52 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

tenderloving, on 12 July 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

That was actually a really good argument.

His flaw is that you can't use common sense as an argument when your opponent has already thrown that out the window.

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.

Edited by 3rdworld, 12 July 2013 - 09:18 AM.

[Roland]

To be clear here, the solution I've proposed would allow you to do the equivalent of putting larger tires on your truck.
You just wouldn't be able to put MONSTER TRUCK tires onto it.

[tenderloving]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 09:07 AM, said:

I don't think it's actually counter to any of PGI's design decisions. Indeed, it leverages their decision to use a limited number of hardpoints, which provides some advantages over MW4's system.

This merely adds to their ideas.

My frustration is that they addressed small weapon boating by limiting hardpoints, but they are addressing large weapon boating with this heat system we're getting.

There are many mechs rendered redundant by the current system. (You can carry a Gauss/AC20 on a Raven FFS. This is our MONSTER TRUCK tire on a small truck scenario.) Unless something changes, the game is going to settle on the bag of guns with the most advantageous shape/hitboxes in each weight class. Unless they have a super-cool perk system in the works, there isn't anything else to differentiate the different chassis.

Edited by tenderloving, 12 July 2013 - 09:20 AM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

I understand what you're talking about here, but think of it this way...

It's not about making the stalker bad, or the awesome good. It's just about making certain chassis better/worse at doing specific things.

I think that this holds more promise than just trying to make every chassis able to do everything, because what you'll have in that case is a situation where for any given role, one chassis will simply be better at it than others. It'll be the optimal chassis, largely based upon the mech's geometry (since they'll all be equal in other ways), or tonnage.

By assigning slot sizes to hardpoints, you are simply adding another level of "character" to a specific chassis.

Here is the problem. If your not careful you end up nerfing a mech to oblivion. For example I love my QDs but if you look at the TROs, they always ran MLs. However I like to pair up a set of LLs or ER PPCs on the arms and feel it is required to make them competitive. If you change hardpoints to say light and heavy, then say the QD can only mount light energy weapons, ie medium lasers, then this mech is totally worthless to me.

Additionally I haven't really seen any build yet in game that I felt was totally overpowering. The closest I am found is the Dual AC/20 Jaggy but after the intital shock, I found them relatively easy to counter by just popping their Right or Left torso and/or staying back 400+ meters while doing it. Quad PPC builds definately aren't OPed, at least not in PUGs because I tested that build out throughly. Dual Gauss is the same thing as the quad PPC, a decent build but not OPed in the least now that I know what to expect out of them anyway.

[Roland]

Quote

Here is the problem. If your not careful you end up nerfing a mech to oblivion. For example I love my QDs but if you look at the TROs, they always ran MLs. However I like to pair up a set of LLs or ER PPCs on the arms and feel it is required to make them competitive. If you change hardpoints to say light and heavy, then say the QD can only mount light energy weapons, ie medium lasers, then this mech is totally worthless to me.

Absolutely valid concern, which is why I included the Hunchback example.

For a mech like the Quickdraw, I would expect that some portion of its energy hardpoints be capable of mounting 2 or 3 slot energy weapons, despite the fact that the stock config only ran medium lasers.

Quote

Additionally I haven't really seen any build yet in game that I felt was totally overpowering.

This is actually less about making specific builds less powerful, and making different chassis more unique in what they are able to carry.

For instance, with the Jagermech, I probably wouldn't prevent at least one of those variants from being able to mount dual 20's... they're designed to carry pretty big ballistics in their arms already. It fits with the character of that mech.

But the K2 wouldn't be able to mount dual 20's, because it was really never designed to be able to. It would likely be limited to smaller ballistics. Again, larger than the single slot machine guns, but perhaps no bigger than the AC2.. maybe up to the AC5.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 09:24 AM, said:

Absolutely valid concern, which is why I included the Hunchback example.

For a mech like the Quickdraw, I would expect that some portion of its energy hardpoints be capable of mounting 2 or 3 slot energy weapons, despite the fact that the stock config only ran medium lasers.



This is actually less about making specific builds less powerful, and making different chassis more unique in what they are able to carry.

For instance, with the Jagermech, I probably wouldn't prevent at least one of those variants from being able to mount dual 20's... they're designed to carry pretty big ballistics in their arms already. It fits with the character of that mech.

But the K2 wouldn't be able to mount dual 20's, because it was really never designed to be able to. It would likely be limited to smaller ballistics. Again, larger than the single slot machine guns, but perhaps no bigger than the AC2.. maybe up to the AC5.

If you were super generous with the hardpoints, I guess I don't have a huge issue with it. Still would prefer different methods to make models unique or to give them a niche.

Also, you are introducing another system which will require PGI to balance it.

[Roland]

Quote

If you were super generous with the hardpoints, I guess I don't have a huge issue with it. Still would prefer different methods to make models unique or to give them a niche.

Also, you are introducing another system which will require PGI to balance it.

Well, it depends on what you mean by super generous.

Generally, I would not want to limit mechs to only stock loadouts (because then what's the point of the mechlab), but I'd probably want to prevent some of the builds that are run currently, as I've suggested specifically.

In terms of another system to balance, I'm actually looking at it from the other side... This is a mechanism by which PGI could balance aspects of their game, perhaps without needing to add in other, more confusing balancing mechanisms.

For instance, a system like this would allow PGI to directly limit the types of mechs that could boat PPC's, eliminating some of the need to try and nerf that weapon system specifically.

Likewise, limiting the flexibility of mech configurations could indirectly force more varied builds, negating the need for a convergence system.

[Nebelfeuer]

Personally I would prefer a system that matches hardpointslotsize to that of the original layout but you can trade harpoints for harpointslots per location.
eg swaybacks RT 6x 1slot energy points that could be used by 2xPPC or 3 xLL or 6 ML , etc = every combination that combines up to 6 slots and 6 energy weapons max is allowed
the LA of this mech would only be able to carry a single oneslot energyweapon.

This would allow for more customisation but without having to rely on madeup slotsizes for each location that could be debated about. The avaliable space in a location is determined purely by the stocklayout. Adittinal hardpoints that are not used by the original designs should simply be declard singleslot. Artemis schould not count towards slotlimitation.

Edited by Nebelfeuer, 12 July 2013 - 09:43 AM.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

For instance, a system like this would allow PGI to directly limit the types of mechs that could boat PPC's, eliminating some of the need to try and nerf that weapon system specifically.

Just think it would be easier to nerf the PPC. It also seems like you are trying to force weapon balance by limiting use. That works with the current meta because the PPC is the largest energy weapon. What if the next meta revolves around pulse lasers. How would your system address a much more plentiful and smaller weapon system?

Nebelfeuer, on 12 July 2013 - 09:35 AM, said:

Personally I would prefer a system that matches hardpointslotsize to that of the original layout but you can trade harpoints for harpointslots per location.
eg swaybacks RT 6x 1slot energy points that could be used by 2xPPC or 3 xLL or 6 ML , etc = every combination that combines to 6 slots max is allowed
the LA of this mech would only be able to carry a single oneslot energyweapon.

This would allow for more customisation but without having to rely on madeup slotsizes for each location that could be debated about. The avaliable space in a location is determined purely by the stocklayout. Adittinal hardpoints that are not used by the original designs should simply be declard singleslot. Artemis schould not count towards slotlimitation.

That has tons of issues. Look at the AWS-8Q for example. it has 3 ppcs & 1 SL stock. That is 10 energy crits. For 20 tons he is mounting 10 MPLs and doing 60 damage a alpha.

[Roland]

Quote

Just think it would be easier to nerf the PPC. It also seems like you are trying to force weapon balance by limiting use. That works with the current meta because the PPC is the largest energy weapon.

Well, it's not really limiting use across the board though, like nerfing the weapon. Instead, it's trying to confine usage to certain overall mech designs. Generally, those different mech chassis have other qualities.

For instance, why is a stalker generally so much better than an Awesome in terms of PPC usage? Its overall geometry makes it much more effective, due to the location of the hardpoints.

With a limitation on the hardpoints that was linked to specific chassis, you could potentially still drive a 4PPC mech, but it might have to be the Awesome.. which would come with the limitations of that chassis. Generally, a much worse profile, less overall tonnage, and lowered weapon locations.

The end result is that the users are given choices they must make, rather than the current system which tends to distill itself down to a handful of optimal mechs.

Quote

What if the next meta revolves around pulse lasers. How would your system address a much more plentiful and smaller weapon system?

Well, PGI's existing hardpoint system generally prevents this already, by limiting the NUMBER of weapons you can carry.

My suggestion here doesn't really do anything regarding the number of weapons you can carry. It merely limits the size of some of those weapons.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 12 July 2013 - 09:47 AM, said:

The end result is that the users are given choices they must make, rather than the current system which tends to distill itself down to a handful of optimal mechs.



Well, PGI's existing hardpoint system generally prevents this already, by limiting the NUMBER of weapons you can carry.

My suggestion here doesn't really do anything regarding the number of weapons you can carry. It merely limits the size of some of those weapons.

We have difference in perspective then, because I don't see it that way. Currently people would run 4 PPCs on the atlas, highlander, stalker, awesome, cataphract, catapult. With these restrictions the highlander and awesome are likely the only mechs which that is possible. I don't see that being increased diversity or something other than a handful of mechs.

Sure it limits numbers, but the point is that no one fills all their energy slots with the best weapon in the game (ppcs) because they weigh to much and are fairly large. So a system to limit size seems fairly intuitive. What if however everyone wanted to stack as many LLs as they could? Certainly in your system LL hardpoints will be more plentiful than PPC hardpoints. So how would we address that, lower the number of mechs that can use LLs now? Then what would be the solution to a single hardpoint OP weapon.

So in short, Hardpoint limitations seems like a one trick pony.

[Nebelfeuer]

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 09:40 AM, said:

That has tons of issues. Look at the AWS-8Q for example. it has 3 ppcs & 1 SL stock. That is 10 energy crits. For 20 tons he is mounting 10 MPLs and doing 60 damage a alpha.

changed my post for clarification: the weaponslot and critslot amounts need to be limited at the same time and be counted per location on the mech. The AWS-8Q has one 3critslots sized hardpoint and an additinall( 1critslot) unused one in his RA you could mount any energyweapon combination that consists of 2 weapons max and 4 slots max. 4 ML would not be possible. the maximum amount of energy weapons on the whole mech would be 7 not 10.

Edited by Nebelfeuer, 12 July 2013 - 10:07 AM.

[Phobic Wraith]

I like that this community comes up with so many good ideas. And while I agree that something should be done about the long range/PPC meta, I don't think that hardpoint size restrictions are the best option... They are AN option, but I don't think the BEST option. I like crazy mech builds. I think most of us do, that's part of the fun of mechwarrior games. As far as I can tell boating weapons of any kind isn't the problem, it's what boating certain kinds of weapons does in game. How do we determine a weapon is overpowered? It kills us too fast.

Center torso armor is too thin when we base a point and click shooter game on tabletop values. Center torso armor will always be too thin. Because we can aim, and we naturally aim for center mass. The problem, gents, is that we don't have dice in mechwarrior online. I am not saying we should add dice mind you, just that we need some sort of mechanic in game that limits where damage can occur in certain situations. Pinpoint damage was birthed of tabletop values combined with realtime FPS aiming. To STOP too much pinpoint damage, we need a mechanic that doesn't let too many weapons hit the same spot without a certain amout of randomness added to the mix.

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.

Edited by Phobic Wraith, 12 July 2013 - 10:29 AM.

[Sybreed]

Viktor Drake, on 12 July 2013 - 09:19 AM, said:

Here is the problem. If your not careful you end up nerfing a mech to oblivion. For example I love my QDs but if you look at the TROs, they always ran MLs. However I like to pair up a set of LLs or ER PPCs on the arms and feel it is required to make them competitive. If you change hardpoints to say light and heavy, then say the QD can only mount light energy weapons, ie medium lasers, then this mech is totally worthless to me.

It wouldn't become less competitive, because you seem to forget it will no longer be possible for all assault mechs to boat ppcs like crazy. You won't need ER PPCs and LLs to remain competitive in a world where it's now impossible to boat them everywhere.

Edited by Sybreed, 12 July 2013 - 10:32 AM.

[Acid Phase]

We shouldn't be looking for one and only end-all solution to balance. Because it doesn't exist. It needs several features to be implemented in order to achieve some balance. Take this quote I did in a previous thread for example:

Acid Phase, on 07 July 2013 - 03:01 PM, said:

The massive problem here is what is currently being allowed to be customized. The game is allowing *sshole builds like the AC40 Jags, The Boomcat, the 6PPC Stalker, combination PPC+gauss/AC20. MWO is in dire need of balance MM-wise, as it needs it in weapons. Tweaking weapons individually has not helped since closed beta. We tested it, it doesn't work, let's move on to another alternative. Here's several implementations needed for testing.....with these we may be closer to balance as it's dying for it.

• Hardpoint size limit (restriction/ restrict outrageous builds from being created, keeping it near stock loadout)
  
• Remove pinpoint convergence
  
• Stricter heat penalties (More intense damage affliction after 120%+)
  
• Weight drop distribution (3L, 4M, 3H, 2A or something of that sort) (This might limit the go to boat mech for those who believe everyone will trend the high alpha boat)

We are not on an island. This game is the worst it's ever been.

[Sybreed]

Acid Phase, on 12 July 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

We shouldn't be looking for one and only end-all solution to balance. Because it doesn't exist. It needs several features to be implemented in order to achieve some balance. Take this quote I did in a previous thread for example:

Bryan said it's currently under review... it would be nice to know what's happening with hardpoint sizes. Is it doable? Did they look at it and said no or are they finally realizing their system doesn't work in this game?

You know what I would like? I'd like a match where all the devs are in Awesomes 8Q vs a team full of Stalkers 3H. Now they'd see what's wrong with the hardpoints.

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

We have difference in perspective then, because I don't see it that way. Currently people would run 4 PPCs on the atlas, highlander, stalker, awesome, cataphract, catapult. With these restrictions the highlander and awesome are likely the only mechs which that is possible. I don't see that being increased diversity or something other than a handful of mechs.

Ah, but you are missing the other thing that result from that.
Do you think that just because a very specific configuration like heavy PPC boating becomes limited, that no one is gonna drive the stalker any more? Or the Atlas? That those mechs will suddenly become unused?

I don't believe that's the case. I think that the Stalker will most definitely continue to be used, mainly because it will still be able to carry an immense amount of firepower in an extremely durable chassis, with its weapons loaded up high on its profile.

But those chassis will need to carry some other loadout besides simply max PPC's. Likewise, I don't think everyone will suddenly start driving Awesomes, because of the other significant drawbacks to that mech currently.

This is how I think that it would result in actually increasing diversity in mechs.

3rdworld, on 12 July 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Sure it limits numbers, but the point is that no one fills all their energy slots with the best weapon in the game (ppcs) because they weigh to much and are fairly large. So a system to limit size seems fairly intuitive. What if however everyone wanted to stack as many LLs as they could? Certainly in your system LL hardpoints will be more plentiful than PPC hardpoints. So how would we address that, lower the number of mechs that can use LLs now? Then what would be the solution to a single hardpoint OP weapon.

I'm sorry, but I'm not sure I understand your question here.

Certainly, some hardpoints will only be one slot, and thus wouldn't be able to carry LL's.

[Acid Phase]

Sybreed, on 12 July 2013 - 10:38 AM, said:

Bryan said it's currently under review... it would be nice to know what's happening with hardpoint sizes. Is it doable? Did they look at it and said no or are they finally realizing their system doesn't work in this game?

Yea I remember that, and that was an answer addressed to someone on ATD over a question I asked Russ. But as always, they tend to be very vague. I created a thread shortly after that:

"Weapon Tweaks are not the issue. Customization Abuse is"


PGI has since closed beta "fixed" just about every weapon. Tweaking this, tweaking that. All it has achieved is that freedom of customization has been thoroughly abused. I can't believe the fanboyism defending what PGI releases. Calling this game ok to play. No. It is not ok. Every weapon "fix" is the search to see what weapon/mech become the new FoTM. It's ridiculous. We all know what is the real balance of weapons, but the devs have not addressed it. Hardpoint restrictions. The problem is too much freedom of customization. I keep saying that the apparent fix to boating where it shouldn't be boating is hardpoint restrictions. Fixes outrageous builds and fixes boating. Done. Those who are meant to boat will boat as they should, but other ridiculous builds will be kept from doing so.

Quote

(@AC1DPHA5E) tweeted at 4:18 PM EST on Tue, May 21,2013:

"@russ_bullock Bryan won't answer. I'll try asking you. Weapon balance fix is hardpoint size restrictions. Why are you guys against it?"

Quote

(@russ_bullock) tweeted at 6:06 PM EST on Tue, May 21,2013:

"@AC1DPHA5E were not against it, it's been discussed"

Funny. I've been on every hard point restriction topic. Don't see any dev discussing it.

Quote

(@AC1DPHA5E) tweeted at 7:47 PM EST on Tue, May 21,2013:

"@russ_bullock What was the outcome of that discussion? It will be the only balance to a boat ridden MWO. Which btw, LRMs are FoTM now."

Now I've been waiting to know wether they are going to balance weapons this way, or do we have to endure more ridiculous builds thanks to customization abuse. In which case, I'll just move on not looking forward to the future of MWO. Sad to know I've built my rig just for MWO. Looks like I'm sh*t out of luck.

Posted 22 May 2013 - 09:34 AM

Edited by Acid Phase, 12 July 2013 - 10:48 AM.

[Roland]

Ah... moved to feature requests.

[Lykaon]

I support a hardpoint system that functions like this proposal and I did not come to this conclusion in some random arbitrary manner.

It has become abundantly clear that MWo will eventually devolve down to a few chassis that have the optimal blend of target profile and damage out put potential.This is already happening even with the small sampling of mech chassis available currently.

Why take an awesome if a stalker does it better,Victors are just mini Highlanders and Victors are likely to follow the awesome into obscurity.Medium mechs are currently the rarest mech class seen deployed due to a lack of survivability when pitted against the assault mech alpha strike meta.Light mechs are mostly spiders with ecm and PPC (only because of the buggy hit detection the spider enjoys other wise this too would fall into disuse).Everyone crams PPCs onto everything sacrificing intended roles or even potential flexability just to play to the meta.

This condition will not fade away it will magnify as more chassis are added to surplant the current meta kings of Highlander and Stalker.

On it's current path I do not see MWo to be an engaging game of variable tactics.We will have mech A or mech B using essentially the same style of loadouts performing the same strategy every match.Yaaaaawwwnn!


Now I want to address some counter points people have made.

What about mechs like the Devestator or Annihilator that with their native loadouts or required hardpoints would allow for boating?

Yes both these mechs represent designs that would even with hardpoint size limits present the problem of a return of the alpha boat.

However if you only consider the hardpoint limits in a vacuum without thinking about this hardpoint mechanic used in conjunction with other mechanics you will see failure.Yet if considered in a context of interactivity with other mechanics we start to see a means of balancing these potential alpha boats.

We have two currently used mechanics that can be incorperated to directly address potential problem chassis.

Engine size limits and chassis quirks.

A devestator can pack 2 PPCs and 2 Gauss rifles but,what if the Devestator also had poor acceleration and deceleration or limited torso rotation or limited arm pitch or any combinations of the above.
The Devestator would be an extremely potent weapon platform that is torn to shreds by flanking fast moving brawlers and lacks the ability to slip in and out of cover easily due to accel and decel quirks slowing reaction times.
If however the Devestator was properly screened and placed it would be a desireable mech but it could not opperate as a stand alone killamajig.

As for "mech affirmative action" we have an even worse situation now that is erroding the fundimental design concepts of MWo.

Role warfare is Alpha strike boat or second class target.Those are the roles we have now

Information warfare is essentially Advanced Seismic Sensors + alpha strike boat.Light mechs may get there quicker but why bother when you can have 400m 360 degree X-ray sensors that will detect anything trying to flank your PPC boat.

Mech warfare is now some variation of poptart warfare.It's no longer jumpjet dominated but it's still peak and alpha warfare.

Essentially it's either develope mechanics to make all chassis viable or settle for a game that has 1 or 2 optimal weapons boated on 1 or 2 optimal chassis.