52 replies to this topic

[Lykaon]

Phobic Wraith, on 12 July 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Let's not forget that there are stock mechs that boat massive, high damage weapons: Annihilator, Mauler, Hunchback IIC, etc. Hardpoint limitations means that these mechs will never be in the game. There is no way to balance them with hardpoint sizes.

I personally support Homeless Bill's comprehensive fix that adds a targeting computer to the game. It could work. I think it would work. If you haven't already, I highly recommend that you check it out. I think you guys will like it.

Hardpoint restrictions should be considered as a portion of a game balance mechanic.

Hardpoint limits do not mean that certain mechs will never be included.All this means is hardpoint restrictions alone will not balance these mechs.

Let's take the Mauler out for a spin.

It's a lightly armored average speed 90 ton mech with 2 ER large lasers 2 LRM 15s and 4 AC2s.

So 2 energy hardpoints 2 missile hardpoints and 4 ballistic hardpoints as minimal hardpoints for a mauler.

Current meta and mechanics this means 2 gauss rifles and 2 PPCs. 2 unused missile hardpoints and 2 unused ballistic hardpoints.I am possitive that the vast majority of maulers would have this loadout.

So we have a Devestator Jr. not a Mauler.

Now prevent the Mauler from having any ballistic hardpoints that have 7 criticals and now we have a situation where the mauler can not be a Devestator.

The Hunchback 2C and Annihilators alread ycome off the line with some serious limitations not even taking into account potential use of chassis specific quirks.

Let's take the Annihilator out for a ride...

100 tons paper thin armor for an assault mech massive firepower but the speed of a hobbled penguin.

200 standard engine stock means a 240 rating engine is the Annihilators max engine.So essentially Annihilators will never ever have the capacity to be "fast" or "nimble" even by assault mech standards the Annihilator wallows like a drunk pig.

If you want to retain the heavy ballistic punch you will be mounting heavy ballistics.Let's say gauss rifles in place of the ac 10s.Both weapon systems use 7 crits so even with hardpoint limits the Annihilator can cram in 4 gauss rifles.
So 28 crits in gauss rifles and 8 crits of ammo is 36 criticals used.

36 crits used so no endo steel or ferro fibrous so XL engines are the only weight saving tech available to get the tonnage for gauss rifles.An XL 200 alone does not provide enough weight savings to get you both the quad gauss and armor heavyer than a mailbox so 4 gauss rifles is massive pain dealing potential wraped up in a very slow moving eggshell.
And this does not take into account potential negative chassis quirks an Annihilator may be assigned for additional balancing.



Hardpoint restrictions are an additional tool to be used in conjunction with convergence mechanics,chassis quirks,engine size limits and heat scale improvments.

It is impossible to balance everything with one mechanic just like a carpenter can't do everything with a hammer.

[Phobic Wraith]

Lykaon, on 12 July 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

Hardpoint restrictions are an additional tool to be used in conjunction with convergence mechanics,chassis quirks,engine size limits and heat scale improvments.

It is impossible to balance everything with one mechanic just like a carpenter can't do everything with a hammer.

Hey, no disagreement there about the points made in favor of hardpoint restrictions. I think they would definitely work, but it doesn't change two things, alpha strikes would still be king, just with different mechs and weapons, and hardpoint sizes make the game so much more... boring. Hey it's my opinion, but I think the seven large laser Hunchback 4P should be an option, maybe not the best option, but an option nonetheless - It makes the game fun! Six PPC stalkers should be possible, just not useful. Again, the problem with the meta (among many) is not lots of large weapons, it's lots of the same weapon hitting the same spot with no penalty.

Edited by Phobic Wraith, 12 July 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[LeShadow]

I support this. Not because of balance reasons, actually, but because it would give each 'Mech a distinct personality, a raison d'être even. I really love the mechlab, but there's simply nothing more to do with it. I've spent many tens of millions of CB stocking up on spare engines and modules which I don't even use, simply because there's no point in getting new 'Mechs. Oh, I bought a Quickdraw when it came out. Got it through basics, then sold it. It wasn't bad, it simply could not do anything none of my other 'Mechs could.

I'm certain both the mechlab and live play would benefit greatly from the addition of a (sensible) hardpoint size restriction.

That being said, for the sake of simplicity there should be a universal formula so that the devs won't need to re-design every chassis by hand. I'm not even sure if you'd really have to limit missiles further, the tube limit already does a decent job.

[Roland]

Phobic Wraith, on 12 July 2013 - 10:18 AM, said:

Let's not forget that there are stock mechs that boat massive, high damage weapons: Annihilator, Mauler, Hunchback IIC, etc. Hardpoint limitations means that these mechs will never be in the game. There is no way to balance them with hardpoint sizes.

I'm not sure why you say that.
The proposed system here would just have those mechs with multiple high slot hardpoints, capable of carrying their stock loadouts.

I don't see why you think hardpoint limitations would prevent those mechs from being in the game (other than the fact they may be severely unbalanced chassis regardless).

[Roland]

Phobic Wraith, on 12 July 2013 - 12:20 PM, said:

Hey, no disagreement there about the points made in favor of hardpoint restrictions. I think they would definitely work, but it doesn't change two things, alpha strikes would still be king, just with different mechs and weapons, and hardpoint sizes make the game so much more... boring.

Eh, I dunno. I understand the urge to leave customization as open as possible, but the reality is that without any customization limits at all, you end up reducing variety significantly.

By limiting what you can do with a given chassis, you don't make it such that you can't do whatever that is.. it just means that you may need to look to a DIFFERENT chassis to take that loadout.

And this means that you'll likely see more variety in terms of different chassis on the field. You are less likely to encounter what we see now, which is that certain chassis are simply worse than others, and thus have very little reason for anyone to field them.

[R Razor]

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 09:11 AM, said:

That I can't put larger bike tires on a bike is a good argument? Really? My truck came with 265s (around 30ish) stock and guess what? I put 33s on it with no modifications.

That was a pathetic argument as is anyone who would believe it to be otherwise. Moreover it holds absolutely no weight comparing bike tires to a video game about year 3000 robots.

Try way harder please.

Edit: Also the video game in question does exactly what you say is impossible on many occasions. See: CN9-YLW going from an AC/10 - AC/20.

You're obviously not the bright one in the group are ya?

Of course the game does it, THAT IS WHY IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED.

As for your pathetic 33in tire wearing truck, think before you post............in the GAME a hard point is designed and sized to hold a specific physically sized item, just as the BIKE is designed for a specifically sized rim and tire. There isn't room on your HUFFY for you to install 28in tires because the designer made it that way, just as in the original BT game (that this video game claims to be a clone of) the designers engineered the MECH to carry specifically sized items.

I realize that this can be a difficult concept for you to digest, but I'm sure that with enough time you'll eventually wrap your meager mind around it.

Obviously this isn't a fix by itself, it will absolutely need to be combined with tonnage restrictions to functions, otherwise you do have the "win at all costs" crowd that will run the one mech that can boat the most under the changes proposed.

Nowhere in the canon or lore (aside from the Clans) has it been possible to so radically change the loadout of a mech, this game allows it and the 12 year old kids that play it have latched on to it as if it's a life preserver in a choppy sea. Get rid of that mentality and you'll have a better game.

Edited by R Razor, 12 July 2013 - 08:17 PM.

[Nutlink]

This is why they should have gone the MWLL or MPBT3025 route and stuck with stock mechs only, at least initially. Allowing customization always leads to terrible balance pains and a lot of cheese. Like the medium pulse lasers in MW2, or the LRM/LBX/small laser boats in MW3, or the ERLL/ERPPC/Gauss boats in MW4. It never fails.

Edited by BOTA49, 12 July 2013 - 08:32 PM.

[Sugomi]

There are some solid ideas and I'd like to toss my idea into the pile for what its worth. It's similar to some of the other HP restrictions posted (Funky Bacon) and could be implemented on just about every chassis currently in game as-is, using their current loadout as a template, without gimping any of them (well, maybe the QD and the DRG, but even this system could be used to allow the builds we see now without adding extra cheese).

Here it is: Hardpoints come in classes, I-IV (small to large, natch) determining the size of weapon that can be mounted to that hardpoint.

SL/SPL=1, ML/MPL=2, LL,LPL,ERLL=3,PPC=4.
MG/AC2=1, AC5=2, AC10=3, AC20=4.
SRM2/SSRM2,LRM5=1,SRM4/LRM10=2,SRM6/LRM15=3,LRM20=4.

On any hardpoint a weapon of one HP higher or lower may be mounted. If the weapon is 2-3 classes lower you can mount *one* extra maximum (e.g. a class IV energy can mount either 1 ppc, 1LL, 2ML or 2 SL)

In this case a Stalker 5S can bump its two LL's up to PPCs or drop down to 1 ML or 2 SL. It could also bump up or down its missile racks accordingly, even planting 2 SSRMs per side torso, which for a total possible of 6 SSRMS is no worse than an A-1 streakapult. Speaking of the A1, equipping it with 6 Class II or 2 Class IV and one II would leave flexibility and avoid creating a 12 SSRM monster, but still keep the builds we are used to seeing and are comfortable with. Atlas RS' arm hardpoints could be condensed into 1 Class IV, allowing it the unique ability to run PPC's the instead of the LL's of the other variants, but not be a crazy 4xPPC+Gauss boat that we see now.

This would both breathe some relevance into some lesser used chassis (Awesome) and variants as well as allow us players a good amount of freedom to customize and shift the focus of a chassis around while really curbing boating of the high alpha weapons we see now. I think. Opinions?

[warner2]

This is exactly the direction that I would go in, good post. A combination of MWO's 1 weapon per hard-point system and MW4's hard-point sizes. It prevents boating of small weapons (the problem MW4 had) and prevents boating of large weapons (the problem MWO has).

The only thing I would elaborate on is to state that for each variant the hard-point sizes would be driven by the stock load-outs, but I think the OP is implying that.

You get good customization, including the ability to replace weapons with larger weapons, but within a limit (MG -> AC2 or even AC5, but not AC20), based on stock configurations, keeping character among chassis, and also usefulness among chassis.

This isn't a direct solution to any particular problem, and there are probably edge cases, but it would ease a lot of the issues with this game, and would generally make it better and more interesting.

[warner2]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you say that.
The proposed system here would just have those mechs with multiple high slot hardpoints, capable of carrying their stock loadouts.

I don't see why you think hardpoint limitations would prevent those mechs from being in the game (other than the fact they may be severely unbalanced chassis regardless).

Right now people jump to the assumption that these sorts of suggestions are a solution to a particular problem, that being high alphas with instant and precise convergence to a single location.

It's not, IMO, and was not presented as such, although it would ease it (you couldn't build a 6PPC Stalker, or a 2AC20 K2) and generally it would add to the game.

Instant and precise convergence needs to be addressed, separately, as evidenced by the inclusion of features in MWO itself to prevent that problem (non-instance convergence of arm mounted weapons, separate reticule for arm and torso mounted weapons) that have been either removed or can be mitigated (non-instant convergence of arm mounted weapons was removed, I think because of networking issues, and arm-lock largely nullifies the other).

[Sugomi]

warner2, on 17 July 2013 - 03:27 AM, said:

This is exactly the direction that I would go in, good post. A combination of MWO's 1 weapon per hard-point system and MW4's hard-point sizes. It prevents boating of small weapons (the problem MW4 had) and prevents boating of large weapons (the problem MWO has).

The only thing I would elaborate on is to state that for each variant the hard-point sizes would be driven by the stock load-outs, but I think the OP is implying that.

You get good customization, including the ability to replace weapons with larger weapons, but within a limit (MG -> AC2 or even AC5, but not AC20), based on stock configurations, keeping character among chassis, and also usefulness among chassis.

This isn't a direct solution to any particular problem, and there are probably edge cases, but it would ease a lot of the issues with this game, and would generally make it better and more interesting.

Yes, hard points essentially driven by stock load out. Thanks for the reply.

[Roland]

Figured I'd bump this for folks to take a look at. I think it represents a fairly easy implementation of an idea that some folks have suggested.

It can potentially help prevent heavy boating builds without having to resort to nerfing weapons, or introducing a complex convergence system. It certainly won't prevent all strong builds, but will likely help to create some additional variety in the builds that will be seen on the field.

For instance, with a system like this, you might actually see some PPC wielding awesomes on the field, as they may be the only mech capable of carrying such loadouts.

This would almost certainly give the developers an easier mechanism for balancing than what they have now, while still preserving most of the flexibility afforded by the mechlab.

[Ialdabaoth]

This would be pretty simple to code. Each hard point has a space limit, which is determined entirely by the default weapon in that hard point:

Empty, Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser: 1E
Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser: 2E
Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser: 3E
PPC, ER PPC: 4E + 2E

Machine Gun: 1B
AC/2: 5B
AC/5, UAC/5: 8B
AC/10, LB-10X: 12B
AC20, Gauss Rifle: 10B + 6B

Empty, SRM2, SSRM2, SRM4, LRM5: 2M
SRM6, LRM10, Narc: 3M
LRM15, LRM20: 5M + 3M

Note "4E + 2E" means one four-slot hardpoint and one two-slot hardpoint; thus the Awesome 8Q's first energy hardpoint in each section could hold up to 4-slot energy weapons, while its second hardpoint could hold up to 2-slot energy weapons.

(And yes, there are 4-slot energy weapons, but they won't appear until 3075 or so)