32 replies to this topic

[Jonny Taco]

Lykaon, on 03 July 2013 - 03:49 AM, said:

I wouldn't even make it that complex or restrictive.

Any given hardpoint should have two characteristics.

It's type,ie. Energy,Ballistic,Missile or Omni

And it's maximum critical space available to fit a weapon.

An example Stalker may have a hardpoint layout as follows.

Head: No Hardpoints

CT: No Hardpoints

RT/LT: 1 Missile Hardpoint with 4 max critical spaces
1 Energy Hardpoint with 2 max critical spaces

RA/LA: 1 Energy Hardpoint with 3 max critical spaces
1 Energy Hardpoint with 1 max critical spaces
1 Missile Hardpoint with 6 max critical spaces

RL/LL: No Hardpoints

This leaves plenty of available customization options but none of them allow for more than 2 PPCs or ER-PPCs.

You could make an LRM boat with 2 Artemis LRM20s and 2 Artemis LRM10s with TAG and 3 medium lasers.This is a formidable long range platform but it will not lay out 40+ damage to one spot in under a second.

You could opt for 2 large lasers 4 medium lasers and 4 Artemis SRM6s also a potent build but incapable of precision spike damage.

If you want a surgical mid range mech you could go with 4 large lasers

There are plenty of variables to customize this mech but the Hardpoints are restrictive enough to prevent Alpha Boating direct fire and pinpoint accurate weapons.

But what about those mechs that do have 4 PPCs? Like a Clan Warhawk (Massakari)

This mech would retain the ability to boat 4 PPCs if desired but the design team can limit the impact this has by giving this Warhawk some chassis specific characteristics that balance this out.Slower or more limited torso rotations,Limited arm pitch angles or arcs etc.

By addressing Hardpoints directly we allow for specific mech chassis and variants to be balanced via use of hardpoint size restictions and quirks.This type of mechanic will allow for direct manipulation of specific mech variants rather than create a mechanic that applies broadly and possibly becoming overly restrictive to unintended mechs.

This is the correct, and only viable solution to fix the problems regarding mwo weapon loadout balance.

The problem is that IGP is more worried about introducing new mechs that further skew any resemblance of balance rather than fix the plethora of mechs/variants that already exist... In the end it comes down to what pgi and igp are trying to do, are they trying to make a quick buck off a hardcore fan base? Or are they trying to produce a ground breaking product? At the moment, it's pretty damn obvious that filling their coffers with these gimick "deals" selling infinitely generated digital property to keep drawing all you neckbeards back.

Edited by lartfor, 03 July 2013 - 09:00 AM.

[Jestun]

lartfor, on 03 July 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

only viable solution

False.

It's an "end justifies the means" proposal.

Screw over dozens of non-OP builds to nerf a few OP builds, and then declare it a success because the OP builds were among the many nerfed builds.

[Jonny Taco]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 08:35 AM, said:

The only time this would matter is if hardpoints were the only possible thing that could be changed.

This is not the case, they can improve the balance by making changes not related to the hardpoints.

Sorry jestun, but everyone knows addressing the cause is better than treating the symptom.

The only way to solve the problem is to introduce more restrictions, nothing else will work, period.

Edited by lartfor, 03 July 2013 - 09:03 AM.

[Jestun]

lartfor, on 03 July 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

Sorry jestun, but everyone knows addressing the problem is better than treating the symptom.

The only way to solve the problem is to introduce more restrictions, nothing else will work, period.

No, not "everyone knows", "I personally think".

Boating is not the problem, it it were all boats would be overpowered.

[Lykaon]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

The fact that they have not solved all balance problems is in no way proof that the only way to resolve them is by limiting every mechs hardpoints.

And it wouldn't work anyway. If they change it so that Awesomes are the PPC boat capable mech then all that will happen is the FotM build will change from 4 PPC Stalker to 4 PPC Awesome.

The proposed solution does "solve" PPC boating, but it does nerf various other non-OP builds.

But what if for example these 4 PPC Awesomes were only three PPC awesomes and had quirks that reduced their ability to handle fast moving targets at close ranges.Poor torso rotation speeds and limited lateral arm movements,maybe difficulty accelerating or decelerating?

A hypothetical non-OP'ed build may be uneffected by hardpoint critical caps as frequently as it is.It's easy to dismiss this idea with a nondisclosed non-OPed build claiming it can't be made with hardpoint restrictions.Perhaps it can't be built exactally as it was but,that mech is no longer trying to compete against 6 PPC Stalkers and such.A slight change may work out just fine and preserve the basic performance characteristics.Maybe you can no longer fit 4 artemis LRM15s you may have 2 LRM15s and 2 LRM 10s or maybe you need to give up the artemis.But you will also not have to contend with getting cored in .2 seconds while trying to lock.

[Jestun]

Lykaon, on 03 July 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

But what if for example these 4 PPC Awesomes were only three PPC awesomes and had quirks that reduced their ability to handle fast moving targets at close ranges.Poor torso rotation speeds and limited lateral arm movements,maybe difficulty accelerating or decelerating?

A hypothetical non-OP'ed build may be uneffected by hardpoint critical caps as frequently as it is.It's easy to dismiss this idea with a nondisclosed non-OPed build claiming it can't be made with hardpoint restrictions.Perhaps it can't be built exactally as it was but,that mech is no longer trying to compete against 6 PPC Stalkers and such.A slight change may work out just fine and preserve the basic performance characteristics.Maybe you can no longer fit 4 artemis LRM15s you may have 2 LRM15s and 2 LRM 10s or maybe you need to give up the artemis.But you will also not have to contend with getting cored in .2 seconds while trying to lock.

If we deleted all mechs with energy hardpoints it would be "solved" too.

I can make up my own "ends justifies the means" proposals which screw over loads of builds to stop a few.

Here's the thing, I want to improve balance. Suggestions which nerf weak builds do not do that.

Edited by Jestun, 03 July 2013 - 09:07 AM.

[Jonny Taco]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

If we deleted all mechs with energy hardpoints it would be "solved" too.

This is a really, really, really bad point. In conclusion, you're bad, and should feel bad.

[GODzillaGSPB]

HansBlix WMD, on 03 July 2013 - 08:45 AM, said:

Damn liberals and their fully customizable hardpoints...

Exactly. Things were different if the republicans would run the show... lol ^^

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

[...]

And it wouldn't work anyway. If they change it so that Awesomes are the PPC boat capable mech then all that will happen is the FotM build will change from 4 PPC Stalker to 4 PPC Awesome.
[...]

Exactly! The Awesome, shaped like a brick-wall, tall and wide frontal profile and with the weapon ports hardly above the waisteline so it has to expose itself from cover much more than...let's say, for instance...hm...yes, the Stalker.

It is no coincidence that so many people chose the Stalker over the Awesome as ppc-boat. Small frontal profile, weapon ports high and and all of them (if you chose) in the arms for lateral movement.

[Lykaon]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

If we deleted all mechs with energy hardpoints it would be "solved" too.

I can make up my own "ends justifies the means" proposals which screw over loads of builds to stop a few.

Here's the thing, I want to improve balance. Suggestions which nerf weak builds do not do that.

Enough fiction give me a non OP'ed build you fear will be nefed and I can prove that hardpoint restrictions will not only vastly reduce the alpha boating but also preserve the core functionality of any build that isn't alpha boating.


Let's look at popular alpha boat builds shall we.

We have 4 PPC or 6 PPC stalkers.These are part of the problem and are OP'ed and need to go for the good of the game.

Gauss + 2 or 3 PPCs ussually on a highlander these need to go they are the problem.

Misery builds with multiple PPCs + Gauss just another highlander but on a misery instead they get the axe.

Atlas RS with Gauss + 4 PPC this needs to go it's part of the problem.

2 PPC + Gauss Atlas um...maybe this can stay it is an atlas after all and should invoke a cold shiver.

And how do we fix all of these ?

It's so simple just limit the number of 3 crit energy hardpoints on specific chassis.reduce access to 7+ crit slot ballistics (not a solution for the above list those with ballistics should have at least one 7 crit ballistic)

The only issue you may have is if you want to keep these abominations in this game.I don't and many others are also sick to the point of not playing because of these alpha boats.

Edited by Lykaon, 03 July 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[Raso]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

If we deleted all mechs with energy hardpoints it would be "solved" too.

I can make up my own "ends justifies the means" proposals which screw over loads of builds to stop a few.

Here's the thing, I want to improve balance. Suggestions which nerf weak builds do not do that.

Any sort of balancing will eventually screw up loads of builds. If other weapons get a buff it does not mean that suddenly some builds won't be useful anymore. That's what happened with PPCs, after all. Yes, the SRM nerf helped but even before that PPCs were on the raise. I don't think only nerfs and buffs are enough. I think we need a multi faced plan which doesn't attack individual weapons or systems in side of a vacuum.

I think that we need a heat scale adjustment, individual weapon heat re-balancing, rate of fire and range adjustments on several weapons, a pulse laser overhaul, and LBX overhaul, SRM re-balancing, convergence adjustments, hard point restrictions (tiers, critical slots, etc) and mech re-scaling on several mechs. I think this should all drop around the same time. I think the time of slowly easing into things is over. We need a public test server so we can mess with these changes rapidly with rapid feedback.

But that's all just my take on the matter.

[East Indy]

Jestun, on 03 July 2013 - 08:05 AM, said:

Have you even considered how many non-OP builds would be destroyed because of this?

Have you even considered how they make models and variants redundant, especially the dozens Piranha obviously plans to sell in the future?

[p00k]

Sprouticus, on 03 July 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

Various people on the forums have suggested this going back to March of last year, pre-closed beta. PGI has repeatedly shown ZERO interest in such a system (in spite of the value)

that's because it was a terrible idea then, and it's a terrible idea now

it does nothing except reshuffle which mech people choose to use as their boat of choice, while hampering customization that should normally lead to variety if the weapons themselves were appropriately balanced. which, of course, is the problem they really need to address, not make certain variants of certain chassis less able run certain loadouts.

[Lykaon]

p00k, on 03 July 2013 - 02:15 PM, said:

that's because it was a terrible idea then, and it's a terrible idea now

it does nothing except reshuffle which mech people choose to use as their boat of choice, while hampering customization that should normally lead to variety if the weapons themselves were appropriately balanced. which, of course, is the problem they really need to address, not make certain variants of certain chassis less able run certain loadouts.

This reshuffling you are concerned about can be addressed by applying appropriate quirks to specific chassis to retain performance balance.

MWo already has the quirks mechanic if the proposed hardpoint critical cap mechanic was also added developers would have two simple to manipulate mechanics that apply directly to a specific target chassis.

All encompassing mechanics like heatscale manipulations or power systems or changes to fire rates etc are far more likely to have unforseen effects on unintended chassis because these design choices will effect everything.

The absolute bottom line of this alpha strike issue IS that certain loadouts are unbalanced but the weapons themselves are not particularly unbalanced when not boated.

MWO absolutley needs to make certain chassis incapable of using certain loadouts. That is in fact the main purpose of hardpoint restrictions.It's the loadout not the weapon that causes the problem with the current game design.

2 PPCs on one mech are not such a big deal.It's dangerous but won't be crippling a target in one volley.The problem arises when it's 4 PPCs or more or a battery of PPCs coupled with gauss rifles.

making gauss rifles or PPCs individually less effective makes them singularly less effective and thus builds that do not boat these weapons less effective when those mechs/builds are not the targets of desired change.

The concern that certain (hypothetical) builds may become impossible with hardpoint restrictions in place is a valid concern.Maybe you can no longer make a hunchback 4p with 2 PPCs anymore,but maybe the Centurion L variant can.

Mech and specific variant roles and nitches can be preserved through the use of quirks and hardpoint restrictions.

In my previous example the Hunchback 4P has a general role of mid ranged energy based brawler.The 4P should be the go to medium weight platform for this role.It's hardpoints could be designed with this in mind,for example.

Head: 1 energy hardpoint with 1 critical

CT: no hardpoints

LT: no hardpoints

RT: 1 energy hardpoint with 3 criticals
5 energy with 1 criticals

RA/LA: 1 energy hardpoint with 2 criticals

RL/LL: no hardpoints

This would allow a player to outfit the 4P in it's stock configuration or drop in an XL and use medium pulse lasers or make a hybrid PPC+ light lasers build or even go for triple large lasers.There are several build options available but most will retain the hunchback 4p's mid range brawler role in some form or another.

Now the Centurion L is a more generalist mech with fewer hardpoints.Maybe this mech would look like this.

Head: No hardpoints

CT: 2 energy hardpoint with 1critical

RT: No hardpoints

LT: 1 missile hardpoint with 4 criticals
1 missile hardpoint with 3 criticals

RA: 2 energy hardpoints with 3 criticals each

LA: No hardpoints

RL/LL: No hardpoints

This Centurion L would be a generalist that can be configured for a variety of roles but due to the hardpoint restrictions it will not out perform a Hunchback 4P as a light laser close range brawler nor would this Centurion replace a Trebuchet as a missile platform due to not having the capacity to mount more than 1 large LRM launcher with artemis.

Yes hardpoint restictions will remove some build options from specific chassis this does not mean that the purpose of the build will not be applied to another chassis that is by it's design suppose to have that role.