156 replies to this topic

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 01 August 2013 - 01:08 PM, said:

Don't these mechs start with Large Lasers in their arms, not PPC's?
And the RS has an AC10, not a gauss, doesn't it?

so a Large Laser wouldn't be a Large energy slot? If so there would only be like 4 mechs not the awesome that can even use PPCs. And none in anything other than a singlet.

The AC/10 is 7 crits as is the Goose.

[Deamonition]

mania3c, on 31 July 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

1) I am talking about mechs not weapons.. and there will be always some meta specific advantage..game will be never perfectly balanced.. especially when new systems or weapon will be introduced.. So adding hardpoint size system atop of current systems would just reduce count of useful chassis.. Heat scale system, while it's not really perfect, it's fair..it affects everyone, every single mech in same way.. hard point size system.. is very different.. too much complexity under the hood .. .if you can't see how it will add more variables into balancing, I think we really can't discuss this any further unless you will understand that..

2) Not sure what you don't understand at this one honestly .. basically when only stalker will be able to boat 4xLRM15/LRM20 (if meta will shift more towards to support boats)..there is big chance that most mechs able to load LRM (but due to hard point size system.. they can only boat 2x LRM15 and 2xLRM5) will not be used ..because..why they should? unless you give them some another artificial advantage to balance it out.. and again..more variables ..more things to balance .. not really good system..

However you pointed on Awesome and I think mechs like Awesome are good opportunity to at least try some additional quirks on few mechs.. We all know why Awesome is bad mech.. so what if Awesome would have additional quirk like "heat sinks 15% more effective"? this is something I would be willing at least try..

3) Yea..you suggested it..and covered it..yet it leads to problem at point 2) ..

EDIT: also want to like point on Rovertoo post..this is exactly problem of hard point size system .. it failed already..

Just wanted to point out that, from all the posts you wrote in here, all of your arguments are highly subjective, but very highly subjective.

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

so a Large Laser wouldn't be a Large energy slot? If so there would only be like 4 mechs not the awesome that can even use PPCs. And none in anything other than a singlet.

The AC/10 is 7 crits as is the Goose.

Ah, well I'm thinking more along the lines of hardpoints being limited by actual critical numbers, rather than some "size", since we already have critical sizes and stuff.

Some hardpoints that came standard with a Large Laser might have a critical limit of 3, some might have a limit of 2... So maybe if the K starts with 2 LL in the arms, one would be able to be upgraded to a PPC, but perhaps not both. Such a thing would be a matter of tweaking to achieve balance.

You're right about the AC being the same size as the gauss though, so it'd be able to mount the gauss in any slot that originally contained an AC.
(I had totally forgotten they were the same size.. man, the AC10's just terrible)

[East Indy]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 01:16 PM, said:

so a Large Laser wouldn't be a Large energy slot?

Ah, fair catch by Roland. Under some of the proposals people have made it wouldn't, and wisely, since large lasers would immediately be swapped for PPCs. Otherwise, what'd be the point of hardpoint restrictions?

Quote

If so there would only be like 4 mechs not the awesome that can even use PPCs. And none in anything other than a singlet.

Is that really a problem? Why have stock loadouts in the first place, if they're only for too-smart players to smirk at and replace? Plus, the heat scale could certainly be relaxed, so the Awesome's interminably hittable silhouette would be ample payment for the luxury of hitting a location with three particle beams. You'd finally have a burning reason to run the 'Mech.

That's actually a big way in which PGI undoes its business plan. Follow me: if four Unseen 'Mechs come back they probably all can, so both the Warhammer and Marauder are in the future. Many players would pay out the wazoo for just one of them, and would pay even more if both 'Mechs were the few with multiple PPCs.

I know we're starting to sidle into alternate universes since PGI has pooh-poohed hardpoint restrictions and we're on the verge of launch, but . . . that's what this forum is for, and anyway, I'm still fine with the heat scale.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 01 August 2013 - 01:31 PM, said:

Ah, well I'm thinking more along the lines of hardpoints being limited by actual critical numbers, rather than some "size", since we already have critical sizes and stuff.

Some hardpoints that came standard with a Large Laser might have a critical limit of 3, some might have a limit of 2... So maybe if the K starts with 2 LL in the arms, one would be able to be upgraded to a PPC, but perhaps not both. Such a thing would be a matter of tweaking to achieve balance.

You're right about the AC being the same size as the gauss though, so it'd be able to mount the gauss in any slot that originally contained an AC.
(I had totally forgotten they were the same size.. man, the AC10's just terrible)

You couldn't just limit it to stock, that's for sure. As a mech like the Atlas D, would basically have no upgrades possible, other than MPLS for MLs. Also no mech would be able to mount art-20s.

I suppose if done correctly it may work.

with a couple of caveats.

A. Time needed with launch in <2 months.
B. Would still require piggy to balance it. (probably the most daunting of all issues).

edit: AC/10 is a terrible weapon

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 August 2013 - 01:53 PM.

[Angel of Annihilation]

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

In the past, PGI stated that they wanted the current hardpoint system to let players build towards the role they want using the variant they want. What it did, though, is killing diversity because people would only use the mechs with the best profiles/hardpoints placements.

Considering the amount of mechs we can choose from now, I think it's safe to say that PGI can somewhat restrict the mechlab by giving sizes to hardpoints. The mechs themselves become a customization option, since you can pick the one that fits the role you want.

Of course, a convergence fix, or keeping the current heat scale, is also needed to prevent everyone from picking the heavy alpha assaults or boats that are canon, such as the nova cat or the annhilator. Sure, they can be included in the game, but they also need their drawbacks.

IMO, hardpoint sizes with a good selection of mechs is all the customization we need and it would make for a better game.

Signing out.

Why? I mean seriously why? There are already so many restrictions in the game why do we need more. We have weapon weight, we have weapon heat, we have hardpoint type restrictions, why in the hell do we need hardpoint size restrictions?

[3rdworld]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Ah, fair catch by Roland. Under some of the proposals people have made it wouldn't, and wisely, since large lasers would immediately be swapped for PPCs. Otherwise, what'd be the point of hardpoint restrictions?


Is that really a problem? Why have stock loadouts in the first place, if they're only for too-smart players to smirk at and replace? Plus, the heat scale could certainly be relaxed, so the Awesome's interminably hittable silhouette would be ample payment for the luxury of hitting a location with three particle beams. You'd finally have a burning reason to run the 'Mech.

That's actually a big way in which PGI undoes its business plan. Follow me: if four Unseen 'Mechs come back they probably all can, so both the Warhammer and Marauder are in the future. Many players would pay out the wazoo for just one of them, and would pay even more if both 'Mechs were the few with multiple PPCs.

I know we're starting to sidle into alternate universes since PGI has pooh-poohed hardpoint restrictions and we're on the verge of launch, but . . . that's what this forum is for, and anyway, I'm still fine with the heat scale.

There is no reason to worry about stock loadouts. The entire purpose of the franchise of Mechwarrior is not using stock loadouts. That is why I am not against altering weapon weights / crits in order to balance the game.

Sure it is an issue. It would be an entire weapon system, that tons of people now like using, which can only really be used on a single chassis.

You will never see the warhammer or marauder in this game. Harmony gold would shut it down before you could pay MC for the pre-release.

[Robot Legs]

I kinda see your point, but I think it would only change the problem, not fix it.

People would just figure out what mech was OP, and only use it.

In stead of a hundred bots boating PPC, we would have 1 single bot, boating PPC.

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

You couldn't just limit it to stock, that's for sure. As a mech like the Atlas D, would basically have no upgrades possible, other than MPLS for MLs. Also no mech would be able to mount art-20s.

I suppose if done correctly it may work.

with a couple of caveats.

A. Time needed with launch in <2 months.
B. Would still require piggy to balance it. (probably the most daunting of all issues).

edit: AC/10 is a terrible weapon

Yeah, my proposed system would definitely not simply limit things to stock (because I would suggest just having a stock mode for that), and every variant would have at least a few hardpoints whose critical capacity was greater than the stock, so they would offer upgrades, although not quite what we have now where everything can be upgraded to the largest weapon in that class.

I actually suspect that it could be implemented without a huge addition, due to what we can observe in the existing system. It would essentially require an additional parameter added to hardpoints, and then a fairly simple check against the critical slot size of the weapons which are already being checked to test to see if it fits in the section.

It'd also potentially remove the need for things like Ghost heat.

[Gulinborsti]

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 08:33 AM, said:

In the past, PGI stated that they wanted the current hardpoint system to let players build towards the role they want using the variant they want. What it did, though, is killing diversity because people would only use the mechs with the best profiles/hardpoints placements.

Considering the amount of mechs we can choose from now, I think it's safe to say that PGI can somewhat restrict the mechlab by giving sizes to hardpoints. The mechs themselves become a customization option, since you can pick the one that fits the role you want.

Of course, a convergence fix, or keeping the current heat scale, is also needed to prevent everyone from picking the heavy alpha assaults or boats that are canon, such as the nova cat or the annhilator. Sure, they can be included in the game, but they also need their drawbacks.

IMO, hardpoint sizes with a good selection of mechs is all the customization we need and it would make for a better game.

Signing out.

PGI, I demand a dislike button!!!

This is the biggest heap of dung I ever stumbled about on this forum (and we all now we are knee deep in **** in here every day).
Customization is the core feature that makes BattleTech / MechWarrior work. In addition with the real cool implementation we got with MW:O it is most likely the main reason for having so many players which are already spending money although it is still in beta!

Restrict the Mech lab and you will cut down the player numbers.

Fortunately PGI has more clue about how to make this game a success than most of the "heat penalties are a crutch" whiners can even imagine.

Edited by Gulinborsti, 01 August 2013 - 02:05 PM.

[mania3c]

Deamonition, on 01 August 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

Just wanted to point out that, from all the posts you wrote in here, all of your arguments are highly subjective, but very highly subjective.

What is on my arguments subjective? that balancing would be much harder with weapon size system and it's almost impossible? Or that unbalanced variants will cause less mechs used in matches? or limiting customization will promote just play few FOTM builds and mechs? not sure.. I have yet to see at least one your objective and well though of idea..

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 01 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Yeah, my proposed system would definitely not simply limit things to stock (because I would suggest just having a stock mode for that), and every variant would have at least a few hardpoints whose critical capacity was greater than the stock, so they would offer upgrades, although not quite what we have now where everything can be upgraded to the largest weapon in that class.

I actually suspect that it could be implemented without a huge addition, due to what we can observe in the existing system. It would essentially require an additional parameter added to hardpoints, and then a fairly simple check against the critical slot size of the weapons which are already being checked to test to see if it fits in the section.

It'd also potentially remove the need for things like Ghost heat.

Tweeking SRM damage took 3 months, Lets not get ahead of ourselves here.

[Galenit]

Shadey99, on 01 August 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

The problem is that your 'fix' would hurt Light and medium mechs more. Why exactly can't I switch out a medium laser spot for a PPC if I can free up the space? For instance the Ninja Sniper Cicada 3M, which trades 4 medium laser sized spots for dual PPC/ER PPC by using an XL engine, FF, and ES to get the space.

If we had Hard point crit restrictions those would be fixed hard points of 1 crit each. That would rule out LLs and PPCs. Leaving lots of unusable space and dropping any reason to upgrade to FF or ES at all and fixing it as 'only a 4xML platform' and turning it into an oversized Jenner with ECM.

As i said, more diversity:
You want a ppc or ll or lpl on a cidada? Take the 3C.
Want 3 ll on a cicada? Look at the 2A
Want ecm on the cicada? Then you have to live with 4 ml or mpl and a small ballistic, maybe you fit a ll to the torso.
If you want 2 ppcs on a light mech, you should look at the jenner 7-f, it has 2x 3 energiesslots with 3 crits together and can fit them.

Shadey99, on 01 August 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

Or How about a Cat K2, which right now can run an energy mix as factory, or trade out it's energy weapons for Ballistics with it's 2 ballistic hard points. If those mounts which are designed for Machineguns become a fixed 1 crit size then the only ballistics you could run are dual AC2s or MGs. Say goodbye to the gauss cat, or a balanced 2xAC5+energy build.

Its an intended heavy energy mech, mounting 2ppc stock with mls and mgs as backup.
You want 2 gauss? take a mech that can mount it the jaeger dd will have 5+1+1 crits for ballistics, there are your 2 gauss.

If you want a special weapon combination you have to use a mech that can fit it, maybe there are more that can do.

Shadey99, on 01 August 2013 - 11:28 AM, said:

Sure it allows boating in some sense, but it also allows us to adapt a design that is close to what we want in playstyle to our preferences.
Taking it away makes the Jager the only dual AC heavy, makes the cicada into an oversized Jenner again, and limits our options in ways I don't think you realize.

Not true
there is the cataphract as heavy and the victors, highlander, atlas, centurion and hunchback from the medium and assault class that can have dual acs too. (2 uac5 have the same size as an ac20 but they need 2 ballisticslots).

Roland, on 01 August 2013 - 02:03 PM, said:

Yeah, my proposed system would definitely not simply limit things to stock (because I would suggest just having a stock mode for that), and every variant would have at least a few hardpoints whose critical capacity was greater than the stock, so they would offer upgrades, although not quite what we have now where everything can be upgraded to the largest weapon in that class.

Thats true
The k2 is a example for it, give it 1 energie with 2 crits in the side torso and you have mech that can mount up to 4ll or 2ppc +2 ll. A heavy energy mech with light ballistic backup but it cant mount 4 pccs.
Some mechs with a gauss and 2 or more ballisticslots in the same space shoud have 8 (gauss+1) crits for ballistic, this way they can mount 2 ac5 there.

Edited by Galenit, 01 August 2013 - 02:59 PM.

[Shadey99]

Galenit, on 01 August 2013 - 02:42 PM, said:

As i said, more diversity:
You want a ppc or ll or lpl on a cidada? Take the 3C.
Want 3 ll on a cicada? Look at the 2A
Want ecm on the cicada? Then you have to live with 4 ml or mpl and a small ballistic, maybe you fit a ll to the torso.
If you want 2 ppcs on a light mech, you should look at the jenner 7-f, it has 2x 3 energiesslots with 3 crits together and can fit them.

I've retyped replies to this for half an hour. Frankly I can't say anything good about anything you wrote, so I just won't say anything. You cannot seem to see that this sort of change hurts the smallest, most lightly armed mechs more and makes certain builds the only builds you can run in the context of this game using your system. The others would die.

Edited by Shadey99, 01 August 2013 - 03:18 PM.

[Crixus316]

One thing will never change. Winners will adjust, adapt, use teamwork, most of all, learn to play. Losers will cry, cheese build, tt rules, MW4, OP, alpha, convergence, restrict this restrict that. This is NOT TT, it is NOT MW4.

Edited by Mr Bigglesworth, 01 August 2013 - 04:09 PM.

[Galenit]

Shadey99, on 01 August 2013 - 03:18 PM, said:

You cannot seem to see that this sort of change hurts the smallest, most lightly armed mechs more and makes certain builds the only builds you can run in the context of this game using your system. The others would die.

You said the the 3m is out of the dual ppc-game, i said use the ppc-cicada or take a jenner, what proves that we will see more diversity.

Now you repeat what you said but without naming a mech?
Be a little bit more concrete and say which mech and variant will die then?

Mr Bigglesworth, on 01 August 2013 - 04:06 PM, said:

laberblubberfasel

Why do you even post if you have to say nothing on the topic?
Great first post and impression ...

Edited by Galenit, 02 August 2013 - 02:00 AM.

[Crixus316]

Galenit, on 02 August 2013 - 01:49 AM, said:

You said the the 3m is out of the dual ppc-game, i said use the ppc-cicada or take a jenner, what proves that we will see more diversity.

Now you repeat what you said but without naming a mech?
Be a little bit more concrete and say which mech and variant will die then?



Why do you even post if you have to say nothing on the topic?
Great first post and impression ...

On topic? I would say dead on topic. If you can't win, cry on the forums to have everything nerfed. It seems you have an opinion as to how the game should be, make changes that you feel are right. What is the end result? A game you believe is fair and balanced?

[Lykaon]

Lexx, on 31 July 2013 - 10:59 AM, said:

I like the idea of hardpoint restrictions. It has never made sense that a hardpoint originally designed for a machine gun could hold a gauss rifle or an AC/20. It should be restricted per individual weapon hardpoint also. If a mech comes stock with 2 medium lasers in an arm, it should not be able to replace those weapons with 2 PPCs, but it should be able to replace them with one or 2 large lasers.

Also, in TT, any mech that has an arm mounted weapon that takes up 3 slots or more, or any kind of autocannon, can not mount a hand actuator. A large weapon like a PPC, autocannon, or gauss rifle becomes that mechs lower arm. A mech like an Atlas, that has hands, should not be able to mount PPCs in it's arm where it originally had medium lasers. (but it should be able to mount large lasers) This will really make a difference if we ever get working mech hands and physical attacks.

Never seen a Panther have you? Or a Griffin or Battlemaster.All of these mechs have PPCs mounted in arms and retain hand actuators.I believe the Thunderhawk retains it's hand actuator in the same arm as the gauss rifle as well so I would say your information source is incorrect.

[Sybreed]

Mr Bigglesworth, on 02 August 2013 - 04:14 AM, said:

On topic? I would say dead on topic. If you can't win, cry on the forums to have everything nerfed. It seems you have an opinion as to how the game should be, make changes that you feel are right. What is the end result? A game you believe is fair and balanced?

it's not about winning, it's about turning MWO into something else than boatwarrior online and giving each mechs and variants distinct roles. So yeah, you're not on topic.

[Lykaon]

Roland, on 31 July 2013 - 12:43 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you feel that you should be able to put any loadout onto any mech.

Indeed, we already have limitations in place that create the types of restrictions we have here. And it doesn't ruin the game.

What having hardpoint size restrictions does, is make it such that a stock configuration's loadout does not have to open up the possibility for loadouts which were never really associated with that mech.

As an example, a K2 has two ballistic hardpoints simply because the stock loadout had two machine guns as backup weapons. It wasn't generally meant to be carrying twin AC20's.

Imagine, for instance, you had two mech chassis, Mech X and Mech Y.
Mech X is designed as a heavy energy platform, with each arm packing a PPC and a machine gun.
Mech Y is designed as a heavy ballistics platform, with each arm packing an AC20 and a small laser.

Without hardpoint limitations, there's very little that can be done to differentiate these mechs, in terms of the loadouts they are designed around. They both can effectively carry exactly the same loadouts. One of them is going to have better geometry, and will thus make the other obsolete.

Would hardpoints restriction limit you from placing two AC20's into Mech X's arms? Yes. But I don't see why that would be bad. Limitation is not inherently bad, as some folks seem inclined to believe. It provides some degree of structure, which can actually be used to extend variety. In some cases, it can even expand the options to players by opening up additional opportunities which were previously non viable.

This touches upon a concept that is overlooked.Hardpoint restrictions will limit a player from applying a specific build to a specific chassis but will not restrict that player from using that build on any chassis.

Let's use the Jaegermech and Catapult K2 as examples.

The Jaeger mech is an autocannon based design and as such should be the go to mech in the heavy weight class for a ballistic weapons build.Yet if a player already owns a K2 that can have the twin gauss build they want why would they ever purchase a Jaegermech?Would this player ever need to expand their mech bays or spend MC on new chassis or paint for the new chassis or convert XP for new chassis? Probably not.

This means reduced income potential for PGI and reduced resources to apply to the game.

The current unrestricted hardpoints allows for a player to choose the best in class chassis for a specific combination of builds and role specialties without needing to seek the specific ideal chassis for specific roles or builds.Essentially grab a Stalker F and now you have an Energy boat or missile boat it does both equally well and replaces the need to even look at mechs like Awesomes at all.

The Awesome variants should be the choice for assault class PPC boats or missile boats but as long as the Stalker has unrestricted hardpoints it's both in one mech.

One mech chassis one paint job one mech bay.See what I'm getting at?


Now there is a second level of utility to hardpoint restrictions that is also frequently overlooked.

By adjusting hardpoints individual chassis variants can be directly modified by the developers to tweak performances.This means that instead of having to address broad concepts such as PPC boating with all encompassing heat scale penalties that effect every mech offender or non offender alike the specific mech chassis with PPC boating potential can be adjusted to balance performance.

By using preexisting mechanics developers can modify a specific chassis's performance instead of all mechs everywhere.If for example it turns out that Awesome 8Qs are running rampant then the 8Q specificly can have it's handling characteristics,engine size limits or heatscale adjusted to balance the 8Q.