11 replies to this topic

[Nikijih]

(TL;DR: Weight limit should be applied to individual sections of the mech in order to balance loadouts better without hard restrictions on hardpoints)

I for one am tired of reading threads about how this weapon or that one is overpowered and broken. Why? Because other than the exception of PPCs, which are simply objectively too heat-effective and accurate (travel speed) compared to similar weapons, the weapons are not at fault. The hardpoints are.

The issue is not with the gauss or energy weapons, its when those are boated. Likewise, LRM are fine and even borderline mediocre unless you have 40+ of them in a single volley. Even the AC20 is more than reasonable unless you wear 2 of them at once. The issue is that mechs are not meant to stack many of the biggest weapon they can find. Mechs in the Battletech universe use a multitude of different weapon systems at the same time, often combining a single big long range weapon with a couple med lasers or such. Even traditionally boating mechs (Cat with missiles or Rifleman/Jagger with ballistics for exemple) were never meant to stack the most potent of their respective category to the exclusion of all else.

Imbalance therefore lies not in the weapon, but in how we can put them on mechs.

"But Nikijih, we already talked of hardpoint restrictions but people dont want that!"
Indeed, that is very true, and I somehow agree with them. Why? Because Mechwarrior (and in fact all mech games to an extend) is about customization, and restricting hardpoints on a weapon-to-weapon basis would indeed lower significantly the amount of available customizability by limiting the possibilities severely.

How then to get around this problem? The lore already provides the answer: myomer fiber maximum capacity!

In the Battletech universe, mech muscles arnt all powerfull. A commando, for exemple, could not raise its own arm if it was equipped with a LRM20 or a Gauss. There is a limit within the chassis itself due to the limitations of the myomer fibers.

So how to translate this into the game world? Easy: weight limit per limb!

Instead of the current unbalanced model, this would:
1) Limit the amount of "optimal weapons" one can use on the same limb
2) Limit the ability of smaller mechs to forgoe conventional weaponry and armor in order to equip a single top-of-the-line weapon.

Essentially, it would force variety.
- Chassis and harpoint locations suddently become more significant in terms of possible equipement (torso can support more weight, mutly-hardpoints of the same types on a limb allowing less optimal weapons of that type than if they are spread out, etc),
- Accentuates the difference in terms of firepower between the different classes (heavyer mechs having bigger muscles) and roles (arm shape impacting its maximum weight, allowing cat or jags for exemple to remain the support platforms they are meant to be).
- Fights would naturally gravitate towards closer ranges as many mechs would no longuer boat or even be able to equip sniping weapons which are the heavyest by default.
- Issues related to boating would be diminished by the impossibility to stack irrealistic numbers of high damage alphas on most chassis
- Customization is still 100% in the hands of the player. He does not have someone telling him that his chassis can only equip X and Y weapons but not Z and etc. Yet the limiting factor that is already present, weight, now balances the hardpoints themselves relatively to the chassis it is on.
- No need for an esoteric heat-penalty system that is counter-intuitive and illogical for the most part.


This, in combination with a PPC efficiency nerf and a convergence tweak (i personally think weapon convergence would be fine if it was based on the weapon's optimal range instead of the reticle itself so that projectiles cross each other at that distance, making anything closer or further less accurate), would probably fix most of the blatant balance issues plaguing this game currently. Weither you agree with me, or think im bat-crap crazy, thats what this thread is here to discuss

Edited by Nikijih, 28 July 2013 - 08:37 AM.

[Zyllos]

This wouldn't do anything to the Stalker...

4 Energy hardpoints spread across multiple sections allows it to still boat PPCs while most other mechs could not due to many Energy hardpoints in one area.

If you based the tonnage of the mech around the strength of the myomer fiber and set it to a weight limit where it's impossible for a Stalker to equip them in the arms, then standard builds like the Awesome, and due to scaling, I bet Ravens, Jenners, and Commandos couldn't even carry the standard layouts in arms.

So, I think this wouldn't work.

But the issue at hand is not because of boating. The main problem is pin point accuracy and the ability to overshadow other traditional mechs with open ended customization.

Even with a tonnage limit, why would you ever pilot an Awesome over the Stalker when wanting to mount multiple PPCs? Why mount a mix of weaponry when you could just mount multiples of a single weapon that can be fired onto a single point for full optimal damage with minimal spread (PPCs just happen to be the best at doing this, thus gets all the wrap for the issue)?

These are the issues at hand, not boating.

Edited by Zyllos, 28 July 2013 - 08:26 AM.

[Nikijih]

I find it somewhat disturbing that your entire post basically revolves around "it wouldnt change the fact that PPCs are OP", which I specifically mentionned as an acknowledged issue in my OP. PPCs needs to be brought down to a similar efficiency level as other energy weapons, we all know that, there isnt any point in tunnel visionning on the current implementation of that weapon.

BEYOND that issue tho, boating, be it missiles or ballistics or w/e, is responsible for most of the more blatant balance issues. And beyond boating, the lack of variety that comes with a completely open-ended customizability (meaning everyone always equip whatever is the FoTM because they all CAN) is also another problem this attempts to fix.

Edited by Nikijih, 28 July 2013 - 08:34 AM.

[Zyllos]

Nikijih, on 28 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

I find it somewhat disturbing that your entire post basically revolves around "it wouldnt change the fact that PPCs are OP", which I specifically mentionned as an acknowledged issue in my OP. PPCs needs to be brought down to a similar efficiency level as other energy weapons, we all know that, there isnt any point in tunnel visionning on the current implementation of that weapon.

BEYOND that issue tho, boating, be it missiles or ballistics or w/e, is responsible for most of the more blatant balance issues. And beyond boating, the lack of variety that comes with a completely open-ended customizability (meaning everyone always equip whatever is the FoTM because they all CAN) is also another problem this attempts to fix.

Well, to answer that, PPCs are only chosen due to being the best at equipping multiples. Any major changes to PPCs would make players gravitate over to Large Lasers, SRMs, LRMs, ect.

Your fix wouldn't...couldn't fix this problem because it's assuming a weight limit on equipping weapons on a location. Well, there is going to be a specific point where that weight limit will allow 1 of each weapon to be equipped in different areas, and due to pin point accuracy, will allow certain mechs to be "winners" and boat specific weapons while others will be "losers" and can't equip multiples of a specific weapon.

That is why I think it's just best to have hardpoint restrictions based on their canon loadouts that do not allow them to overshadow other mechs.

Either way...

Edited by Zyllos, 28 July 2013 - 08:45 AM.

[Roland]

Seems like this is essentially the same as placing a limit on the number of critical slots that can fit into any given hardpoint, only this is far more complex and harder for a new player to understand.

[Nikijih]

I disagree. PPCs are chosen because they are the most efficient period. If you have 1 energy point, equip 1 PPC. If you have 4 energy points, equip 4 PPCs. Any major changes to PPCs will force players to think about the other energy options more than they currently do, which is a good thing as it changes the meta and that is what we want.

You seem to operate under a very specific assumption, notably that there will always be an OP go-to weapon and whoever has more of it wins. Thats a problem specific to the PPC, and once again it comes down to your tunnel visionning on that one unbalanced weapon. My assumption is the opposite: that PPCs will eventually be brought back in line with other weapons.

Now from that point foward, how do we make sure the loadouts are more balanced and varied?

EDIT: What i mean is that even with balanced weapons we will never have balanced meta games in the current system of hardpoints because boating messes with said balance.

Take LRMs for exemple (to move away from the PPC arguments): LRMs are fine until someone shows up with some ridiculous LRM 50+ build that rains death upon people. But because these builds exist, LRMs themselves get nerfed, and become useless to people using a single instance or two of the weapon. So then they get buffed again but someone boats the crap out of them and suddently its a FoTM again.

The same thing happened to the AC/20, the UAC/5, the SRMs, the SSRMs, the MLs, etc. Since i played this game, we have gone through a long strings of buffs and nerfs and FoTM boats. All because of the hardpoint system, NOT the weapons themselves. You cannot balance a min/maxing system such as this without being able to somehow restrict the hardpoint allocations.

Edited by Nikijih, 28 July 2013 - 09:16 AM.

[iHover]

<p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I would agree that the hard point system needs to be changed / fixed. The current system was short sighted and allows game breaking builds to be the norm. Their have been a number of good ideas forwarded to resolve this, including yours. Unfortunately I think this is unlikely to happen. Igp and pgi have not been able to get the game past the basic drop with eight people and shoot each other up on a half dozen maps. CW's time line has slipped and slipped and wont be in place for the games “launch”. Launch apparently just being the removal of the beta label as even UI 2.0 will not be ready. GIven these facts I find it unlikely that igp will redesign the core systems like hardpoints
</p>

Edited by iHover, 28 July 2013 - 10:01 AM.

[Pht]

... uh ... or they could just ... make the size of the "hole" that defines the hardpoint match the size of the weapon that was originally there.

[Nikijih]

Pht, on 28 July 2013 - 10:36 AM, said:

... uh ... or they could just ... make the size of the "hole" that defines the hardpoint match the size of the weapon that was originally there.

Yeah they could, that has been a change that has been discussed a lot, and I actually adressed that very point in my OP. The problem with restricting the available weapons themselves is that it removes control from the player in a direct fashion instead of inderectly restricting him. In the end its a psychological factor: you want to limit what is available without leaving the player feeling like choices have been taken away from him.

Beyond that, its also slightly more complexe my way. Designating weapon size maximums means the decision becomes simply "what weapons amongst those i can use should I use". With my suggestion, a player will have to manually balance his limb's armor weight, modules and ammo, etc in order to place the desired weapons within the confine of the hardpoint system, which gives a bit more control over the customization of the mech, something that I see as primordial to these games.

[Pht]

Nikijih, on 28 July 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Yeah they could, that has been a change that has been discussed a lot, and I actually adressed that very point in my OP. The problem with restricting the available weapons themselves is that it removes control from the player in a direct fashion instead of inderectly restricting him. In the end its a psychological factor: you want to limit what is available without leaving the player feeling like choices have been taken away from him.

Limiting by weight is just as much of a restriction as limiting by size. There's really no difference other than the mechanic used.

I've always prefered that when you have to put in a restriction, the justification for it should be easily understood by the player and should make sense in whatever fictional setting being used (if one is being used); and the player should have minimal problems learning to work with/inside of the restrictions.

Eventually the players will always "run up against" restrictions, regardless of how they're implemented.

[infinite xaer0]

Nikijih, on 28 July 2013 - 10:47 AM, said:

Yeah they could, that has been a change that has been discussed a lot, and I actually adressed that very point in my OP. The problem with restricting the available weapons themselves is that it removes control from the player in a direct fashion instead of inderectly restricting him. In the end its a psychological factor: you want to limit what is available without leaving the player feeling like choices have been taken away from him.

except PGI's current hardpoint system ALREADY puts hard restrictions on what players can and can't mount on a mech, so putting further hard limits isn't exactly a change of precedent. Not to mention, because PPC builds seem to be disproportionately more viable than other builds, and because there's a very limited amount of effective PPC-type builds, that limited number of viable builds, coupled with player tendency to copy what they see as effective, has an overwhelmingly negative effect on build diversity as it is. Weapon hardpoint size restrictions are very simple and could mitigate this kind of build stagnation.

[Volthorne]

infinite xaer0, on 28 July 2013 - 11:25 AM, said:

except PGI's current hardpoint system ALREADY puts hard restrictions on what players can and can't mount on a mech, so putting further hard limits isn't exactly a change of precedent. Not to mention, because PPC builds seem to be disproportionately more viable than other builds, and because there's a very limited amount of effective PPC-type builds, that limited number of viable builds, coupled with player tendency to copy what they see as effective, has an overwhelmingly negative effect on build diversity as it is. Weapon hardpoint size restrictions are very simple and could mitigate this kind of build stagnation.

OR it could further exagerate the issue by forcing people into builds that can run mass-boated weaponry. All the PPC-spam Stalkers would just transition into PPC-spam Awesomes. This - while being more in-line with canon - is unfortunately not any better of a situation. The solution PGI gave us actually works without flat out saying "you CANNOT do this". Rather, it says "yeah, you COULD do this, but it might not be advisable".

TL;DR: further hardpoint restrictions are ******* stupid and only limit customization freedom, segregating people into one or two chassis/variants for a certain role.