybe five or six truly comp-viable variants, total. There are a few others that are semi-viable in very specific circumstances or drop weights, but for the most part, that's it. I can actually name most of them for you:

Viable:

RVN-3L
JR7-D (sometimes F, when running w/o ravens)
CN9-A
JM6-S
CTF-3D
STK-3F
HGN-732

Situational:

AS7-RS
BJ-1X
HBK-4P (but only in SJR's hands, and I haven't even seen them use them in tourney drops, though maybe they have)


That's quite literally the long and short of it. It doesn't get much worse than that.

This system would improve on the status quo and increase diversity by preventing people from simply throwing the same loadouts together with all 'mechs, and picking the one that has the best hardpoint distribution. If you want to run triple PPC, it's going to have to be in an AWS, with all the attendant weaknesses and design sacrifices the AWS had to make in order to mount those three PPCs.

By slightly constraining the versatility of each chassis in terms of heavy weapon capabilities and allocating certain advantages only to those with natural, counterbalancing disadvantages (i.e. hitboxes for the heavy weapon components, limited hardpoint counts of the given type, etc), and limiting the number of heavy weapons available altogether to none, one, two, or in the case of just a couple of variants, three, you create room for a world of DIFFERENT, distinct loadouts that take advantage of the various variants' newfound strengths and weaknesses.

The HBK-4H would no longer completely supersede 4G. The BJ-3 can no longer mount 3 PPCs, all on one side. The CPLT-K2 is no longer useless as a PPC asset because the JM6-S can no longer do it better. The AWS is no longer completely overshadowed by the CTF-3D, the STK-3F, and the HGN-732. You can also no longer mate PPCs with Gauss. You take away these killer combos, and you're left with a far more level playing field for a whole range of other loadout combinations and options. You also force pilots off boating heavy and easier-to-use weapons, pushing them towards much more counterable long-burn Large Lasers, short-ranged Pulse Lasers, very short-ranged SRMs, and light (but still tonnage-consuming) ballistics.

Objectively, 'mechs are less powerful. That's not a bad thing; lethality is way too high. Their strengths and weaknesses are much more closely spaced, though, and there are far more viable loadouts because these killer loadouts are off the table. THAT is diversity; not a sandbox where you can create the same loadout on damn near any chassis, then choose your poison based on hitbox sizes and hardpoint locations.

Edited by Thuraash, 01 July 2013 - 07:04 PM.

[Postumus]

Bingo. The reason that there are so many mechs is that the idea is for each mech to be able to do some things, to use some loadouts, but not others. Mechlab itself is a great idea, because it means that you don't have to purchase multiple variants to accomplish incremental changes in a mech, like upgrading beam to pulse lasers, or changing SRMs to streaks. However, when you can create the exact same loadout on half a dozen or more mechs, the only actual variation is in the mech shape, size, and hardpoint layout. In several cases, there is no real reason to pick one mech over another. Why even bother having multiple mechs then?

True, a quad PPC stalker is more "viable" in a competition than a variation on the stock loadout, but this is a false choice. Mechwarrior is about tradeoffs, drawbacks, and diversity. I would happily give up my current instagib PPC/Gauss builds, because the kinds of mixtures and combinations of weapons in the stock loadouts, or small variations on them, make for a much more interesting, balanced, diverse game.

Plus, the current system doesn't give any room for differentiating omnimechs when they come out - the current mechs do almost the exact same thing, only without the omnimech's relative penalty to tonnage and space for weapons.

Edited by Postumus, 01 July 2013 - 07:47 PM.

[East Indy]

The three-tiered system is better, since it's more likely to prevent a "refuge" for alpha in weapons like large lasers. As you several have noted, there's plenty to do in the Mechlab even with these restrictions — but players will actually pay careful attention to models and loadouts.

Owlfeathers, on 01 July 2013 - 06:21 PM, said:

make quite a few variants useless.

Piranha wouldn't have spent any time designing, coding or releasing something literally useless; rather, this system wouldn't support homogenized 'Mechs.

[Thuraash]

Well, better late than never! I'm sorry it took so long. This was a much more involved job than the heavy hardpoint chart.

Here's a first crack at 'mech hardpoint allocations. Only got mediums and lights done so far. I've done my level best to keep them balanced between chassis and variants, and to make each variant as unique as the chassis allows without imposing crazy restrictions on the whole lot.

In a stupid oversight, I stuck the legends for the abbreviations at the bottom. It's late, got work in... not very many... hours, and it's a PITA to re-export and re-crop all of the images, so if it proves to be a problem, I'll redo them tomorrow when I do the heavies and assaults. In the mean time, please post any and all criticisms and suggestions so we can work on this system and make it as good as it can be!

First: the general size chart:


Light 'mechs:




Medium 'mechs:




Heavy 'mechs:




Assault 'mechs:




Again, I'd like to hear all of your feedback on how to improve on this. I'm already thinking of switching the 4P from 3 standard and 3 light in the RT to 4 standard and 2 light to allow for a 4LL loadout. Nevermind. Terribad idea, now that I've done the assaults and heavies.

What do you lot think?

Edited by Thuraash, 02 July 2013 - 11:06 PM.

[Borengar629]

I know that the system that MW4 used was great. But only for MW4 and not for an MMO. I think it is a little to restrictive.
But on the other hand I acknowledge that something has to be done about the weapon system.
So why not make something much more simple than altering the whole system.
Just asign a maximum tonnage of weaponry to each mech class, so that for example a light mech can only hold 30% of it's maximum tonnage and an assault only 25%. That would eliminate all kinds of monobuilds and would bring back the smaller weapons back into the game. As it is now, none uses small weapons at all. Even scouts sport a pair of ERPPCs.
Capping the maximum tonnage of weapons would make people think mor about their loadout and bring us all a little closer to (not the TT I admit that! But surly to the novels, where scouts for the most part have 1 ML and maybe a SRM4) the lore.
If you combine this system with maximum overall drop tonnage it would even become much more simple to balance matches between IS and the Clans. As most of us expect it to be 3 lances on 2 stars, Clanners could get a bonus on drop tonnage and weapon loadout so that the overall combat power is in balance.
I think that would be much more simple than altering the slotsystem itself.

[Thuraash]

Trickshot, PGI shouldn't do that because it would solve none of the existing problems, and would create new ones. The problem isn't lots of weapons; it's the ability to carry large multiples of very specific weapons on multiple 'mechs. it creates a very flat gameplay environment where everything becomes a race to stuff the most of whatever weapon happens to be OP into every 'mech, creating massive redundancies and invalidating all but the two or three 'mech variants that do it best. It also creates the balance volatility we see now, because players are free to massively amplify any minor imbalances and exploit them far more fully than in any other game.

It's also the fact that you can load up on "peek and shoot" weapons, like Gauss and PPCs. There's a massive force-multiplication effect with those long-range, high-damage, high-concentration, near-zero exposure time weapons. A 'mech's strength increases exponentially as you add more, because all of your damage is pretty much guaranteed to hit one spot. Heat penalties can't fix it; they would have to be atrociously draconian to have any effect on this meta... and you'd still have the Gauss.That's why we're in the soup, and why hardpoint sizes will greatly ameliorate that sortof problem. There will still be balance tweaks necessary to bring weapons in line with each other, but with a size system, it reduces the scope of the impact of exploiting overpowered weapons. You can only run so far wtih an imba weapon.

That's not a tonnage thing, and capping tonnage doesn't solve it. At the same time, capping tonnage utterly breaks a vast multitude of very good, very interesting builds that pose no problem whatsoever. Building good HBKs or BJs of any description, which are SUPPOSED to mount a stupidly high proportion of their weight in weapons, becomes obscenely hard, but you can still have PPC STKs, 4PPC atlases, and 3PPC CTFs because those weapons really aren't all that heavy. You're also breaking a bunch of stock builds with a restriction like that.

[BlakeAteIt]

Weapons already take up critical slots. That is their "size".

[Postumus]

Thur, you nailed it, great graphic. As for the hardpoints for the 4P, 4 standard points for that variant might be a bit much, since the stock variant uses only mediums and smalls. The idea is to stick to the stock build hardpoints unless there is a compelling reason not to, or the hardpoints are ambiguous. What I mean by the latter is cases like the HBK-4G or the Dragon 5N, where there are multiple hardpoints that are not used by the stock build. In the case of the AS7-D, where the stock weapon is an AC/20, the second hardpoint should probably be a standard, since 2x AC/5 or LBX are both legitimate alternatives. The HBK should probably just get one heavy, one standard, and one small, which allows for AC/20, 2x AC/5, or 3xAC2 or MG. The Dragon comes stock with an ultra 5, so it would get something like 2 standards and a small.

[Bhael Fire]

No thanks.

However, the amount of effort in making that chart is commendable. Looks good.

[Thuraash]

Thanks!

Updated the images. Some changes to lights, made due to how heavies and assaults panned out. A minor correction to the weapon reference chart... oh, and I added heavies and assaults!

Proof-of-Concept Tourney?
If any of you run with companies or clans, what would you think of doing a quick one-day tournament, on, say, a Saturday or something, with all builds subject to these hardpoint size rules? I'm thinking maybe five or six teams, round-robin format for the prelims to ensure everyone gets a good five rounds or so in, and then a final best-of-three between the top two teams or some such. If you or your company is interested, shoot me a PM and we'll see if we can make this happen. If nothing else, it'll be a hell of a lot of fun!

Suggested Quirks
Please let me know if you can think of any corrections, or have any suggestions on how to better balance loadouts. I know that the CTF-2X needs some love, and I think that would be best addressed through torso twist range and speed buffs (to improve its brawling capability some). The JM6... is a special case. I think it should have a quirk limiting max armor to 10 tons. That would balance the crazy weapon capabilities, and essentially force players into actually fully utilizing them, since they can't put that extra tonnage into armor. That would make the Jager truly unique: a proper glass cannon. It would also fit with it being smaller than other comparable 'mechs. That said, they should be OK as-is.

Hopefully, this allows most of the variants to be more or less balanced, even with current weapons, and ensures a niche for each of them. Quite a lot of thought and discussion went into several of the loadouts, especially the heavies and assaults, to create balance across variants and chassis while simultaneously giving each chassis and variant a different and unique set of strengths and weaknesses. If anything looks weird to you, point it out! I should at least be able to explain why a certain hardpoint was set how it was, and all of this is obviously still very much open to criticism and alteration.

[Postumus]

Thuraash, I'm with the 25th Marik Militia, and I could see about getting a group of our guys involved in a tourney. I know that we do alot of weight restricted drops, and that min-maxing isn't the first thing on most of our member's minds. I've also heard some interest in stock-only game modes, so I'm sure there would be some interest.

Also, apparently we get to vote on Ask the Devs questions now, now anyone interested in getting an answer about sized hardpoints should head over and like my question.

Edited by Postumus, 04 July 2013 - 12:43 PM.

[MacKoga]

It's an interesting idea. But when I ask myself, "would this make the game more fun?" I'm getting a 'no.'

More versitile loadouts are fun. And most of the big mechs that do significant boating would likely have enough of the 'heavy' slots availalbe, that boating would still happen.

In my opinion, the correct way to counter concerns over boating PPCs and gauss rifles is to ensure all the other weapon systems are just as overpowered in the right situation. SRMs should be deadly. But so too should flamers and machine guns on light mechs. This, to me, is a preferable solution over restricting mech loadouts, because then everyone is excited about their loadouts, and they're all equally tactically OP, so long as they are in the right situation.

[Drunk Canuck]

Bhael Fire, on 28 June 2013 - 03:33 PM, said:

Perhaps this would have been the best way to handle it from the beginning, but it's too late for that now.

Aside from the massive amount of time that would be required to implemented such a thing, it would send a ripple effect through the rest of the game requiring many more months of GUI redesign, weapons balancing and testing.

It wouldn't take too long, and could be added with UI 2.0 to be honest. And yes, I think it's needed as the folks designing this game have allowed the game to be built the way it is. Bear in mind that they would have to eventually hold to canon and create the XL category for Heavy Gauss, Bombast Lasers, XL Pulse Laser and Thunderbolt missiles. Right now though weapon hardpoints should stay where they are in terms of the number of weapons per slot, but the slot sizes need to be adjusted.

[Postumus]

MacKoga, on 04 July 2013 - 01:14 PM, said:

It's an interesting idea. But when I ask myself, "would this make the game more fun?" I'm getting a 'no.'

More versitile loadouts are fun. And most of the big mechs that do significant boating would likely have enough of the 'heavy' slots availalbe, that boating would still happen.

In my opinion, the correct way to counter concerns over boating PPCs and gauss rifles is to ensure all the other weapon systems are just as overpowered in the right situation. SRMs should be deadly. But so too should flamers and machine guns on light mechs. This, to me, is a preferable solution over restricting mech loadouts, because then everyone is excited about their loadouts, and they're all equally tactically OP, so long as they are in the right situation.

If you look at the hardpoint list for heavies and assaults, you will see that for the most part both classes have one or two heavy weapon systems in their stock builds, and a smattering of medium and light systems. Using hardpoint sizes, the mechs that are currently used the most for boating, such as the stalker line, would NOT be able to boat heavy weapons. The largest weapon that the Stalker 3F, the most popular variant, comes stock with is a large laser, and it only gets two of those. under the proposed system, the large laser would fall into the middle energy tier, and would not be able to be replaced with a PPC. Players who want to use PPCs on their Stalker would need to buy the 5S variant, which comes stock with two Large Pulse lasers that CAN be replaced with PPCs. However, they would get only two PPCs, and not in the high arm slots.

For the most part, this system would not restrict build options, except for those builds that rely on many duplicate heavy weapons. What it will do is encourage the proliferation of more currently unpopular variants, because mech variants will be more specialized. With Stalkers as the example again, the 5S, which is currently only used for it's dual AMS, would become popular as the only stalker, and one of the few mechs overall, that can fit two PPCs. The 4H would become the only stalker able to fit LRM 20s. For other mechs, the Awesome 8Q would be the only assault mech that could fit three heavy energy weapons, either large pulse or PPCs. The Hunchback 4G, currently neglected in favor of the 4H, because it has useless duplicate ballistic hardpoints, would become the only Hunchback that can fit an AC 20.

You might notice that the above list mentions PPCs alot. That is because currently, PPCs are being thrown around like popcorn in mechlab. Any mech that has room for PPCs is currently sporting them, from Jenners to Atlai, and very few builds use only one. Under this proposed system, PPCs would be distributed closer to like AC/10's and 20's currently are. Most builds that can use PPCs would use one, with some exceptions: the Stalker 5S, Firebrand, and Cat K2 would be able to mount 2 PPCs, and the Awesome 8Q and 9M would be able to use 3. That means that, at most, you would see triple PPC builds, and only on the Awesome. This is good for the Awesome, which currently has no niche, and good for players, because the Awesome makes up for it's energy boating ability with some obvious drawbacks, I.E. lowish armor and large hitboxes. No more instagib Mechwarrior, and good riddance.

[Sybreed]

YES

But!

Not because of balance, as I think convergence and heat rework will ultimately fix balance, but because of mech personality and character. I'm sick of seeing every mechs turning into boats.

Let the intended boats be boats, all other mechs shouldn't ALL turn into boats (soft boats could be accepted). For the sake of everything, make this mechwarrior game an actual mechwarrior experience.

[DeadlyNerd]

I'll describe what PGI is doing right now:

*with a finger plugging each ear* "LALALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER HOW BALANCED OUR GAME IS LALALALALA"

Sadly, that's probably true.

[Spudbuddy]

I fully agree hardpoints should be implemented, properly done it'd nerf the ppc/gauss deathball meta, remove stalkers as the robot superpower of this game, make awesomes worth taking out, their whole purpose on tabletop is 3 PPCs or erppcs, dosn't even matter with the whimsical hardpoints we have now, doing all willy nilly whatever you want, it'd also compensate for actual lack of hardpoints or poorly placed hardpoints, which awesomes also suffer from. etc. etc. this is good and should happen.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

So many people on the hard point restriction sizes that don't understand one of the prime omnis comes with 4 ER PPCs and a standard variant of a Banshee has a Guass and 2 PPCs.

Restricting hardpoints will solve nothing and only hurt the players in the end by not having more customization options. All you will see are Masakari around.

Understand that in TT and other MW products heat is the great game balancer most notably through the heat scale we need to have a adjusted version to of that in this game.