159 replies to this topic

[SweetWarmIce]

Wouldn't everyone just run only the Mechs that can mount sniper weapons (PPC/Gauss). Reducing variety even further?

[Postumus]

First, omnis are omnis. Clan mechs have always been "OP" compared to their inner sphere opposites, and its up to PGI to decide how to balance that. However, clan mechs are probably a year away, and there are pressing balance issues now.

As for people only playing mechs that can mount PPCs or Gauss, once you realize that only two mechs in the game would be able to equip 3 PPCs, no mechs would be able to equip dual Gauss, and only another two or 3 would be able to fit dual PPCs, sniper mechs and brawler mechs would be equally balanced. A brawler HGN-733C versus a 3 PPC Awesome 8Q or 9M is a fair fight. Same for Brawler CTF-3D versus dual PPC Cat K2. Long range mech builds would no longer hopelessly outclass brawlers or high DPS, high ROF builds. They will have their role, but they will not be the end-all of mech design.

Likewise, there is little room for either total LRM boating or Large Laser boating to fill the quad PPC cheese void. Check out the list of weapons and their tiers, compare it with the tables Thuraash set up, and you will see that nearly all of the variants will be viable or fulfill a specific role distinct from other mechs. There would be a compelling reason to buy and run many of the currently neglected mech variants, since it would be much harder to duplicate builds across multiple variants. You will also see that many popular, non-cheese builds are still possible with sized hardpoints.

Edited by Postumus, 07 July 2013 - 04:57 PM.

[Solis Obscuri]

I really think we're following in the footsteps of MW4 too much already.

[skullman86]

I didn't like MW4's hardpoint system when I first played it, but over the past ~6 months I've come to appreciate it a lot more. Back in closed and early open beta, the catapult was the only problem chassis (as far as hardpoint exploiting goes) and not a lot of people cared about it, but now we are seeing what this system can do when left unchecked. We have more flexibility than MW4 did and we can't find any other way to play the game than to try and cram a bunch of heavy weapons into every chassis regardless of its intended role or size.

On the topic of Clans...

IS has to function against IS because that is the core of the game, and leaving the door open for a bunch of boring powerbuilds just because the big bad clans are coming (soon™) is ridiculous. When the Clans come, they should be balanced around IS, not the other way around.

Here is what PGI has to work with:

• No engine, structure, or armor changes allowed
  
• Full weapon customization for Omnis (still have slot limits)
  
• Outnumbered in matches

I would argue that a full team of balanced mechs could beat an outnumbered team of cheese, but there is no way to guarantee those types of mismatches occur at the moment (though I've seen it happen before). Trying to give IS some kind of preemptive bonus against clans is going to prove to be unnecessary and all it's really doing is hurting evenly matched IS games (evenly matched player numbers, not the actual value of the mechs).

Edited by skullman86, 07 July 2013 - 06:23 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

I would like a game - were it should be possible to pilot a Mech of choice - or if not possible - to take a Mech of equal weight and create the mech of choice in another proxy.

The sad is the game mechanics are not able to come up with the iminent threat of 2 Gauss and 2 PPCs. They will hardly be able to handle the fire power of dual UAC 20s or Heavy Gauss Rifles... so any change in Mechlab is in vain.

I think the best game play experience is to give the player the choice... not to penalize him.

Give a player the choice to mount a PPC in his MLAS socket - or even a Gauss if he like so.... or give him the choice to have a faster, more mobile mech with a superior MLAS - without modifications - or just a MPLAS and a better profile

Edited by Karl Streiger, 08 July 2013 - 04:52 AM.

[Dirus Nigh]

No.

It is my choice to put what ever type of weapon on that hard point. If I want to put a Gauss rifle in a raven than its my choice to do so. There are consequences in doing so. Such as the weight of the gauss rifle, the fact it needs ammo. The amount of crit slots it takes. The same with the catapult. If I put two AC20/s Gauss rifles in a catapult I have to make sure it fits. That is a massive amount of weight I am putting into the mech. That is 34-36 tons devoted to two weapons. Which will run out of ammo. Which I will need to use an XL engine to make it happen. It will be slow.

PPC boats are another issue. I will need to devote large amounts of space an tonnage to heat sinks and the PPCs. They also cause a lot of heat.

The hard point system as it is now is a good balance between the free form crit chart of table top, and MW2/3, and MW4 type restriction.

This type of idea is not a "fix" for the game. It's a restriction wanted because some one does not like how you customize your mech.

A better solution is to look at the heat system.

Edited by Dirus Nigh, 08 July 2013 - 02:52 PM.

[Postumus]

The problem is that there aren't any negative consequences to boating heavy weapons. There is no consequence to adding a third PPC on top of a second, or a fourth on top of a third, ad nauseum, until your tonnage runs out. Boating energy weapons doesn't take any more space than a mixed build with ammo factored in, and provides tangible benefits. Also, the only reason that there isn't any real problem with heavy ballistic boating, i.e. 3 Gauss or AC/20, four AC/10 etc, is that there aren't any mechs with both the available tonnage and the hardpoints to load them. If, tommorow, a hypothetical assault mech were introduced with Jager type arms and ballistic slots in the left and right torsos, there would probably be just as big of an issue with ballistic boating as there is now with PPC boating.

The problem is just heavy, direct fire weapon boating, pure and simple. Today it is PPCs, tomorrow it could be Gauss again. Implementing increasing penalties as part of the heat system, or adjusting the heat scale would solve some boating problems, but not all. Nerfing the weapons themselves isn't an optimal solution, since they are fine in reasonable quantities. One PPC, Gauss, or AC/20 is not OP. Two of the above are not game breaking, but should be restricted to certain mechs that "specialize" in said weapons. When heavy weapons are sprinkled moderately across the spectrum of mechs, things are fine. However, now when you drop into a match, almost any mech that has the space and tonnage is carrying as many PPCs as it can fit. You have multi-PPC Jenners, Spiders, Trebuchets, Hunckbacks, Jagermechs, Cataphracts, Highlanders, Awesomes, Stalkers, Atlases. One giant chunk of homogenized heavy weapon bleh.

Sized hardpoints are indeed a restriction, but this isn't a bad thing. It is just a fact that without some kinds of restrictions, certain builds or or duplicated weapons are going to pop up on the majority of mechs, which you are seeing now, and it hurts the game because it reduces diversity of mech variants, weapons, playstyles, and tactics, and it is less fun for anyone that does not want to play instagib PPCwarrior online. Don't get me wrong, I have a PPC stalker and I can use it just fine, but it is boring as hell to use, and when everyone uses one, or a similar build on another mech, it makes the game worse, so I will gladly take a restriction.

Edited by Postumus, 08 July 2013 - 11:56 PM.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Okay so since this is still going and I must be nice to my fellow gamers I ask this: Why have people not demanded that the PPC heat be reverted to the pre fix?

For those that do not know PPCs had a much higher heat prior to HSR going in for them, PGI reduced the heat as a fix to HSR not being in for them but somewhere they forgot to add the heat levels back.

Hard point limitations are is not viable as so many mechs were field variants and customs. So to limit it more then it already has been is foolish and would hurt a large portion of player base the solution needs to be around true balance which can only be achieved with the heat modifiers be it chance for shut down ammo explosions decreased speeds increase convergence or longer recycles for weapons all based on your heat %.

[Eric darkstar Marr]

Postumus, on 08 July 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

The problem is that there aren't any negative consequences to boating heavy weapons. There is no consequence to adding a third PPC on top of a second, or a fourth on top of a third, ad nauseum, until your tonnage runs out. Boating energy weapons doesn't take any more space than a mixed build with ammo factored in, and provides tangible benefits. Also, the only reason that there isn't any real problem with heavy ballistic boating, i.e. 3 Gauss or AC/20, four AC/10 etc, is that there aren't any mechs with both the available tonnage and the hardpoints to load them. If, tommorow, a hypothetical assault mech were introduced with Jager type arms and ballistic slots in the left and right torsos, there would probably be just as big of an issue with ballistic boating as there is now with PPC boating.

The problem is just heavy, direct fire weapon boating, pure and simple. Today it is PPCs, tomorrow it could be Gauss again. Implementing increasing penalties as part of the heat system, or adjusting the heat scale would solve some boating problems, but not all. Nerfing the weapons themselves isn't an optimal solution, since they are fine in reasonable quantities. One PPC, Gauss, or AC/20 is not OP. Two of the above are not game breaking, but should be restricted to certain mechs that "specialize" in said weapons. When heavy weapons are sprinkled moderately across the spectrum of mechs, things are fine. However, now when you drop into a match, almost any mech that has the space and tonnage is carrying as many PPCs as it can fit. You have multi-PPC Jenners, Spiders, Trebuchets, Hunckbacks, Jagermechs, Cataphracts, Highlanders, Awesomes, Stalkers, Atlases. One giant chunk of homogenized heavy weapon bleh.

Sized hardpoints are indeed a restriction, but this isn't a bad thing. It is just a fact that without some kinds of restrictions, certain builds or or duplicated weapons are going to pop up on the majority of mechs, which you are seeing now, and it hurts the game because it reduces diversity of mech variants, weapons, playstyles, and tactics, and it is less fun for anyone that does not want to play instagib PPCwarrior online. Don't get me wrong, I have a PPC stalker and I can use it just fine, but it is boring as hell to use, and when everyone uses one, or a similar build on another mech, it makes the game worse, so I will gladly take a restriction.

Just so you may not know there has been a slight shift in meta at the higher end of the ELO bracket. People have figured out how to deal with the poptarts mass ppc guass builds and the sudden increase in LRMs I would inform you but its just wiser to tell you to watch some streams and see.

[Postumus]

I've been here since the founders program was first offered, so I've seen the PPC go from canon TT stats, with high heat and low projectile speed, to the current incarnation. The biggest reason that the PPC was buffed was that, just like the large laser, ER large, and large pulse, it was not in any sense competitive. For alot of people back then, energy weapons stopped at medium, and not just because of hit registration. If you nerf PPCs to the point where the quad PPC stalker isn't an optimal choice, then the single PPC balanced builds are going to be even worse off.

The PPC buff wasn't done as a "gimme" before HSR was in, but it's true that HSR compounded the buffs. My point is that it isn't just the PPC. As I said in my last post, it could just as well be AC/10, 20 or Gauss being boated, the effects would be the same. As for the way in which tiered hardpoints would restrict builds, you will find that almost any build that is commonly used can be duplicated in a tiered hardpoint system, with the exception of the worst cheese. Do those cheese builds REALLY add that much to the game?

[Redwood Elf]

Hardpoint size is already covered by the tonage rules and hardpoint placement. Just try putting an LRM20 or a pair of ERPPCs on a Jenner, for example. Not gonna happen (The missile hardpoint is Center Torso, and a Jenner just can't carry lots of heavy weapons)

[Postumus]

That only affects CT weapons and AC/20 in the arms. All other weapons can fit in all other appropriate hardpoints, including Gauss and PPC. Tonnage rules only provide a ceiling, under which anything goes. Hardpoint sizes is a completely different system.

[Redwood Elf]

Postumus, on 09 July 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

That only affects CT weapons and AC/20 in the arms. All other weapons can fit in all other appropriate hardpoints, including Gauss and PPC. Tonnage rules only provide a ceiling, under which anything goes. Hardpoint sizes is a completely different system.

Completely redundant you mean. Sure, if you strip a Jenner down to bare bones, get Endo Steel and Ferro Fiber Armor, you just might be able to mount something ridiculous on it...but good luck surviving long enough to use it effectively. You do better damage overall with 4 medium pulse lasers than one ERPPC for example...and in either case, you would need to start stripping down your armor just to carry the things, and you're going to have heat problems as well.

[Bhael Fire]

SweetWarmIce, on 06 July 2013 - 11:05 PM, said:

Wouldn't everyone just run only the Mechs that can mount sniper weapons (PPC/Gauss). Reducing variety even further?

Yep.

[Postumus]

Redwood Elf, on 09 July 2013 - 08:38 PM, said:

Completely redundant you mean. Sure, if you strip a Jenner down to bare bones, get Endo Steel and Ferro Fiber Armor, you just might be able to mount something ridiculous on it...but good luck surviving long enough to use it effectively. You do better damage overall with 4 medium pulse lasers than one ERPPC for example...and in either case, you would need to start stripping down your armor just to carry the things, and you're going to have heat problems as well.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...15cfaf5b432c6e5
2x PPC JR7-F
Only a half ton short of armor, and great heat efficiency.

But really, I don't know why you're focusing on Jenners. Light mechs don't need the treatment near as much as the rest, but that still doesn't mean that the system isn't broken. Please tell me what isn't broken about teams full of 4-6 PPC stalkers. Why it's a good idea that the optimal build for a highlander is 3xPPC and a Gauss, and how it helps the game. The fact is, due to game mechanics, the slow relative speed of most mechs, and the transition from randomized targeting to pinpoint accuracy, there is an undeniable advantage gained from duplicating heavy, high alpha weapons in a loadout that is not gained from duplicating other weapons. A 5 AC/2 Jager is nasty, but it cannot stand up to a quad PPC Cataphract, or Catapult. You can test that out yourself.

As for the comment that everyone would just run mechs that can mount sniper weapons, there is much less advantage in having one or two sniper weapons than the current standard four. A 2 PPC Catapult K2 is not any better than A brawler Cataphract 3D. And the Awesomes that can run 3 PPCs have their own drawbacks and disadvantages, ask anyone who owns an Awesome.

[C E Dwyer]

Gaan Cathal, on 28 June 2013 - 09:08 PM, said:

Under your size system, what's the second energy hardpoint (not equivalent to a stock loadout weapon) on each arm of the AS7-RS? A 'large' size like the one already in the arm, or a 'small' for..some arbitrary reason?

Being able to 'only' fit two Ac20 on a JM a mech is just as arbitary under the current system, no proper engineering physics such as stress caused by weight, recoil, methods of loading the ammo, and all the itty bitty gizmo's and wotnots has ever been vaguely considered

a quick example of how poor the current system is, the fact that you can place ammo in the feet, of a mech that travels all the way up the mech past a fusion reactor, never jams, only stops working if the said leg is blown off or the weapon, if you have ammo in one foot and two weapons if magically travels through two paths which we can call the magic munchkin route as it has squat to do with engineering or science, the placing in the feet dosn't slow down rate of fire, yet ac cannon need a belt or drum feed

and yet you claim another persons attempt to balance what rapidly becoming a comedy of errors to challenge the marks brothers an arbitary reason

[Autobot9000]

Yes obviously the absence of this feature is the main reason for MIN/MAX builds and the whole derail of the meta game into black/white, high risk/high reward gameplay.

I wouldn't differentiate the hard point system too fine granular, as that could be a system hard to control, i.e. to foresee its utility&problems from a game design point of view. Taking actual physics into account is ofc completely out of scope for a game like this. Plausibility counts, not realism.

I would start simple and introduce large hardpoints, that must have a visual representation on the battlemech e.g. a huge PPC hole in an Awesome makes for a large energy hardpoint or a big gun in an arm makes for a large ballistic hardpoint.

I would assign PPCs, Gauss, AC20 to the large categories and the rest to small categories. I wouldn't differentiate missile hardpoints, as the current system seems good enough here already. I would also never put a large hardpoint on a light mech, unless it is a very special light mech, the Panther carrying its single PPC.

The final rating of a system's cheesyness is linked to both elements: Gameplay (frustration factor) and Visual plausibility (ridiculing factor). I believe a new system should absolutely account for both.

Edited by Autobot9000, 10 July 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[C E Dwyer]

Postumus, on 10 July 2013 - 12:25 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...15cfaf5b432c6e5
2x PPC JR7-F
Only a half ton short of armor, and great heat efficiency.

But really, I don't know why you're focusing on Jenners. Light mechs don't need the treatment near as much as the rest, but that still doesn't mean that the system isn't broken. Please tell me what isn't broken about teams full of 4-6 PPC stalkers. Why it's a good idea that the optimal build for a highlander is 3xPPC and a Gauss, and how it helps the game. The fact is, due to game mechanics, the slow relative speed of most mechs, and the transition from randomized targeting to pinpoint accuracy, there is an undeniable advantage gained from duplicating heavy, high alpha weapons in a loadout that is not gained from duplicating other weapons. A 5 AC/2 Jager is nasty, but it cannot stand up to a quad PPC Cataphract, or Catapult. You can test that out yourself.

As for the comment that everyone would just run mechs that can mount sniper weapons, there is much less advantage in having one or two sniper weapons than the current standard four. A 2 PPC Catapult K2 is not any better than A brawler Cataphract 3D. And the Awesomes that can run 3 PPCs have their own drawbacks and disadvantages, ask anyone who owns an Awesome.

I think the focus is on the jenner because your smurfy example shows just how idiotic and broken the current system is, and until there are further and more restrictive load out limits this game will never be balanced

[Vox Scorpus]

Very interesting idea Postumus. In the beginning I didn't like the hardpoints at all. I was used to Classic Battletech builds where you could put what you want where you want it and heat was the big limiting factor. I have gotten used to and even like the current system. Someone suggested having only 2 types of hardpoints - heavy and standard (thanks to whoever it was, couldn't find it when I went back to look). This would only limit the heaviest of weapons and that might be a good idea although I don't like the idea of restricting builds - that's half the fun! Also a part of me wants to drop the whole hardpoint system altogether! That would make for some fun builds!!! Rock on Devs!

[Postumus]

Cathy, on 10 July 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

I think the focus is on the jenner because your smurfy example shows just how idiotic and broken the current system is, and until there are further and more restrictive load out limits this game will never be balanced

You misunderstood. I'm the OP, and the smurphy example was in response to someone claiming that heavy weapons on lights was either impossible or completely not viable. I was attempting to show, through the example build, that the current system is broken and that heavy weapon boating can be used to great effect on almost any chassis with more than one energy hardpoint. I intended for the example to show that some reasonable restrictions, like sized hardpoints, are either beneficial or necessary.

I considered a two tiered system, where all the weapons were split into standard or heavy, but this still allows for things like large laser and LRM boating. As I said earlier, if, tomorrow, the devs introduced some hypothetical change that preventing PPC boating, I can guarantee you that within an hour people would revert to large laser boating, which is almost as bad. Six large lasers on a stalker has about the same effect as a four PPC build, and is equally cheesy. And, while LRM boating isn't as much of a problem as heavy direct fire boating, it is still cheezy, annoying, cheap, and does not contribute anything positive to the game. The majority of mechs in Battletech are supposed to carry what you would call a balanced loadout, with extreme specialization and boating being fairly rare.

I don't want to revert the game to stock only, since customization is a core feature and a damn good idea, but there need to be more reasonable limits on customization. As for Vox's suggestion that hardpoints be removed completely, all I have to say to that is AWS-9M with XL 385, 31 double heatsinks and 16 medium lasers. Or just take a Centurion, max our the engine and fill the rest with small lasers and heatsinks. The effect is the same, mass retardation and game death.