159 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

the good thing about the hardpoint system is that PGI won't have to include the Hollander (Raven can fit gauss) nor any of the PPC wielding lights as the jenner and the spider can already fill those roles as well.

Less work for PGI because they don't have to create all these mechs!

/sarcasm off

Customization killed diversity alright.

[Redwood Elf]

Who on earth puts ammo in the legs, given how easy it is to leg a mech? As for ammo routing systems, haven't you ever seen the systems that feed soda bottles to the bottling machine in a soda factory? same deal.

And if they don't ever jam, how come I've seen "Weapon Jammed" notices?

If a player wants to get enough mech XP to unlock the elites, he'll have to use at least 3 different chassis styles for the mech type...and the types of hardpoints on those ARE diverse, without size restrictions other than the inherant "one slot weapons only" limitation on CT or head weapons.

Edited by Redwood Elf, 10 July 2013 - 07:39 PM.

[Vox Scorpus]

Constraining players with limited mech builds is not how we get more people into the game. The current hardpoint system works well enough to keep ridiculous builds to a minimum. Besides, the type of people who don't have a balanced or creative build (the 6 PPC STK) will get bored and not stick around for to long anyway. They're not in here to PLAY, just to blow **** up. Which is a great stress relief, but is not playing the game in a team manner or utilizing tactical gameplay.

[Autobot9000]

Vox Scorpus, on 10 July 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

Constraining players with limited mech builds is not how we get more people into the game. The current hardpoint system works well enough to keep ridiculous builds to a minimum. Besides, the type of people who don't have a balanced or creative build (the 6 PPC STK) will get bored and not stick around for to long anyway. They're not in here to PLAY, just to blow **** up. Which is a great stress relief, but is not playing the game in a team manner or utilizing tactical gameplay.

So lets narrow your post a little down: You want to get more players with 6 PPCs into the game? Thats not how you keep the existent players. That's also not how you keep the newcomers who may or may not want 6 PPCs for a longer period. In the end you help nobody.

Edited by Autobot9000, 11 July 2013 - 01:27 AM.

[Adridos]

Vox Scorpus, on 10 July 2013 - 11:40 PM, said:

Constraining players with limited mech builds is not how we get more people into the game.

"I think its a good point that a lot of bored people might come back for stock queues, because I see it in my unit. It was no problem to motivate pilots to play in the 3025 stock mechs tournament. Its a much bigger issue to get them to play another round in their 6 PPC stalker, no matter how much we win/lose."

Quote from the German 3025 tournament participant...

[Autobot9000]

The hard point differentiation is the best way to solve the problem. The PPC as a weapon itself is completely unproblematic and quite balanced already. Just MIN/MAX AC20/PPC is what kills the game.


I am also quite convinced, that 3 different categories may be taking too much freedom from players. You dont want to decide whether that stalker takes an LRM15 or an LRM10. You want to decide whether they put 6 PPCs in slots, where medium lasers should be.

[Big Giant Head]

http://mwomercs.com/...91#entry2540891

Page 9
Post # 172

Quote

1 SLOT - 1 WEAPON

If you decide to put more weapons in 1 slot you will receive pushback:
(if you dont respect given rule)

*Just so everyone know these slots are the slots inspired by MW4 system
There can be more slots per component
Slots can have more segments from 1 to 4
Example:
1(slot)x 1(segment)
1(slot)x 2(segments)
1(slot)x 3(segments)
1(slot)x 4(segments)




2(slot)x 1(segments)
2(slot)x 2(segments)
2(slot)x 3(segments)
2(slot)x 4(segments)

And so on...

• Ballistic weapon will get increased cooldown:

It will punish player



When:
when player fires the other ballistic weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 50% of the fired weapon cooldown.
How:
the weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 30% of the fired weapon cooldown will get increased cooldown: 25% of the initial cooldown ( both percentages can be tweaked)
Meaning:
that "dakka-dakka" that ballistic weapons from the same slot outputs, will get slower with time
Exceptions:
Like jagermechs, they will have 2x 1 ballistic slot in both of their arms,
DD variant will have 1x 1 plus 1x 2 in both

• Energy weapon will get increased heat output:

When:
when player fires other energy weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
How:
weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 10%-15% of its cooldown
will get increased heat output: 40% of the initial heat output ( both percentages can be tweaked )
Meaning:
player will be forced to chainfire and will have better sense for firing lasers and their heat generated
Exceptions:
Like Hunchback 4P, they will have 2x 2 plus 2x 1 slots (which makes it 6), enabled to fire up to 4 med las size in alpha without pushback, rest two will have to go in sub-alpha chainfire if player doesnt want to have pushback on those two weapons

• Missile weapon will get increased heat output and cooldown but both will be weaker than energy and ballistic:

When:
when player fires other energy weapon from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 45% of its cooldown
How:
weapon that was fired from the same slot before the first one was cooled down for 45% of its cooldown
will get increased heat output: 25% of the initial heat output ( all percentages can be tweaked )
Meaning:
Player will be forced to hold lock-on longer

Edited by Big Giant Head, 11 July 2013 - 05:52 AM.

[ClaymoreReIIik]

Adridos, on 11 July 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

"I think its a good point that a lot of bored people might come back for stock queues, because I see it in my unit. It was no problem to motivate pilots to play in the 3025 stock mechs tournament. Its a much bigger issue to get them to play another round in their 6 PPC stalker, no matter how much we win/lose."

Quote from the German 3025 tournament participant...

Since you quoted me so nicely, I thought I should give my opinion about this topic:

I am for stock mech queues because full mod can get rather boring over time. I am against an MW4 type slot regulation though.

In MW4 you only saw certain chassis because they had the best slot-layout. Thats pretty much what we have now.

The underlying issue is not that you can customize mechs too much or not enough, its that currently some weapons are strictly better then others.

If you take a look at the current Metagame you see that instant-damage pinpoint weaponry is the "FOTM". Be it high calibre ACs, gauss or PPCs. Why is that? Because you "only" need to destroy CT, Head, both Legs to kill a mech with a standard reactor. Every bit of damage you do outside of those components is "wasted".

Naturally people will lean towards more efficient weaponry. Its a lot easier to place the crosshair for one "right positioned click" then it is to follow a target. Thats same with all shooter games and not necessarily something to "change".

A size limitation on slots will just make less variants viable, because you can not turn any Stalker into "generic energy-gunbag with FOTM energy weapon times 5". Less diversity is in itself a bad thing for much discussed reasons.

If I were to balance the weapon systems I would try to give each weapon system a unique strenght and weakness. LRMs for example have their unique strength (indirect fire) and weakness (180m minimum range). You have a strategy how to use it and one how to play against it.

Gauss has low heat, high range but its weakness is that its extremely fragile, heavy and ammo dependant. Open the gauss location, watch it go boom and be rid of it while having done "free" damage to your opponent. Once again a strategy how to use it and one how to play against it.


The AC20 has huge pinpoint damage, but its weakness is that its heavy, hot, ammo dependent and has extremely limited range. If you just stay out of 300 meters distance he will run out of ammo before he has scored the 2nd kill. Once again a strategy how to use it and how to play against it....you get my drift.

There is no issue at all with Ravens that mount Gauss Rifles or Spiders that mount PPCs. The issue is with pinpoint 30+ Damage Alpha Strikes.

Do something against that instead of limiting customisation in the mechlab.

Edited by ClaymoreReIIik, 11 July 2013 - 04:18 AM.

[Der_Goetz]

There is also an other solution from a player called homeless bill.

http://www.qqmercs.com/?p=2780

This work with a targeting computer value and count it up for every weapon you fired.

It is an alternate solution for the entire problem of boating. I preffer the hardpoint restrictions, but this is also
good for me.

Edited by Drake Grayson, 11 July 2013 - 04:33 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Quote

Examples:

Dragon 1C:




Dragon 1N:




Dragon 5N:




Stalker:




Awesome 8Q:



Hunchback 4G:




Hunchback 4H:

Hunchback 4G is able to put Long Tom or Heavy Gauss rifle in his right torso

Edited by Big Giant Head, 11 July 2013 - 08:42 AM.

[Autobot9000]

ClaymoreReIIik, on 11 July 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

The underlying issue is not that you can customize mechs too much or not enough, its that currently some weapons are strictly better then others.

There are several eclatant mistakes in this post. The one, that's basically invalidating the rest of your post is the one above. Currently almost all weapons have unique strengths and weaknesses. I assume "strictly better than others" you base on the metric "pin point damage". It's not like this is either the only metric, nor the most reasonable. Many others can be stated: Highest DPS per heat, longest range, highest damage per weight, ... The list can be extended infinitely.

The one true problem currently is: Pin point alpha damage threshold compared to the maximum armor threshold of vital zones.

These two values are very close at the moment. If this wouldn't be the case then the metric you apply ("pin point damage") would lose its a good portion of significance and other metrics would be considered to come up with builds, that are optimal under these conditions.

Edited by Autobot9000, 11 July 2013 - 06:12 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

ClaymoreReIIik, on 11 July 2013 - 04:11 AM, said:

Since you quoted me so nicely, I thought I should give my opinion about this topic:

I am for stock mech queues because full mod can get rather boring over time. I am against an MW4 type slot regulation though.

In MW4 you only saw certain chassis because they had the best slot-layout. Thats pretty much what we have now.

The underlying issue is not that you can customize mechs too much or not enough, its that currently some weapons are strictly better then others.

If you take a look at the current Metagame you see that instant-damage pinpoint weaponry is the "FOTM". Be it high calibre ACs, gauss or PPCs. Why is that? Because you "only" need to destroy CT, Head, both Legs to kill a mech with a standard reactor. Every bit of damage you do outside of those components is "wasted".

Naturally people will lean towards more efficient weaponry. Its a lot easier to place the crosshair for one "right positioned click" then it is to follow a target. Thats same with all shooter games and not necessarily something to "change".

A size limitation on slots will just make less variants viable, because you can not turn any Stalker into "generic energy-gunbag with FOTM energy weapon times 5". Less diversity is in itself a bad thing for much discussed reasons.

If I were to balance the weapon systems I would try to give each weapon system a unique strenght and weakness. LRMs for example have their unique strength (indirect fire) and weakness (180m minimum range). You have a strategy how to use it and one how to play against it.

Gauss has low heat, high range but its weakness is that its extremely fragile, heavy and ammo dependant. Open the gauss location, watch it go boom and be rid of it while having done "free" damage to your opponent. Once again a strategy how to use it and one how to play against it.


The AC20 has huge pinpoint damage, but its weakness is that its heavy, hot, ammo dependent and has extremely limited range. If you just stay out of 300 meters distance he will run out of ammo before he has scored the 2nd kill. Once again a strategy how to use it and how to play against it....you get my drift.

There is no issue at all with Ravens that mount Gauss Rifles or Spiders that mount PPCs. The issue is with pinpoint 30+ Damage Alpha Strikes.

Do something against that instead of limiting customisation in the mechlab.

You .....

We are not trying to copy the exact MW4 layout
We are using its system of slots.
I agree that in MW4 weapon hardpoints wasnt very well combined, but what really matters is its core rule.

None says that we should take the exact hardpoint layout from MW4

And BTW reason for other variants to exist are these hardpoint rules

Edited by Big Giant Head, 11 July 2013 - 06:52 AM.

[Big Giant Head]

Autobot9000, on 11 July 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

There are several eclatant mistakes in this post. The one, that's basically invalidating the rest of your post is the one above. Currently almost all weapons have unique strengths and weaknesses. I assume "strictly better than others" you base on the metric "pin point damage". It's not like this is either the only metric, nor the most reasonable. Many others can be stated: Highest DPS per heat, longest range, highest damage per weight, ... The list can be extended infinitely.

The one true problem currently is: Pin point alpha damage threshold compared to the maximum armor threshold of vital zones.

These two values are very close at the moment. If this wouldn't be the case then the metric you apply ("pin point damage") would lose its a good portion of significance and other metrics would be considered to come up with builds, that are optimal under these conditions.

The problem isnt pinpoint
Problem is how much weapons player brings to battlefield

Edited by Big Giant Head, 11 July 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[Stewbawl]

i think this idea is silly and i'll tell you why.

the awesome is an 80 ton mech and one of it's stock builds is 3 ppcs, so it would be ok. the dragon slayer is another 80 ton mech and by your logice even though it has the energy slots to put 3 ppcs on you are saying size wise it should only get 1 ppc and 2 smaller energy weapons. it just doesn't make sense. there is already a size limitation in that each location already has a limit as to how many hardpoints it has available AND a limitaiton of the number of slots in that location. a great example is the dragon. any variant that has more than 1 balistic slot available puts them all in the arm. we're already limited by what can go in there. there is no need for further limitation.

secondly all of this caterwalling about ppc boating is kind of silly in general. ppc boats can be beat. the primary focus of this game is to find out what the other team is running and strategically counterplay them to win the game either through destroying their mechs or capping them. there are strategies that can be implemented.

also i think that this may work itself out in the end. sooner or later i'm sure we'll see drop limitations, which means that you will no longer be running into 6 stalkers and 2 ravens. there will have to be a more rounded out team and that will force movement away from ppc boating like we are seeing it now.

[Vox Scorpus]

Autobot9000, on 11 July 2013 - 01:22 AM, said:

So lets narrow your post a little down: You want to get more players with 6 PPCs into the game? Thats not how you keep the existent players. That's also not how you keep the newcomers who may or may not want 6 PPCs for a longer period. In the end you help nobody.

Don't roll out to fast Autobot9000. Reread my post. I did not say I want more 6 PPC builds in the game. I said people who only build like that (non creatively) will not be in the game for long as their only goal seems to be mass destruction with no tactics, team play, or finesse (check out youtube videos if you don't believe me). In your later post you go on to say that 3 different categories of hardpoints may be taking away to much freedom. Which is it? Does the game constrain people or not? How well does a mech with 6 PPCs fair against a Jenner moving 152 kph. Not well from what I've seen and maybe that is the balance right there (not to mention the heat issue). PPCs have already been tweaked several times to keep them in balance. I think the devs are doing a good job juggling the weapons damage etc versus the gameplay. This is a team game. If there is a mech with 6 PPCs or any other combo like that then it is up to the team to avoid or take out that mech working together. I know we do in the matches I play in. Also there seems to be a mentality from some players that every match must be won and in order to do that the gameplay must be even and fair. Not true! It is possible to have a great fun match and still lose! Thanks devs.

[Shakespeare]

Big Giant Head, on 11 July 2013 - 06:54 AM, said:

The problem isnt pinpoint
Problem is how much weapons player brings to battlefield

They're BOTH problems, but because they're both linked to the customization system, there are several ways we can impact the factor that's annoying everyone: short'time to death'.

A new mechanic to reduce single-component damage from alpha builds is one approach, and is the one that the devs are currently (indirectly) implementing...the idea is that if it becomes unfeasible, or very disadvantageous, to 'boat' PPCs, Gauss, etc., then fewer mechs will be capable of ripping mechs in two with a single salvo, and 'time to death' will increase.

Another method is to meet the problem at the customization level, by reducing the availability of these builds in the first place. It would also have the side benefit of increasing the utility of wide chassis variety, which the current system kinda ****** all over. It all leads back to the same issue everyone in these sorts of threads wants solved.

Personally, I favor a more aggressive matchmaking algorithm that reduces the number of assaults per match, plus heat limitations on PPCs. Snipers shouldn't be eliminated, just trimmed down. But that's my opinion, carefully considered, among many equally invested in this debate.

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of seeing thread titles and responses with : "NO, the BEST way to fix boating/alpha is <blank>. It's simple and will work perfect." The implication being that the rest of us, and the devs, are idiots for not seeing the plain truth.

It's not a simple problem, or it would have been solved already. It reminds me of the Airplane on a conveyer belt debate. The answer 'feels' simple, and our instinct is to defend our certainty against what appears to be mass stupidity... but it's not simple, it's just a logistical anomaly. People need to calm the <redacted> down about this issue and not assume that the fix is going to be easy. We all want the same things. Stop treating each other like idiots.

(note: and how did the airplane debate end? by TESTING it, literally. Even then, the answer 'feels' wrong to some, but that's a question of resistance to change. The point is, I'm hoping that the devs get a little more crazy with the testing server, and try out various approaches actively. It's the only way we'll ever be sure if something works or not. By testing it.)

Edited by Shakespeare, 11 July 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[Postumus]

Shakespeare, on 11 July 2013 - 01:32 PM, said:

Frankly, I'm getting a bit tired of seeing thread titles and responses with : "NO, the BEST way to fix boating/alpha is <blank>. It's simple and will work perfect." The implication being that the rest of us, and the devs, are idiots for not seeing the plain truth.

Right on. Also, the purpose of this thread is to discuss modifying the hardpoint mechanics by implementing some system of hardpoint "types", so that certain hardpoints can fit certain weapons but not others. If you want to discuss that, this is the place. If you want to talk about how the game is great how it is not and doesn't need to be changed, or about how there really is this one counter to a single PPC boating mech so the game doesn't need to be changed, make your own thread.

Thanks for the pics Big Giant Head, visually outlining and highlighting the hardpoints based on size would be a great way to integrate it into the GUI. The only thing is, the graphical hardpoint "boxes" shouldn't be a fixed size, since a "Standard" hardpoint could be anywhere from 2 to 5 crit slots, and a heavy from 3 to 10. Crit slots left over over after a weapon is placed should not be shown to be used, since they are "free".

To answer a couple of other comments, the reason that an Awesome variant is able to use 3 PPCs while a Dragon Slayer can only use one under the system is because they are completely different mechs. It is because almost any heavy and assault can fit 3 or more PPCs that the Awesome is currently thought of as useless. On the other hand, under a system where the Awesome is the only current mech that can fit 3 PPCs, its well-discussed disadvantages are a perfect balance for its energy firepower. As for the comment that hardpoint sizes are already restricted by location, I've already answered this: that is only true for center torso and head hardpoints, and for variants with multiple ballistic hardpoints in a single location, or ballistic hardpoints in an arm that has an upper and lower arm actuator. It is not true at all for energy or missile weapons (except CT hardpoints).

Finally, addressing the sentiment that hardpoint sizes should only be used to restrict PPC boating, I heartily disagree. Just because PPC boating is the current flavor of the month doesn't mean that people wouldn't gladly revert to either laser or LRM or AC/20 boating if PPC boating disappeared tomorrow. Just ask yourself if boating, outside a couple specific, fairly balanced variants ( AWS-8Q, HBK-4P ), adds anything to the game that you couldn't do without.

[Big Giant Head]

Postumus, on 11 July 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

Right on. Also, the purpose of this thread is to discuss modifying the hardpoint mechanics by implementing some system of hardpoint "types", so that certain hardpoints can fit certain weapons but not others. If you want to discuss that, this is the place. If you want to talk about how the game is great how it is not and doesn't need to be changed, or about how there really is this one counter to a single PPC boating mech so the game doesn't need to be changed, make your own thread.

Thanks for the pics Big Giant Head, visually outlining and highlighting the hardpoints based on size would be a great way to integrate it into the GUI. The only thing is, the graphical hardpoint "boxes" shouldn't be a fixed size, since a "Standard" hardpoint could be anywhere from 2 to 5 crit slots, and a heavy from 3 to 10. Crit slots left over over after a weapon is placed should not be shown to be used, since they are "free".

To answer a couple of other comments, the reason that an Awesome variant is able to use 3 PPCs while a Dragon Slayer can only use one under the system is because they are completely different mechs. It is because almost any heavy and assault can fit 3 or more PPCs that the Awesome is currently thought of as useless. On the other hand, under a system where the Awesome is the only current mech that can fit 3 PPCs, its well-discussed disadvantages are a perfect balance for its energy firepower. As for the comment that hardpoint sizes are already restricted by location, I've already answered this: that is only true for center torso and head hardpoints, and for variants with multiple ballistic hardpoints in a single location, or ballistic hardpoints in an arm that has an upper and lower arm actuator. It is not true at all for energy or missile weapons (except CT hardpoints).

Finally, addressing the sentiment that hardpoint sizes should only be used to restrict PPC boating, I heartily disagree. Just because PPC boating is the current flavor of the month doesn't mean that people wouldn't gladly revert to either laser or LRM or AC/20 boating if PPC boating disappeared tomorrow. Just ask yourself if boating, outside a couple specific, fairly balanced variants ( AWS-8Q, HBK-4P ), adds anything to the game that you couldn't do without.

Problem:
Is when there are crit spaces left in hardpoint slot and they are " trapped" ( so if I put LL and ML in Awesomes torso those two crit spaces are "trapped" between LL and ML)

Fix:
There should be like sub-menu for weapons, when you are finished you close it, then weapons are stacked next to each other so there are no trapped spaces

[Big Giant Head]

In every game there are several systems to customize gameplay

In MWO we know there are:
-hardpoints
-critical slot system
-heat system
-cooldown system
-weapon range
-targeting system
-etc

Basically everything that affects gameplay

So the question is: Which system to change?
Counter question: What type of gameplay do you want?

We all want classic Mechwarrior game so change should be implemented on hardpoint systems.
Why?
Because currently, if you look at the reason why variants are implemeted - its becuase they are different

Example (currently in MWO) :
So I have this build: AC/10 , LL and srm6 on Dragon 1C
How the hell other variants like Dragon 5N are going to force me to use different loadout?
There is no point in other variants to exist!!! And yet we have to buy it and play it so that we can fill our mech tree.

And Mech Tree isnt even a tree because you just have to fill it out without any knowledge whatsoever.
You dont get to decide what your chassis (variants) specification will be or which route to take and what to choose,...
So you spend hours and hours of playing this chassis so that you could fill out some tweaks that are called Mech Tree.
How is that fun?

Anyway Mech tree is not the problem for this thread to discuss.

Edited by Big Giant Head, 12 July 2013 - 01:19 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Big Giant Head, on 12 July 2013 - 01:16 AM, said:

And Mech Tree isnt even a tree because you just have to fill it out without any knowledge whatsoever.
You dont get to decide what your chassis (variants) specification will be or which route to take and what to choose,...
So you spend hours and hours of playing this chassis so that you could fill out some tweaks that are called Mech Tree.
How is that fun?

Anyway Mech tree is not the problem for this thread to discuss.

This and this and this and this....
I really want to see some days a tree - a trunk were i can't move back - for example the ES, DHS, FF XL Engine decision should be linked to a tree.... make once and you can never turn it back.
Want your Mech without Endosteel? - Well buy a new one and start leveling it.