37 replies to this topic

[Belorion]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Really, Belorian? You think that's what would happen?

That everyone would bring nothing but Awesomes? Despite their terrible hitboxes and geometry?

If the three PPC's were perceived to be op, then yes, that is what would happen. Or people would just stop running PPC's and bring whatever it was that floated to the top. The point being that there is less for them to chose from.

If there is only 1 optimum build for each mech, and of those chassis 4 offer an advantage over the others then you will only see those 4 mechs. If every chassis was 1 to 3 optimum builds then there will be more that offer an advantage thereby widening the selection pool.

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 26 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

How does moving it to different chassis, remove there being a best? In your example if there is a cataphract capable of using 3 ppcs, it is going to be superior to the awesome.

Well, perhaps. Although the difference between a cataphract and an awesome is going to be at least interesting perhaps, compared to the difference between the awesome and the stalker. It's a heavy rather than an assault. It has less tonnage than the awesome, rather than the stalker which has more.

Again, the issue isn't really to simply remove the ability to run a build, but rather to make it less obvious what the single most optimum build is for all situations.

On some level, there was at one point a reason to run the awesome, albeit a weak one... it was faster than the stalker. But now it can't run 3 PPC's as effectively on a fast build, because the idea of running 3 PPC's on the stalker resulted in nerfing the idea of firing 3 PPC's.

Your point is well taken though, and it may be the case that it would just kick the can down the road.

3rdworld, on 26 July 2013 - 10:57 AM, said:

Sorry, I assumed you would be basing your argument on sizes that more closely resemble stock. Hardponts are set by stock weapons, and I inferred that onto your system.

While I think they would end up being CLOSE to stock, I would tend not to limit those sizes to ONLY stock.

For instance, with a mech like the hunchback 4p, I'd probably make some of its hardpoints capable of mounting 2 or 3 slot energy weapons.

[Roland]

Belorion, on 26 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

If the three PPC's were perceived to be op, then yes, that is what would happen. Or people would just stop running PPC's and bring whatever it was that floated to the top. The point being that there is less for them to chose from.

But don't you see that it could potentially end up in such a state where both options are viable?
You could choose to take the aweome, with its poor geometry, which would enable certain styles of play... but it'd be something of a glass cannon. It wouldn't work particularly well for sniping from a ridge, like a stalker does.
OR, you could choose a stalker, if you wanted to be better at sniping and tougher, but you wouldn't be able to mount that particular configuration.

Again, just an example here, and the underlying issue isn't specifically about that particular build or comparison.

Belorion, on 26 July 2013 - 11:05 AM, said:

If there is only 1 optimum build for each mech, and of those chassis 4 offer an advantage over the others then you will only see those 4 mechs.

This doesn't really specifically push only one optimum build for any mech, but I'd point out that there are generally only a handful of optimum builds for ALL mechs right now.

Quote

If every chassis was 1 to 3 optimum builds then there will be more that offer an advantage thereby widening the selection pool.

But you're missing the part of my original post, where mechs cannot be considered in vacuum, as you are doing here.
When you put all of those mechs into the same game, a handful of those builds simply supercede the others, so that the "optimum" builds for certain chassis end up being garbage, since other mechs can run those builds better. (or can run BETTER builds better)

[Enigmos]

I will be surprised indeed if you can sell the average player on the idea that structure nurtures creativity. You know it, and I know it, but it will not fly fueled only by emotions. There is a difference between music and noise, and that difference is a product of structure and restraint.

Edited by OriginalTibs, 26 July 2013 - 11:28 AM.

[Belorion]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

But don't you see that it could potentially end up in such a state where both options are viable?
You could choose to take the aweome, with its poor geometry, which would enable certain styles of play... but it'd be something of a glass cannon. It wouldn't work particularly well for sniping from a ridge, like a stalker does.
OR, you could choose a stalker, if you wanted to be better at sniping and tougher, but you wouldn't be able to mount that particular configuration.

No, because you are going from 4 or 5 mechs with viable 3 ppc builds down to one.

Something very similar happened with WoW. The talent trees allowed people to have hybrid builds that weren't really in one tree or another. There were typically the best build of each tree, and then possibly one or two good hybrid builds that people tended to run.

Then they stopped allowing the hybrid builds.

Paladins for example went from 6 or 7 best of builds (depending on what you wanted to do) to four, and two of those were pretty darn similar.

PVP specifically went from Ret Shokadin or Holy or Prot to just Holy or Prot (since they also did something that made Ret undesirable)

Less choice ended up with less playable variation.

People will always pick the top builds (or the ones they perceive as top builds) and run mostly those. Restriction only cuts down the number of top builds.

[Jestun]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

But don't you see that it could potentially end up in such a state where both options are viable?

It could with balancing changes.

But unless they planned it, it's unlikely the two options would be perfectly balanced meaning neither is better than the other.

If one is better then the players will work out which. And then they will use it.

So... once again... the FotM would not be solved, but it might move to a different chassis.

[hammerreborn]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 11:09 AM, said:

Well, perhaps. Although the difference between a cataphract and an awesome is going to be at least interesting perhaps, compared to the difference between the awesome and the stalker. It's a heavy rather than an assault. It has less tonnage than the awesome, rather than the stalker which has more.

Again, the issue isn't really to simply remove the ability to run a build, but rather to make it less obvious what the single most optimum build is for all situations.

How is a restrictive system not making it completely obvious what the most optimum build is for all situations?

Right now, high alpha is the meta.

Let's just assume that will remain the same, no heat scale, no other balancing changes. Everything the same as now, but with stock loadout hardpoint sizes only.

Which mech gives you the highest pinpoint alpha strike?

There, that's the new FOTM.


And then in 6 months clans **** all over this system and you're left with an unbalanced cluster****

Edited by hammerreborn, 26 July 2013 - 12:00 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

No, because you are going from 4 or 5 mechs with viable 3 ppc builds down to one.

But those mechs may then have other builds which become viable. Just not 3 ppc builds.

By taking away that single optimum build, you potentially increase the overall number of builds by indirectly making alternative configurations on those chassis more competitive.

Again, the builds do not exist in a vacuum. They impact each other's viability.

This is an important thing to remember... that such a change does not necessarily limit the overall number of mechs that you, as a player, can field. It could result in an overall environment where other mechs that you would have liked to drive, but which were non-competitive, suddenly become viable. And you may even like those options better than the current limited selection of top tier mechs.

Quote

It could with balancing changes.


But unless they planned it, it's unlikely the two options would be perfectly balanced meaning neither is better than the other.

If one is better then the players will work out which. And then they will use it.

So... once again... the FotM would not be solved, but it might move to a different chassis.

Perhaps.

Are we at least in agreement that a goal should be that every chassis has some unique role that it fulfills on the field? That every chassis should have some actual reason for it to be dropped?

hammerreborn, on 26 July 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

Which mech gives you the highest pinpoint alpha strike?

There, that's the new FOTM.

What if that mech has poor geometry? What if it lacks JJ's, has low slung weapons, and easy to hit hitboxes?
Does it still automatically become the FOTM?

[FupDup]

hammerreborn, on 26 July 2013 - 11:59 AM, said:

And then in 6 months clans **** all over this system and you're left with an unbalanced cluster****

Not really, PGI is most likely going to poop all over the Clans by giving them a max alpha of 1-2 for almost every weapon they have.

[hammerreborn]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 12:07 PM, said:

Perhaps.

Are we at least in agreement that a goal should be that every chassis has some unique role that it fulfills on the field? That every chassis should have some actual reason for it to be dropped?

No. I think every class should be able to have a role and a reason for it to be dropped. Start there first.

This entire game is about shooty blowy up mechs, there is no unique role that an awesome can do over a stalker, or victor, or even a hunchback.

They all just have their own personalities, quirks, and loadouts in how they can turn the enemy into slag.

Making one mech the ppc mech, another the guass mech, and another the medium laser mech does nothing to give each other unique roles if the ppc is just better than all other weapons

FupDup, on 26 July 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

Not really, PGI is most likely going to poop all over the Clans by giving them a max alpha of 1-2 for almost every weapon they have.

Which stops them from getting around hardpoint restrictions....how?

And if the heat scale is so useless (according to you) and so easy to get around (also according to you), then how is it a "balancing" method for clan mechs?

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 12:08 PM, said:

What if that mech has poor geometry? What if it lacks JJ's, has low slung weapons, and easy to hit hitboxes?
Does it still automatically become the FOTM?

Yes. Aside from completely broken hitboxes (raven meta), nearly every meta has been dictated by the biggest boom. Guassapults, splatterpults, any LRM boat during LRMmaggedon, the 6 ppc stalker, the 4 ppc stalker, the 3 ppc + guass boat, and now 2 ppc + guass

In fact, I'd point to the splatterpult as being the biggest evidence that hitboxes don't matter in the long run if it's compensated by the biggest alpha in the game, it went from (2.5*6*6 = 90, by far the largest in the game) and with a tight spread AND broken splash to a max alpha of 54 with a much larger spread to kill that meta. No one cared that the ears could get shot off and make them useless, they could kill you nearly instantly.

I'd also point to the D-DC meta shortly after ECM was released, and you can not argue that that mech doesn't have bad geometry, lacks JJs, has low slung weapons, and easy to hit hitboxes. And that's what happens when things are restricted. As the only non-light/cicada with ECM it became the instant top dog even though it's a walking target the same size as an awesome. It took all the various nerfs to ECM (mainly in the form of PPCs) and forcing ECM to the LT to stop that meta.

Also, Jenners far surpass spiders in terms of the light meta, and it's not because the Jenner has better geometry, that's for sure. It's because a Jenner can have a 30 damage alpha and a spider can't even hit 20.

Edited by hammerreborn, 26 July 2013 - 12:20 PM.

[RussianWolf]

If your goal is to boat the most pinpoint alpha power you can, then yes, this is a bad idea and your 6ppc stalkers and such are what you must have.

If your goal is to have all mechs having their own niches (as was intended), then no, this is not a bad idea and suddenly the world opens up to new possibilities as you have to find the mechs that work for your niche. And others find different mechs for their meta.

Your meta may be high alpha pinpoint, mine isn't.

[FupDup]

hammerreborn, on 26 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

Which stops them from getting around hardpoint restrictions....how?

We don't yet know what they plan with Omnis. It could be all Omni hardpoints, maybe a mix of Omni and standard (like MW4), or maybe even just pure standard. Keep in mind that our current Battlemechs aren't following the lore even remotely, so I don't expect Omnis to try to follow lore either. Our current BM's are actually SUPERIOR to Omnis because we can change weapons just as easily as Omnis in addition to internal stuff like engines and armor.

hammerreborn, on 26 July 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

And if the heat scale is so useless (according to you) and so easy to get around (also according to you), then how is it a "balancing" method for clan mechs?

It isn't. I'm expecting PGI to make the Clans either too weak or too strong. The likelihood of them having an approximately 50% chance to win against the Inner Sphere ("balanced") is pretty low.

On a side note, Clans can just chain-fire LRM20's at all ranges to make up for any max alpha limitations, and they don't need to worry about spread out damage because of the CT-seeking nature of LRMs. Clan LRMs are likely going to be a premier brawling weapon because of this. I also suspect that CERLL + CLPL will make a very good combo due to both being hitscan and having very good range.

Edited by FupDup, 26 July 2013 - 12:31 PM.

[Khanahar]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 09:36 AM, said:

Wow.

They moved this to the Mechs and loadouts forum? Despite the fact that this is about how hardpoints affect overall game balance?

Bro, it's a promotion. Balance is swill and is/should be ignored by the Devs.

[Zyllos]

Hah, that initial response was from my post about the reasonings why seeing month after month of no concepts of revamping and overhauling the issue mechanics in the game is going to make CW underwhelming, no matter how well they do it. This is because the core concepts are flawed.

These were my issues, in my opinion, that are the greatest threat to the core of this game:

• Pin Point Convergence
  
• Hardpoints
  
• Heat and Heatsink System
  
• Tonnage Limits
  
• Misbalanced Items/Mechanics

Personally, in that order, these are the worst offenders of the core mechanics in this game. The fifth issue is generic but is refering to things like how GECM nullifies LRMs, PPCs/ERPPCs heat changes based on old mechanics but still around after new changes, and the new "Alpha Strike Heat Scale" mechanic.

[Roland]

Quote

No. I think every class should be able to have a role and a reason for it to be dropped. Start there first.

Well, if you don't believe there should even be a reason for players to drop different chassis, then there isn't going to be much chance of you agreeing with any of this, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It seems like it's a mistake then for PGI to bother making more mechs though, if the intention is for some of them to simply be unused. Unless they're designed purely as money sinks for us to grind through in order to perhaps unlock "good" mechs. And I guess some of them are just designed to trick people into buying them.

Quote

Yes. Aside from completely broken hitboxes (raven meta), nearly every meta has been dictated by the biggest boom. Guassapults, splatterpults, any LRM boat during LRMmaggedon, the 6 ppc stalker, the 4 ppc stalker, the 3 ppc + guass boat, and now 2 ppc + guass

I think perhaps you are missing the importance of geometry, simply due to the fact that the stalker showed up and had the best ability to deliver a high alpha strike, while ALSO having the best geometry.

I mean, the Awesome could mount 4 PPC's too, since the very beginning of beta, but it never enjoyed the same usage levels as the stalker.

Quote

In fact, I'd point to the splatterpult as being the biggest evidence that hitboxes don't matter in the long run if it's compensated by the biggest alpha in the game, it went from (2.5*6*6 = 90, by far the largest in the game) and with a tight spread AND broken splash to a max alpha of 54 with a much larger spread to kill that meta. No one cared that the ears could get shot off and make them useless, they could kill you nearly instantly

I think your argument here is somewhat flawed.

While the catapult's hitboxes are perhaps less than optimal, the A1 splatpult was able to overcome them by virtue of SRM's being totally broken.

That is, geometry isn't the single important consideration in the game, but it is an important one. In the case of the old splatcat, it was simply overriden by the fact that the A1 could deliver an alpha strike that was sometimes doing as much as 500 damage in a single trigger pull due to srms sometimes doing as much as 15 damage per missile.

Thus, that example doesn't really support an argument that mech geometry isn't important. It just means that it gets trumped by ridiculously broken mechanics, but presumably we won't have such things in the game, and if we did, they would be considered bugs.

To be clear here, you're not actually arguing that mech geometry is a non-factor in mech selection, right? I mean, it seems silly to argue about such a thing, since I assume that we both understand that mech geometry is in fact important.

[rook]

I do like the idea restrictive hardpoints, but I would rather like to see it implemented as additional mech quirks for weapon/hardpoint/mech combinations. My quick two examples would be:

An awesome comes stock with PPC's, so the chassis is designed to handle PPC and they generate normal or less heat
A cataphract has hardpoints in the CT, but they weren't designed for PPCs, so they generate more heat (you can make the claim that "those hardpoints are close to the engine and therefore there's less heat shielding there).

A raven doesn't come with an AC20, but you *could fit one in there. As a quirk, you could make the raven go 20% slower (claim that "the extreme weight of the AC20 make the mech more unbalanced, so the leg actuators need to put more energy into balance then speed")

This is close to the OP's idea, but a slightly different implementation (I think).

[hammerreborn]

Roland, on 26 July 2013 - 12:33 PM, said:

Well, if you don't believe there should even be a reason for players to drop different chassis, then there isn't going to be much chance of you agreeing with any of this, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

It seems like it's a mistake then for PGI to bother making more mechs though, if the intention is for some of them to simply be unused. Unless they're designed purely as money sinks for us to grind through in order to perhaps unlock "good" mechs. And I guess some of them are just designed to trick people into buying them.



I think perhaps you are missing the importance of geometry, simply due to the fact that the stalker showed up and had the best ability to deliver a high alpha strike, while ALSO having the best geometry.

I mean, the Awesome could mount 4 PPC's too, since the very beginning of beta, but it never enjoyed the same usage levels as the stalker.



I think your argument here is somewhat flawed.

While the catapult's hitboxes are perhaps less than optimal, the A1 splatpult was able to overcome them by virtue of SRM's being totally broken.

That is, geometry isn't the single important consideration in the game, but it is an important one. In the case of the old splatcat, it was simply overriden by the fact that the A1 could deliver an alpha strike that was sometimes doing as much as 500 damage in a single trigger pull due to srms sometimes doing as much as 15 damage per missile.

Thus, that example doesn't really support an argument that mech geometry isn't important. It just means that it gets trumped by ridiculously broken mechanics, but presumably we won't have such things in the game, and if we did, they would be considered bugs.

To be clear here, you're not actually arguing that mech geometry is a non-factor in mech selection, right? I mean, it seems silly to argue about such a thing, since I assume that we both understand that mech geometry is in fact important.

Geometry is secondary to raw output.

Why are we starting to see more highlanders now than stalkers? Because the stalkers can no longer alpha 4 ppcs, and 2 ppcs + guass gets you awfully close, something the stalker cannot do (aside from the misery). You wouldn't argue that the highlander has better geometry than the stalker, would you? But you'd argue that in a post heat scale meta that those who want to pinpoint high alpha damage, that's the mech to go with.

Every single meta has been aside from those dictated by either broken hitboxes (raven, centurion (though this is due to damage transfer), and now slightly the spider), have been decided by the the mech that can use the most overpowered weapon in the game.

If there are multiples of that mech (in the case of Awesome vs stalker), then and only then does the geometry matter.

Restrictions make it so that there are only one or two mechs that can do so, and therefore all mechs will flock towards that, rather than the at least artificial variety we have now (with multiple mechs able to equip 2 ppcs + guass)

And look at the stuff for the flea/locust (and even the spider). They are already considered dead on arrival just because of their hardpoints not even factoring in their potential geometry. If geometry was truely important we would be having that discussion instead, rather than figuring out what the max alpha you can get out of it is.

Spider can only have 3 medium lasers? **** that, that's useless.


But if every class could have a role? In which JJs were buffed, spotting was actually rewarded, and capturing bases didn't give the same rewards as a loser, then maybe the spider V with a TAG would be worthwhile. But it's not, and it can't do anything better than a Jenner other than occassionally be immune to bullets, and so no one really uses it.


Do you honestly think that hardpoint restictions will help out the locust/flea/spider/commando at all? Or do you think that balancing weapon loadouts and boosting their engine limits so that they can outrun Jenners/Ravens would do it instead. I'm going to go with the latter.

Edited by hammerreborn, 26 July 2013 - 01:04 PM.

[Roland]

Quote

Why are we starting to see more highlanders now than stalkers? Because the stalkers can no longer alpha 4 ppcs, and 2 ppcs + guass gets you awfully close, something the stalker cannot do (aside from the misery).

Eh... well, until the 30th, you actually can easily run 4 PPC's on the stalker, simply by swapping out two for ER's... so that's not really the cause.

The reason that the highlander started to enjoy heavy usage is that its ability to jump helps to negate most of the issues it suffers from in terms of geometry. Its torso mounted weapons are high in its profile, and its JJ's allow it to jump snipe rather than ridge snipe, so its lower slung arm weapon isn't really as big a hindrance.

Additionally, with the changes to movement code, the highlander's JJ's provide some significant mobility advantages.

Quote

Every single meta has been aside from those dictated by either broken hitboxes (raven, centurion (though this is due to damage transfer), and now slightly the spider), have been decided by the the mech that can use the most overpowered weapon in the game.

Eh, the Awesome always had the potential for a sizable alpha though, and still never enjoyed widespread usage. It could run 4 PPC's before the stalker even existed, as could the Atlas RS. But the stalker became the prime mech for carrying that loadout, because its geometry was better.

It was better able to snipe over ridges due to the high location of those weapons, and the mech itself tended to be significantly more durable.

Quote

If there are multiples of that mech (in the case of Awesome vs stalker), then and only then does the geometry matter.

Well, sure. That's the point here.

I think our disagreement lies in your belief that alpha strike power is so singularly important, that it will automatically trump all other considerations, no matter what. I think that this belief is unjustified.