40 replies to this topic

[GODzillaGSPB]

I read this every once in a while and at least several times in each topic regarding boating, or proposing a fix to boating. "Boating is okay because mech x is designed as a boat!"

Like the Longbow with its LRMs and the Awesome with its PPCs! Right?

There are two arguments against it, one from the gameplay point of view, one from the eyes of the developers:


1.) A Stalker is not an Awesome. Yes, it's true!

Some Awesomes are meant to be a PPC-boat, this is correct. But the weapons are placed on the body so that an Awesome would have to expose itself fully in order to fire them all together. It is shaped like a brick-wall and can easily be hit. It is a PPC-boat, but there are disadvantages that balance the build. The Stalker just has to stick it's upper heat out, peek, shoot, retreat. The current meta in a nutshell.

A Stalker is also not a Longbow. Only a Longbow is a Longbow. The Longbow pays for it's LRM-capabilities by having HUGE arms. It's a big-fat target, unlike the rather sleek Stalker.


2.) Hey there PGI, I heard you want to make money...

Okay, so you say there is no need to limit customization, everything's fine and a Stalker can be a Longbow. Cool. Just wait until you release the Longbow and nobody wants it because the Stalker does it better. And who needs the Awesome as a PPC platform?

Yes, I do believe that players buy mechs because they like how they look. But it is rather shortsigthed to rely on this alone. When the players realize that the Stalker is the better Longbow, they may have already payed you money, but they may stop playing. And you know what makes World of Tanks so successfull? It's huge player base. (And in contrast to the "hot news" that the player base continues to rise I see the same players in just a couple of games and then again, so I really don't believe it!)

If you want to sell mechs in the future and if you want to retain your playerbase, you need to shape mechs so that every build has something special and be it even small.


So there you have it. My 5 cents to the annoying "mech x does it" argument. Flame-on.

[Victor Morson]

I've explained this before, and I'll explain it again: The issue is if one 'mech can boat something, then you aren't impacting balance at all, because you can just take the 'mech that does what you want to do.

I'm actually in favor of hardpoint restrictions by level, but for absolutely zero balance reasons. I believe adding this would allow the various variants and 'mechs to have more diversity and character, which is going to be important because pretty soon we will literally have EVERY base covered and there will be no need for more 'mechs.

Again, if you're OK with an Awesome boating PPCs because "it's supposed to" it won't impact how games are played if another 'mech can no longer do so. There will still be the same weapon setup on the field, nothing has changed.

I hope my point is clear.. it won't fix our problems, but it would be nice for other reasons, basically.

EDIT: I've also been in favor of giving variants bonuses towards certain weapon platforms, because I think that'd be a good alternative to add character if the hard point limits are never going to happen.

Edited by Victor Morson, 02 July 2013 - 01:20 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

Victor Morson, on 02 July 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

I hope my point is clear.. it won't fix our problems, but it would be nice for other reasons, basically.

EDIT: I've also been in favor of giving variants bonuses towards certain weapon platforms, because I think that'd be a good alternative to add character if the hard point limits are never going to happen.

Hm yes you made your point...but really...you see a Stalker with 4 PPCs and you see a Awesome with 4 PPCs - both can hurt you - but I think the Awesome is feared less - and the main reason is not that it has 5t less - its a smaller target - it has smaller hitboxes.... he have to move in the open to fire its PPCs

so the OP had made a valid point.

[Victor Morson]

Karl Streiger, on 02 July 2013 - 01:23 AM, said:

Hm yes you made your point...but really...you see a Stalker with 4 PPCs and you see a Awesome with 4 PPCs - both can hurt you - but I think the Awesome is feared less - and the main reason is not that it has 5t less - its a smaller target - it has smaller hitboxes.... he have to move in the open to fire its PPCs

so the OP had made a valid point.

While I agree hitboxes and such definitely figure into it (the bigger reason is the guns on the Stalker are elevated, meaning it can fire over hills much faster than the Awesome), but ultimately, this is a chassis design problem and nothing to do with the weapon profile.

Basically the 5% loss in quality between Stalker and Awesome if you suddenly disallowed Stalker to carry PPCs wouldn't be enough to stop people for more than about three days... while they train their Awesomes to elite. So I still hold this won't solve ANYTHING balance wise with the meta.

However, again, I am not opposed to hard point limitations. I'm totally for them and would be happy to see them planned, in fact. Because again, it brings variety and a reason for more 'mechs and variants to exist. I just don't want PGI, or the public, thinking this would solve our current problems. Because it won't.

[Karl Streiger]

Victor Morson, on 02 July 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

Basically the 5% loss in quality between Stalker and Awesome if you suddenly disallowed Stalker to carry PPCs wouldn't be enough to stop people for more than about three days... while they train their Awesomes to elite. So I still hold this won't solve ANYTHING balance wise with the meta.

However, again, I am not opposed to hard point limitations. I'm totally for them and would be happy to see them planned, in fact. Because again, it brings variety and a reason for more 'mechs and variants to exist. I just don't want PGI, or the public, thinking this would solve our current problems. Because it won't.

As long as it can only field 3 PPCs... why not... although - i had a voice in the back of my mind that is saying: 9Q...and of course with current Meta the 9Q with 4PPCs and ECM will be again a game breaker....

So hardpoint will have no impact on balancing - only a question of style - and to force pilots ot have style over efficency.
If there is an influence than only because of the current available BattleMechs.

Not to mention other Mechs like the Anihilator - slow cumbersome - big but 40 dmg every 2.5 sec or even faster - with pinpoint....how to fix that thing with Hardpoints? No can do.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Victor Morson, on 02 July 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

[...]
I'm actually in favor of hardpoint restrictions by level, but for absolutely zero balance reasons. I believe adding this would allow the various variants and 'mechs to have more diversity and character, which is going to be important because pretty soon we will literally have EVERY base covered and there will be no need for more 'mechs.
[...]

Absolutely. And that's what I meant when I wrote "shape the mechs". Currently mechs in MWO just feel like a random checklist of hardpoints. There is no design philisophy behind any of them.

For instance, let's take the raven and throw in the ancient idea of the closed beta: Design pillars, scouting. This mech should, just as an example, sport BAP by default. It should have special technical warfare capabilities. Instead many people still remember it as THE strongest light fighting mech. Something went wrong there. Imho.

Victor Morson, on 02 July 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

Again, if you're OK with an Awesome boating PPCs because "it's supposed to" it won't impact how games are played if another 'mech can no longer do so. There will still be the same weapon setup on the field, nothing has changed.
[...]

Yes, like I said: The Awesome as a PPC-boat is okay in my opinion because it has several disadvantages to go with the boating. Several of the PPC hardpoints are positioned rather low in the body and the arm and the mech must fully expose itself to fire all of them together. The Stalker is totally different, with it's 4 hardpoints mounted at the top-sides of his head.

[Shalune]

What you have a problem with is min/maxing not boating. Boating is simply the form that min/maxing takes in the current balance of the game. No matter what rules you make to try and encourage a certain style of play, people will find the single most effective method within that system and use it to the exclusion of others. No matter what you do, serious players will find a way to marginalize much of your content by demonstrating what is strictly better.

If boating alone were the problem then you'd see as many threads here about CPLT-A1s and HBK-4Ps. The solution, as many others argue, is in weapon balance. If anything, weapons need to be differentiated more, not balanced closer to each other. They all function so similarly, even LRMs to a degree, that it is easy to exclude one in favor of another that does the same job better. Instead we should be making sure they each have their own job and role to fill. It's the reason class-based shooters have caught on as the norm now. A medic in TF2 need not be tuned so perfectly that he's exactly as good as a heavy, because he's the only one that can heal or uber. He need only excel in his own niche.

As a basic example I would love it if LRMs were slower, spread were radically increased to intentionally hit the area around a mech as well, with a large boost in damage and aoe. The idea being that they are very easy to avoid at range, comparatively inefficient at killing a single mech in mid-range LOS, but potentially crippling to large groups or entrenched mechs.

EDIT:In case it wasn't already clear, the base problem right now is that most weapons in the game are too similar in function allowing for almost 1 truly optimal loadout (Gauss + 2-3 PPC.)

I'm also with you and Morson on the 2nd point, but I think that's a matter of taste. It does not break the game as is.

Edited by Shalune, 02 July 2013 - 01:52 AM.

[Ph30nix]

Victor Morson, on 02 July 2013 - 01:19 AM, said:

EDIT: I've also been in favor of giving variants bonuses towards certain weapon platforms, because I think that'd be a good alternative to add character if the hard point limits are never going to happen.

i REALLY like this idea..... it wouldnt even have to be anything game breaking.

Like take current game situation, The awesome (which was built to use PPC's) say it gets a bonus heat disipation (or just lower heat) when it uses PPC's nothing huge of course but enough that someone might go "hmmm i think ill take the awesome instead of the stalker"
it would be insanely useful for the smaller mechs.
Like using an AC/2 on a Black jack (which it comes stock with) make it get an ammo bonus or maybe when it was designed they figured out how to shave .5 ton's off the ac/2's or something so it gets alittle more wiggle room on weight.

its just a thought but it could open up alot of interesting ways to make different mechs more viable while also adding ways to throw some extra ways to make various chassis's unique.

[Jam the Bam]

GODzillaGSPB, on 02 July 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

And you know what makes World of Tanks so successfull? It's huge player base

Lol No.

Playerbase is a symptom of success not the reason for it.

Anyway I do agree with your post even if you have an odd way of saying it.

Really when you get to your mech bay I always think you should think ' I want to play x style with x speed' etc. and you should be looking at a particular mech to fulfil that role, and each mech should have an area in which it excels, instead of the one mech fits all style that currently is dominant.

[EvilCow]

I agree with OP. The fun thing is that PGI is hurting its sales by making mechs too customizable, it is removing the incentive to buy new variants, slots, camos etc

Smart move.

[B0oN]

...
Jumping off a bridge is okay because suicider X did
...

´tis all I was able to read and many of us have realized PGI is partially shooting off their kneecaps with the way it is now.

BUT

Still I am a stupid human and not giving up hoping on some fix or the other to at least decrease mega-spammage of certain weapon types on each and every mech that has more than one slot of each type of weapon.

With that being said ... I need moar spam for my spam, otherwise the spam feels unspammed.

Edited by Rad Hanzo, 02 July 2013 - 02:28 AM.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Jammerben87, on 02 July 2013 - 02:17 AM, said:

Lol No.

Playerbase is a symptom of success not the reason for it.

Anyway I do agree with your post even if you have an odd way of saying it.

These are f2p games and only a portion of the playerbase spends money on the game. The bigger the base, the higher the chances and the bigger the percentage of people who pay.

Please, correct me if I'm wrong here, this is just my idea how a f2p game can be successfull.

[Edson Drake]

I strongly believe that th hardpoint system of MW4 could make MWO much better in that regard.

For example, the Stalker 3F comes with 4 mediums and 2 large. Those hardpoints can only accept those same criticals, making impossible to install PPCs on it. This would kind of work like the same missile tubes restriction, except it won't allow the PPC because it has 4 EN 1 crit and 2 EN 2 crit slots.

Harsh? Yes and I am a STK pilot myself. But I would like more different setups instead of the same mech load over and over. More weapons as well, I mean, scrap the current timeline system, that only hinders development and fun in long term. Put more weapons, balance later.
With plenty of weapons, little by little we can help PGI balance them, the important part is having plenty of weapons around to choose.

[Karl Streiger]

Edson Drake, on 02 July 2013 - 04:38 AM, said:

I strongly believe that th hardpoint system of MW4 could make MWO much better in that regard.

For example, the Stalker 3F comes with 4 mediums and 2 large. Those hardpoints can only accept those same criticals, making impossible to install PPCs on it. This would kind of work like the same missile tubes restriction, except it won't allow the PPC because it has 4 EN 1 crit and 2 EN 2 crit slots.

Harsh? Yes and I am a STK pilot myself. But I would like more different setups instead of the same mech load over and over. More weapons as well, I mean, scrap the current timeline system, that only hinders development and fun in long term. Put more weapons, balance later.
With plenty of weapons, little by little we can help PGI balance them, the important part is having plenty of weapons around to choose.

I have to disagree in more as one term.

A MechLab change - even when the Stalker is only able to mount Laser, SRM, and LRMs - each with its own size - will still not adress the main problem... for example i believe a MW4 MechLab - will still allow the Stalker to have:
4 Large Laser and / or 4 LRM 10 - not the game breaker - but still not the Mech the Stalker was supposed to be.

It looks like a siege ram - because thats the way the Stalker had to be used - split the enemy line in two.

Another example where a Hardpoint Restriction will do no good? The - Splash A1 -Missile only - How to fix that without condeming that mech to be lost.

- so you have to bring more difference but only Hardpoints, and Torso Twist n Turn Rates.

Regarding more weapons....Snub Noose PPC - or Heavy Gauss - I don't think that there is any mechanic that can reflect the drop of - of damage. Next is the restriction - you can't mount the HGR into a Mechs arm.

MML - fires LRM and SRM -> switch able ammunition.

However i have to agree when you are talking about the missile tubes - when a LRM 20 has to behave like a SRM 6 when fitted into a 6 tube launcher (however not possible with Hardpoint restriction) - how could the PPC behave like a PPC when placed in a Small Laser Jacket - or the AC 20 into a Machine Gun jacket?

[3rdworld]

The Mech X argument is generally used against HardPoint restriction advocates. For example their most recent ire has been focused on PPC boating. So they want restrictions to prevent mechs from boating PPCs. However the Awesome has 2 in game variants that boat PPCs. So in effect you are not really doing anything. Stealing from peter to pay paul as it were.

As far as each mech having some niche. I agree with you, it would be nice. Awesome used to have a niche. Engine restrictions made sure it died though. They were a very fast Assault when you could mount an xl 350+ and stick 7 MPLs on them, or 4 x srm 6s. But it is just another instance were restrictions makes many more mechs worse rather than the few it helps.

[Roland]

Carrying a ton of PPC's is really only a problem because you can fire them all and have them create a single giant chunk of damage that will punch through armor.

[Lostdragon]

I see both sides of the argument. I would personally love to see a stock only queue and a custom loadout queue. That would appease a lot of hardcore fans and give the new guys a way to learn the game without going up against hyper-optimized mechs and still allow for the freedom and fun in customization we have now.

[GODzillaGSPB]

Roland, on 02 July 2013 - 05:43 AM, said:

Carrying a ton of PPC's is really only a problem because you can fire them all and have them create a single giant chunk of damage that will punch through armor.

Yes...that's the problem. I mean the general, overall problem, that needs to be fixed IF...if PGI wants this to be a slower, more tactical game instead of just another fps with bigger robots than the competition offers.

It's really up to them. Sometimes it feels like we come here on the forums and argue with our arms and legs like maniacs, or like people trying to stay afloat in the open water...and all for nothing lol.

[MustrumRidcully]

Balace Point of View (this is the one I really care about)

Boating is okay or not okay independent of whether specific mechs can do it or not.

It is not okay if it gives an advantage (pinpoint precision with aiming once vs pinpoint precision only if you actually manage to aim at the exact same spot multiple times over a short period of time). If just a single mech in the entire game can do it, this mech will likely be more powerful than his weight alternatives.

It is okay if it gives no specific advantage. Then even in high level competitive play, you will see variety, because not everyone needs to boat, and not everyone feels limited to the small number of boats that can do it.

Aesthetic View (this is not so important to me, but I suppose it's nice to have.)
Boating is not okay if a mech is not supposed to be a boat and instead use a versatile loadout, because that means the mech doesn't do as he looks he should.
A mech with 2 missile launchers, a ballistic and 2 energy weapons should also carry a loadout like that if you modify it, because that's what makes it unique and different from other mechs...

[General Taskeen]

A Stalker 8S has only 2 ER PPC, but that's the only one