64 replies to this topic

[Syllogy]

After many long hours of meditation on the issue, I have decided that the best route (in my opinion) to settle down the High-Alpha builds is to go with hardpoint restrictions.

More specifically, reducing the allowed size of Energy and Ballistic weapons mounted on a mech based on the amount of critical slots they take up for EACH Hardpoint on a case-by-case basis.

Question: But Syllogy: What about Convergence!

Answer: If you can't build a 6PPC Stalker, AC40 Jager, or a 3PPC/1Gauss Highlander, then weapon Convergence won't be a problem because you won't have 40-60pts of pinpoint damage being shot with every volley.

For example: The Stalker-3F, which in my case, houses 6 PPCs.

By reducing the allowed critical slots per Energy Hardpoint, that boat could be reduced to using Large Lasers (or medium lasers, based on the severity of the cut on some of the hardpoints) instead of boating PPCs by changing the allowed amount of critical slots from 3 to 2 (or 1) on it's torso and/or arm-based Energy Hardpoints.

This has a natural and beautiful side effect: It makes undesirable variants of Awesomes more attractive to play. (This is also what finally won me over.)

Because Awesomes are natural PPC boats (they carry 3 on the stock variant), they would be more attractive as a PPC Sniper. Keep in mind that while they may have additional energy slots, these would be limited to 1 or 2 Critical Slots to prevent 4-6 PPCs being stacked on an Awesome.

This is also an ideal principle for preventing AC20 boating. By lowering the amount of critical slots of Ballistic hardpoints is allowed in one arm of every Jagermech, we can still keep an AC20 in one arm, but we won't see any AC40 mechs rolling around the battlefield turning our tails into hamburger meat.

This method prevents any excessive nerfs to Energy Weapons through Heat Penalties, it prevents cockpit shake while firing multiple ballistic weapons, and it promotes chassis that may not be very popular, and allows quirks in some variants that give them all-new life and purpose.

The easiest way I can think of to implement this system is like so:

• Energy Hardpoints
  
  • Focus Weapons
    
    • Small Laser / Small Pulse Laser
      
    • Medium Laser / Medium Pulse Laser
      
    • Large Laser / Large Pulse Laser / ER Large Laser
      
    • TAG
  • Energy Cannon
    
    • PPC
      
    • ER PPC
      
    • (Can also equip Lasers)
• Ballistic Hardpoints
  
  • Small Ballistics
    
    • Machine Gun
      
    • AC/2
      
    • AC/5
  • Large Ballistics
    
    • UAC/5
      
    • LB-10X
      
    • AC/10
      
    • AC/20
      
    • Gauss Rifle
      
    • (Can also equip small Ballistics Weapons)
• Missile Hardpoints
  
  • Long Range Missiles
    
    • LRM/5
      
    • LRM/10
      
    • LRM/15
      
    • LRM/20
      
    • (Cannot equip Short Range Missiles)
  • Short Range Missiles
    
    • SRM/2
      
    • SRM/4
      
    • SRM/6
      
    • Streak SRM/2
      
    • NARC
      
    • (Cannot equip Long Range Missiles)

Note: Some variants should/can add overlapped hardpoints to keep some balance. For an example, see the Awesome-9M Center Torso (2 Energy Hardpoints, 2 Missile Hardpoints)


Example: Catapult-A1, Change a single missile slot to a Short Range missile slot to each ear. (2 Long Range, 1 Short Range, 3 total missile slots)

Also: Hunchback-4SP, add a single Long Range missile slot to each shoulder (1 Short Range, 1 Long Range, 2 total missile slots)

Edited by Syllogy, 01 July 2013 - 01:43 PM.

[Acid Phase]

Syllogy is singing my song. I've always been an advocate of hpr. Unfortunately PGI is very vague on this. Talking about "It has been discussed" and "No further news on this process".....which could translate into. "Seen it, don't care for it, moving on."

Edited by Acid Phase, 01 July 2013 - 10:13 AM.

[Otto Cannon]

Seriously? Yet another identical thread on this subject?

Read some of the existing threads and you'll see there are lots of reasons that this is not an alpha fix. Fair enough if you like the idea for other reasons, but I wish people would stop trying to get this by pretending it would solve a weapon convergence issue.

[Syllogy]

Otto Cannon, on 01 July 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

Seriously? Yet another identical thread on this subject?

Read some of the existing threads and you'll see there are lots of reasons that this is not an alpha fix. Fair enough if you like the idea for other reasons, but I wish people would stop trying to get this by pretending it would solve a weapon convergence issue.

Explain why it will not fix Alphas.

If there isn't a 6PPC Stalker or 3PPC/Gauss Highlander looking at you, then Convergence won't be an issue.

Edited by Syllogy, 01 July 2013 - 04:55 AM.

[Otto Cannon]

Syllogy, on 01 July 2013 - 04:54 AM, said:

Explain why it will not fix Alphas.

If there isn't a 6PPC Stalker or 3PPC/Gauss Highlander looking at you, then Convergence won't be an issue.

Those are not the only mechs. There are plenty of mechs which are boats from stock, and that's without even considering all those juicy hardpoint-free clan boats. As long as there is pinpoint then whichever mech allows the best instant alpha will be used in massive numbers. All hardpoint restrictions would do is hide the problem, and any mechs like the King Crab would never be allowed in the game because just one would make your entire system entirely pointless. Check out DocBach's thread which proposes a solution that would still work with any mechs even after clans arrive without crippling the mechlab freedom and flexibility that so many people play the game for in the first place.

[Grondoval]

Otto Cannon, on 01 July 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

...lots of reasons that this is not an alpha fix...

Give me some reasons please.

Less mechs which could mount multiple ppcs, less mechs which could mount multiple high damage ballistics means less alpha damage overall.

Look at the Battlemaster with its Ballistic-Arm and multiple torso Energy-Slots. Poeple WILL "abuse" this chassis to feed their cheese-needs and mount Gauss + multiple PPCs, i guarantee you that.

In "Ask the Devs 41" PGI said Hardpoint Limitations are under review

[Acid Phase]

Otto Cannon, on 01 July 2013 - 04:53 AM, said:

Seriously? Yet another identical thread on this subject?

but I wish people would stop trying to get this by pretending it would solve a weapon convergence issue.

Keep wishing. We're not going to let this go. And we're not pretending it's going to solve a weapon convergence issue. I believe it's going to stop ridiculous customizations on mechs who are not supposed to go from a light weapon to a heavy weapon transition. (ie. K2 stock side torsos MGs to AC20/DG???) What kind of bullsh*t transition is that? Or any mech stock having 6 energy 1 slots to suddenly be able to mount 6 3 slotted weapons (PPCs)....you've got to be sh*tting me.

[Syllogy]

Otto Cannon, on 01 July 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

Those are not the only mechs. There are plenty of mechs which are boats from stock, and that's without even considering all those juicy hardpoint-free clan boats. As long as there is pinpoint then whichever mech allows the best instant alpha will be used in massive numbers. All hardpoint restrictions would do is hide the problem, and any mechs like the King Crab would never be allowed in the game because just one would make your entire system entirely pointless. Check out DocBach's thread which proposes a solution that would still work with any mechs even after clans arrive without crippling the mechlab freedom and flexibility that so many people play the game for in the first place.

Except for the part where we have no idea how Clan Mechs will be built, or how their hardpoints will be laid out. This is just as viable with Clan mechs as it is with IS mechs.

[3rdworld]

Acid Phase, on 01 July 2013 - 05:12 AM, said:

Keep wishing. We're not going to let this go. And we're not pretending it's going to solve a weapon convergence issue. I believe it's going to stop ridiculous customizations on mechs who are not supposed to go from a light weapon to a heavy weapon transition. (ie. K2 stock side torsos MGs to AC20/DG???) What kind of bullsh*t transition is that? Or any mech stock having 6 energy 1 slots to suddenly be able to mount 6 3 slotted weapons (PPCs)....you've got to be sh*tting me.

Where did you come up with this? TT has no restrictions and this game has no restrictions other than same type. So please enlighten me how it is "not supposed" to be able to do this.

inb4 you say something about a tank.

Syllogy, on 01 July 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Except for the part where we have no idea how Clan Mechs will be built, or how their hardpoints will be laid out. This is just as viable with Clan mechs as it is with IS mechs.

Warhawk, Try again.

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 July 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[Grondoval]

Otto Cannon, on 01 July 2013 - 05:10 AM, said:

...any mechs like the King Crab would never be allowed in the game...

Im fine with 100 ton dual Heavy Ballistic Boats which are supposed to be boats. With the current Hard-Point system you could just mimic your King Crab with almost any other mech (Victor). On top of promoting the abuse of boating it also kills the variety. It becomes evident even now that many chassis become obsolete with the introduction of new ones...

[Shadowsword8]

People will ALWAYS Boat, regardless of the weapon used.

Because it is more efficient to have all your weapons with the same effective range, rather than one set of weapons that will be useless at a given range, while the other set of weapons would lack stopping power due to insufficient numbers.

It's also better for carrying ammos if they'll all the same type.



Why have PPC become the bread and butter of MWO? Because of Heat, but not the way you might think. PGI has severely nerfed heat regen from what it is in TT rules. Tripled rate of fire and DHS down to 1.4 instead of 2.0. Because heat is so much more crippling, you absolutely have to make each shot count, and that's part of why alpha >>> steady damage.


Still, I dislike your proposal, OP. One solution to the sniperfest alreadyt exist, it's called light mechs. YOu know, those pesky things that are hard to hit from afar (when used by a competent pilot), and will ruin a PPCboat's day in close.

[Acid Phase]

3rdworld, on 01 July 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:

Where did you come up with this? TT has no restrictions and this game has no restrictions other than same type. So please enlighten me how it is "not supposed" to be able to do this.

I get it. You're ok with customization abuse. Where everyone and thier grandmothers are finding the variant with most energy hardpoints to jam pack PPCs. HPR allows the customized mechs not to stray so far off from their stock. Having the transition to make sense.

Grondoval, on 01 July 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Im fine with 100 ton dual Heavy Ballistic Boats which are supposed to be boats. With the current Hard-Point system you could just mimic your King Crab with almost any other mech (Victor). On top of promoting the abuse of boating it also kills the variety. It becomes evident even now that many chassis become obsolete with the introduction of new ones...

QFT. And then the next step to the abuser is finding out who does that same build, only better. Once everyone finds out the same, then we have a battlefield full of one trick ponies.

Edited by Acid Phase, 01 July 2013 - 05:56 AM.

[EvilCow]

Well put, I agree.

[Grondoval]

Shadowsword8, on 01 July 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

Why have PPC become the bread and butter of MWO?

Because you could mount it on any energy hardpoint? If less mechs where capable of mounting ppcs they could just stay as they are.

[Kaldor]

Shadowsword8, on 01 July 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

People will ALWAYS Boat, regardless of the weapon used.

Because it is more efficient to have all your weapons with the same effective range, rather than one set of weapons that will be useless at a given range, while the other set of weapons would lack stopping power due to insufficient numbers.

It's also better for carrying ammos if they'll all the same type.



Why have PPC become the bread and butter of MWO? Because of Heat, but not the way you might think. PGI has severely nerfed heat regen from what it is in TT rules. Tripled rate of fire and DHS down to 1.4 instead of 2.0. Because heat is so much more crippling, you absolutely have to make each shot count, and that's part of why alpha >>> steady damage.


Still, I dislike your proposal, OP. One solution to the sniperfest alreadyt exist, it's called light mechs. YOu know, those pesky things that are hard to hit from afar (when used by a competent pilot), and will ruin a PPCboat's day in close.

This is in a nutshell why they need to change the heat mechanics. The heat cap is far too high, there is no penalty for overheating, and dissipation is far too low. I dont have a problem with people carrying 6 PPCs, but if they fire all 6 at once, they better blow up from over heating.

And lights, yeah, not as OP as you think... One good alpha can take them out, and its not as hard as some make it out to be.

@OP

I dont care for hardpoint limitations. Find a different way to balance the game. Dont reduce the choices players have. However, if they want to do something stupid or borderline overpowered, then find a way to penalize them.

[EvilCow]

Grondoval, on 01 July 2013 - 05:31 AM, said:

Because you could mount it on any energy hardpoint? If less mechs where capable of mounting ppcs they could just stay as they are.

Correct, in general if boating is less a problem each weapon could also be designed to be more effective than now.

If you can mount 6 PPC you have to design PPCs around this fact, if 3 PPC are the maximum (or 4 on some very specific variants with other drawbacks) then the single PPC could also be better than now.

Edited by EvilCow, 01 July 2013 - 05:36 AM.

[Otto Cannon]

Grondoval, on 01 July 2013 - 05:26 AM, said:

Im fine with 100 ton dual Heavy Ballistic Boats which are supposed to be boats. With the current Hard-Point system you could just mimic your King Crab with almost any other mech (Victor). On top of promoting the abuse of boating it also kills the variety. It becomes evident even now that many chassis become obsolete with the introduction of new ones...

This makes no sense. So rather than AC40 not being an OP loadout in the first place and anyone who likes it being able to use it on different chassis, you prefer to see absolutely everybody using the King Crab and no other mechs because it's OP and tied to that chassis? How would that be variety?

[Grondoval]

Otto Cannon, on 01 July 2013 - 05:42 AM, said:

This makes no sense. So rather than AC40 not being an OP loadout in the first place and anyone who likes it being able to use it on different chassis, you prefer to see absolutely everybody using the King Crab and no other mechs because it's OP and tied to that chassis? How would that be variety?

Because you get several disadvantages with the choice of piloting a 100 ton slow lumbering king crab. Imagine the King Crab would be the only mech to mount AC40. Because its a 100 ton mech its slow and its mobility is gimped (with the upcoming new mech movement restrictions in mind), poeple would actually consider its disadvantages in design before using it.

Look at the Jägermech now. Its even considered a medium in regards of traversing terrain...

Edited by Grondoval, 01 July 2013 - 05:52 AM.

[3rdworld]

Grondoval, on 01 July 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

Because you get several disadvantages with the choice of piloting a 100 ton slow lumbering king crab. Imagine the King Crab would be the only mech to mount AC40. Because its a 100 ton mech its slow and its mobility is gimped (with the upcoming new mech movement restrictions in mind), poeple would actually consider its disadvantages in design before using it.

Look at the Jägermech now. Its even considered a medium in regards of traversing terrain...

Are you attempting to argue that the AC.40 Cat or Jager aren't slow lumbering sniper bait PoS mechs that only scrub tier people care or worry about?

Nevermind, I think I answered my own question.

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 July 2013 - 05:52 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

My standard question is:

What do you do when PGI adds a mech like the Thunder Hawk (3 Gauss Rifles, stock) or Warhawk (4 ER PPCs, 1 LRM10. The boat expert would remove those LRMs and install more DHS)?

I won't bother to dig out even more of those mechs, but there are several of them. Not all of them are necessarily boats - some are just using particular good synergestic weapons (like Dual PPC + Dual Gauss Rifle).

---

I am not even opposed to think more about hard points, though I personally think their best use - if any - is to give mechs a certain "flavor".

And I think on some level, all the suggestions fail in that regard. The K2 is a direct fire version of the Catapult. Pretty much any energy-based customziation done to it will make it less direct-fire, except the one people like to rag on - the Dual Ballistic variant. The real error in M:WO is not that it can replace those tiny Machine Guns with huge Gauss Rifles. The real error is that it cannot put these 2 Gauss Rifles in the arms, where the primary weapon of any good Catapult belongs!

That's like making a Hunchback with 2 PPCs in the arms. The primary armnament of any Hunchback, whatever it is, belongs into its Hunch. Only the 4SP gets to break this rule in canon, but even that has to store primary armnament in its torso.


If you try to use it for balancing, you will always run into mechs that require certain hard point layouts that could be problematic if you didn't balance the game properly in other manners. You either break game balance by adding that mech, or you break Battletech fan hearts because you will never add that mech to the game.