156 replies to this topic

[Orzorn]

Lykaon, on 02 August 2013 - 07:31 AM, said:

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

Definitely.

Hardpoint sizes are a good answer to "well why not just get a Stalker?" When the game has no hardpoint sizes, then the best mechs in a given chassis are the ones that have the best hitboxes with the most weapons in the best spots. Stalkers are amazing energy boats for that reason, whereas the Awesome is barely used (I swear I see less than 1 in a two week period). Awesome's are supposed to be THE go to PPC boat, but instead, their awful hitboxes combined with no hardpoint sizes makes them lose out.

And hardpoint sizes don't need to be restricted to just with what the mech game with. A Dragon, for balanced reasons, might have 2 small energy in its left arm, and 2 medium energy in its side torso, even though the 1C comes with medium lasers only.

The way I see it, hardpoint sizes can be broken down into small, medium, and large.

Small energy is stuff like small lasers, small pulse, medium lasers, etc. Medium energy involves large lasers and ER large lasers. Large energy is involved only with ERPPC, PPC, and Large Pulse Lasers.

Small ballistics is entirely machine guns and AC/2s. Medium ballistic is AC/5, UAC/5, AC/10, and LBX. Large ballistic is the realm of the AC/20 and Gauss.

You get the point. With such a system, K2s would no longer be able to use more than an AC/2. Jaegers would be the go-to medium ballistic boat, but only the Dragon thus far would be able to mount a large ballistic, perhaps.

Stalkers would no longer be the insane PPC boats. They'd be the small and medium missile and energy boats they were intended to be. Awesomes would be one of the only assaults right now capable of using PPCs.

The great thing about these sizes is they can be increased or decreased to give different mechs different flavors, to nerf their capabilities, or to buff the capabilities of mechs with poorer hardpoint layouts or hitboxes.

[Lykaon]

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

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.

I have been doing a whole lot of winning but each repetition of the same game I play (and likely win) bores me.The core mechanics of the game have not changed and that is where the real error lies.
I no longer use a 2 PPC 2 ER-PPC Stalker I use a 1 Gauss 2 ER-PPC Misery same tactics same mechanics same same same boring!

We are to far along to expect the armor mechanics to change or for how weapon damage is applied to targets or even to see a functional convergence system.As long as these conditions persist the single best way to kill a mech is to apply as much front loaded damage to a single location as often as possible.

This means PPC+Gauss on a Stalker Highlander or Atlas and little more than that.

And that is boring this winner to tears.

I have already reduced my playing time and have not even played in about 10 days because PPC+Gauss assault mech cluster f#ck is boring me.

I fear nothing short of a hardpoint system overhaul will change this meta of optimized alpha builds vs the same always.

[Sybreed]

indeed... hardpoint slots would give a new RP feel to the game, a bit like in MOBAs where you can play a tank, a long ranged harasser, support, etc. depending on the hero you pick.

In MWO you could pick a mech suited for long range support (Cat, Jagers), tanks (Atlas), short range harass (Commandos), etc. This would make the game a lot more fun IMO.

[Lykaon]

Orzorn, on 02 August 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Definitely.

Hardpoint sizes are a good answer to "well why not just get a Stalker?" When the game has no hardpoint sizes, then the best mechs in a given chassis are the ones that have the best hitboxes with the most weapons in the best spots. Stalkers are amazing energy boats for that reason, whereas the Awesome is barely used (I swear I see less than 1 in a two week period). Awesome's are supposed to be THE go to PPC boat, but instead, their awful hitboxes combined with no hardpoint sizes makes them lose out.

And hardpoint sizes don't need to be restricted to just with what the mech game with. A Dragon, for balanced reasons, might have 2 small energy in its left arm, and 2 medium energy in its side torso, even though the 1C comes with medium lasers only.

The way I see it, hardpoint sizes can be broken down into small, medium, and large.

Small energy is stuff like small lasers, small pulse, medium lasers, etc. Medium energy involves large lasers and ER large lasers. Large energy is involved only with ERPPC, PPC, and Large Pulse Lasers.

Small ballistics is entirely machine guns and AC/2s. Medium ballistic is AC/5, UAC/5, AC/10, and LBX. Large ballistic is the realm of the AC/20 and Gauss.

You get the point. With such a system, K2s would no longer be able to use more than an AC/2. Jaegers would be the go-to medium ballistic boat, but only the Dragon thus far would be able to mount a large ballistic, perhaps.

Stalkers would no longer be the insane PPC boats. They'd be the small and medium missile and energy boats they were intended to be. Awesomes would be one of the only assaults right now capable of using PPCs.

The great thing about these sizes is they can be increased or decreased to give different mechs different flavors, to nerf their capabilities, or to buff the capabilities of mechs with poorer hardpoint layouts or hitboxes.

There doesn't even need to be a uniform size system like small medium and large.This is actually potentially to restrictive to allow the developers room to adjust specific chassis performances.

I would recomend a more open system where each hardpoint is designated by some core characteristics.

1) Each hardpoint may only ever mount 1 weapon.

2) Each hardpoint is designated by weapon type allowed on the hardpoint (ballistic,missile,energy,omni)

3) Each hardpoint has a critical slot capacity that limits the weapons available to mount to those with equal or lesser critical space use than the critical capacity of the hardpoint.

So instead of designating a hardpoint that previously held a medium laser to a small or medium class the hardpoint would instead be a Energy hardpoint 2 critical.If for example this mech with this 2 crit energy hardpoint ends up under performing the crit capacity can be increased if it ends up over performing the hardpoint can be reduced in capacity.

More options make for better tools for developers.

[Sybreed]

that's pretty much the system I had in mind myself, nothing to restrictive for devs, something they can tweak when needed. MW:T's system also allowed "secondary hardpoints" which had less crit slots and could fit smaller back-up weapons (or something like that, if memory serves right)

[Shadey99]

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?

You want me to be specific and then tell me not to name a mech? Ok *****, lets be specific and name mechs and variants. I'll stick to only the mechs I own in game:

Spider 5D: 2 single crit energy slots (currently is a 2E+1E but the stock is 1 flamer and 1 ML). It may mount a ECM, but the best use it could ever be in your new meta is a missile spotter running tag. I guarantee use would die in a week outside premades that still use missiles.

Spider 5K: 1 single crit energy slot, 2 single crit ballistics slots. It's to small to run AC2's (simply not enough tonnage to mount even one without issues), so unlike now when you can run a LPL & 4 MGs your cutting it's power in half. With nothing to use it's MGs on this mech is basically dead.

Spider 5V: 2 single crit energy slots in CT. Already the most limited Spider build and even it gains the issue of losing the ability to run LL or LPL builds. It may still get used, but there is no reason to tweak them at all. Even now for a 2 MPL build they don't need XL engines, FF, or ES. With even less options... Well lets just say it may be the cheapest mech to buy as it comes stock with everything you can ever do to it. It becomes the most singularly boring mech in the game, and it's already high on the list of weakest mechs.

Cicada 2A: 3 single crit energy slots. It maxes at 3 MPLs in your system. Since it's bigger then a Jenner and mounts less firepower stock, it's just dead. It's no threat to larger mechs and has no place except to get killed by everything else.

Cicada 2B: Simply moves 1 energy crit hard point to each 'arm' but is otherwise a 2A. Total write off.

Cicada 3C: 3 crit energy slot, 2 single crit ballistic slots. It could run 2 AC2's, but that seems kind of silly (as it uses up basically all the internal space). So a single PPC and MGs from the stock build it is... The PPC is nice, but it's undergunned and as it's primary role is to take out lights.... It's the wrong gun for the job... It may be the only viable Cicada of the whole lot with your changes however.

Cicada 3M: 1 Ballistic hard point with 4 crit spaces (UAC5 stock), with 3 single crit energy hard points. Stock doesn't even have a ECM, though it can mount one. The UAC5 is simply two easy to jam for a primary weapon and with the way ECM works the 3M functions best as a flanker, which together explains why few people run the UAC5. The Ninja Sniper build makes use of 2 normal PPCs (usually) to flank and hit hard enough to matter. The stock UAC5+2ML+1SL requires getting way to close for such a light mech. It may get used as a spotter, but really you may as well take a light to do that...

Cicada X-5: 4 single crit energy hard points and 2 single crit missile hardpoints. Even now there is not alot of flexibility on this build the stock loadout is 4 ML+2 SRM2, the best update with the recent SRM tweak is probably 4 ML+2 SRM6s (& what I run), the best after your change is 4ML+2 SRM 4. It's SRM max drops from 24 damage to 16 and with SRM scatter the 4 ML do more damage. It is a flanker, but the Commando, Raven, and Jenner all have options to be about equal in firepower at around the same speed.

Catapult A1: 2 missile hardpoints of 3 crits. Under your system it cannot run 2xLRM20 or even 4xLRM10 (using single weapon per hardpoint). It could instead chose to mount a pair of SRM 6, but that is laughable. The A1 becomes a dead mech and it already had limited use...

Catapult... ehhh... screw it... I could go on, but I doubt you'll actually listen anyways.

The single biggest problem with the system MW4 had is that mechs in BT usually have lots of empty space under there armor to allow for customization and MW4 ignored this. In the actual P&P/TT rules people would simply use the empty space to change from a ML to a LL if they had the tonnage for it and they didn't mind the heat increase. The only thing MWO gets right is this customization system. Half the fun, especially in P&P, was in running custom mechs that would not overheat into slag or have weapons you simply never used. It was quite common to have it so that part of the threat of larger mechs was that they had weapons firepower that would increase the closer opponents got (LRMs & PPCs, to LL, to ML, to SL) making them much more deadly if you got up in their face. MWO reverses this and assaults are most deadly at extreme range and suck up close.

Edited by Shadey99, 02 August 2013 - 11:10 AM.

[3rdworld]

Orzorn, on 02 August 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

Stalkers would no longer be the insane PPC boats. They'd be the small and medium missile and energy boats they were intended

Orzorn, on 02 August 2013 - 07:42 AM, said:

energy boats

Just as long as it isn't a PPC amirite?

Awesome is a terrible mech because of terrible art. You guys can change all the rules you want to make the awesome relevant now, but as soon as another mech capable of carrying as many ppcs as the awesome is released, you again will never see one.

Bandaids. Your system is nothing but Bandaids.

Edited by 3rdworld, 02 August 2013 - 10:14 AM.

[MacKoga]

The proposed restrictions do not sound fun to me.

People have different taste preferences for playstyle. Or get bored of their playstyle with a chassis and want to change it up. The current system allows mechs to be significantly reconfigured, changing roles entirely. With the weapon options we have, I wouldn't see that working as well with a more restricted system.

Therefore, everything else equal, I would not like to see the proposed limitations put in place. The interest in improving the game is appreciated, though.

[Trauglodyte]

I like the concept that you're proposing, Roland. The only problem that I see is that it punishes players that are being adaptive with the game but aren't being ******** about it. For example, I run the following mechs:

CDA-2A/2B: 1 ER PPC, 4 Md Lasers
BJ-1: 1 ER PPC, 1 UAC5
DRG-1C: 2 PPCs, 2 Md Pulse Lasers, 1 SSRM2, 1 MG
JM6-A: 2 UAC5, 1 Lrg Laser

Under your proposed system, I wouldn't be able to run any of them. Even my mini-Warhammer (HBK-4J w/ 2 PPCs, 2 SSRM2s, 2 Md Lasers, 2 Sm Lasers) wouldn't be allowable and it is just a sad lil mech build for the sole purpose of making me smile cause I have a Warhammer (kind of). Now, the point that you're trying to make with your proposed system is one where you're preventing players from taking meta breaking weapon loadouts while keeping the mechs within a set of parameters close to how they were designed. And I like that. The downside, though, is that you're preventing some level of customization that isn't meta crushing stupid. On the flip side, your system isn't really doing anything to prevent someone from taking, say, the CDA-3C and turning it into a mech based "meat chopper" from WWII by replacing the MGs with AC2s.

[East Indy]

Trauglodyte, on 02 August 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

Under your proposed system, I wouldn't be able to run any of them.

Your favorite builds aren't gratuitous, but notice that in four of five, you've merely ripped out what made the 'Mech variant distinct and swapped in the apex weapon.

That's pretty much what this thread is about. You're not really "customizing" with the mechlab. You're just being efficient.

[Sybreed]

and well, mechs have never been about being the most efficient possible, otherwise there would be no need for so many variants. They've always been about filling a certain role for a certain cost. It would be more fun if the game was about everyone running a mech for a specific role rather then everyone just building the same thing over and over again. If all weapons were made useful, no variants would be worthless.

[Crixus316]

Sybreed, on 02 August 2013 - 07:10 AM, said:

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.

I don't want to play boatwarrior online either. I understand your desire for a better game, but it will never happen. Why do so many noobs take assault mechs? Why do veteran pilots take high alpha builds? It gives the illusion of the best chance of winning. People will continue to take the build they feel has the best chance for success. It is human nature to want to win.

[Trauglodyte]

East Indy, on 02 August 2013 - 11:01 AM, said:

Your favorite builds aren't gratuitous, but notice that in four of five, you've merely ripped out what made the 'Mech variant distinct and swapped in the apex weapon.

That's pretty much what this thread is about. You're not really "customizing" with the mechlab. You're just being efficient.

I can see how you might think that, Indy, but I've been using PPCs on those exact builds since before they got buffed. PPCs have been my favorite weapon since I started playing Battletech TT in '92 because the Warhammer, being my favorite mech of all time, was my very first mech. The Cicada is my 2nd favorite mech and I love the combination of speed and the PPC on the 3C but don't like the MGs which is why I run the build that I do on my 2A and 2B. That the PPC is an apex weapon is merely a coincidence in how I do my builds and a slight indication of how I feel about the Large Laser (love the sound but don't like the hit scan on it).

[Galenit]

Some things about your post, most i quote myself from this topic, i mean the things i posted as answer to your cicada/oversizedjenner post and from the first post that you answered with the cicada/oversized jenner post ....

Shadey99, on 02 August 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

Spider 5D: 2 single crit energy slots (currently is a 2E+1E but the stock is 1 flamer and 1 ML). It may mount a ECM, but the best use it could ever be in your new meta is a missile spotter running tag. I guarantee use would die in a week outside premades that still use missiles.

Spider 5K: 1 single crit energy slot, 2 single crit ballistics slots. It's to small to run AC2's (simply not enough tonnage to mount even one without issues), so unlike now when you can run a LPL & 4 MGs your cutting it's power in half. With nothing to use it's MGs on this mech is basically dead.

Spider 5V: 2 single crit energy slots in CT. Already the most limited Spider build and even it gains the issue of losing the ability to run LL or LPL builds. It may still get used, but there is no reason to tweak them at all. Even now for a 2 MPL build they don't need XL engines, FF, or ES. With even less options... Well lets just say it may be the cheapest mech to buy as it comes stock with everything you can ever do to it. It becomes the most singularly boring mech in the game, and it's already high on the list of weakest mechs.

5D 1e1 2e1 you can mount a ll in the 2e1, thats 8 weapons to chose from and 2-3 to take. And it has ecm and jumpjets.
5K 2x 2b1 1e1 here you cant do much, only ac2 or mg and 5 small energy to choose from. The large lasers are not aviable, but as posted before, some mechs can have bigger crits, like mentioned for the k2 sidetorsos. (Just look at the answer i gave you about the cicadas, at the end of that post (not this!) you will find it ...)
5V 2e1 dont know where your problem is, this mech can now and then use 2 small or 1 large energy weapon, nothing will change for it.

Shadey99, on 02 August 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

Cicada 2A: 3 single crit energy slots. It maxes at 3 MPLs in your system. Since it's bigger then a Jenner and mounts less firepower stock, it's just dead. It's no threat to larger mechs and has no place except to get killed by everything else.

Cicada 2B: Simply moves 1 energy crit hard point to each 'arm' but is otherwise a 2A. Total write off.

Cicada 3C: 3 crit energy slot, 2 single crit ballistic slots. It could run 2 AC2's, but that seems kind of silly (as it uses up basically all the internal space). So a single PPC and MGs from the stock build it is... The PPC is nice, but it's undergunned and as it's primary role is to take out lights.... It's the wrong gun for the job... It may be the only viable Cicada of the whole lot with your changes however.

Cicada 3M: 1 Ballistic hard point with 4 crit spaces (UAC5 stock), with 3 single crit energy hard points. Stock doesn't even have a ECM, though it can mount one. The UAC5 is simply two easy to jam for a primary weapon and with the way ECM works the 3M functions best as a flanker, which together explains why few people run the UAC5. The Ninja Sniper build makes use of 2 normal PPCs (usually) to flank and hit hard enough to matter. The stock UAC5+2ML+1SL requires getting way to close for such a light mech. It may get used as a spotter, but really you may as well take a light to do that...

Cicada X-5: 4 single crit energy hard points and 2 single crit missile hardpoints. Even now there is not alot of flexibility on this build the stock loadout is 4 ML+2 SRM2, the best update with the recent SRM tweak is probably 4 ML+2 SRM6s (& what I run), the best after your change is 4ML+2 SRM 4. It's SRM max drops from 24 damage to 16 and with SRM scatter the 4 ML do more damage. It is a flanker, but the Commando, Raven, and Jenner all have options to be about equal in firepower at around the same speed.

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

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.

Find a failure in the 3m thing, its not a small ballistic, 5crits its more like medium and gives you up to 4 different weapons to chose from.
About the x-5 sure it can take only small energy weapons, but thats 5 weapons to chose from and thats the price for being the only cicada with missiles.

Shadey99, on 02 August 2013 - 08:58 AM, said:

Catapult A1: 2 missile hardpoints of 3 crits. Under your system it cannot run 2xLRM20 or even 4xLRM10 (using single weapon per hardpoint). It could instead chose to mount a pair of SRM 6, but that is laughable. The A1 becomes a dead mech and it already had limited use...

Galenit, on 01 August 2013 - 09:29 AM, said:

Want 6 smr6? Sorry, the a1 can take a max of 3 srm4 in each arm (3 missileslots with 1 crit each for the lrm15 it comes with, artemis do not count for the missileslot restriction.)

If you have read my posts you would know that i tried to use all hardpoint a mech have, sometimes combined 3 to a large one (the ac20 on some mechs are in a place with 2 or 3 hardpoints, i divided the 10 crits from the ac20 over the 2 or 3 slots), sometimes used the stock loadout to judge over the size like in the first post talking about the k9 energy arm.

Was für eine xxxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, total xxxxxxxxxxxx,
xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxx und xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx ist das?
Muss ich echt alles wiederholen?
Hat es überhaupt einen Sinn mit jemand zu diskutieren,
der nichtmal die Posts liest auf die er antwortet?

Edited by Galenit, 02 August 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[Roland]

Trauglodyte, on 02 August 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

I like the concept that you're proposing, Roland. The only problem that I see is that it punishes players that are being adaptive with the game but aren't being ******** about it. For example, I run the following mechs:

CDA-2A/2B: 1 ER PPC, 4 Md Lasers
BJ-1: 1 ER PPC, 1 UAC5
DRG-1C: 2 PPCs, 2 Md Pulse Lasers, 1 SSRM2, 1 MG
JM6-A: 2 UAC5, 1 Lrg Laser

Under your proposed system, I wouldn't be able to run any of them. Even my mini-Warhammer (HBK-4J w/ 2 PPCs, 2 SSRM2s, 2 Md Lasers, 2 Sm Lasers) wouldn't be allowable and it is just a sad lil mech build for the sole purpose of making me smile cause I have a Warhammer (kind of). Now, the point that you're trying to make with your proposed system is one where you're preventing players from taking meta breaking weapon loadouts while keeping the mechs within a set of parameters close to how they were designed. And I like that. The downside, though, is that you're preventing some level of customization that isn't meta crushing stupid. On the flip side, your system isn't really doing anything to prevent someone from taking, say, the CDA-3C and turning it into a mech based "meat chopper" from WWII by replacing the MGs with AC2s.

I don't think any of the system that i've proposed would automatically prohibit any of your mechs.

Remember, my suggestion is to impose a critical slot limit on hardpoints... but that limit would not always be equal to the critical slots associated with the stock weapon.

For instance, there's nothing that says one of the CDA-A's hardpoints couldn't be a 3 slot energy hardpoint.

[Galenit]

Roland, on 02 August 2013 - 02:19 PM, said:

For instance, there's nothing that says one of the CDA-A's hardpoints couldn't be a 3 slot energy hardpoint.

We have already a cicada build around a ppc, the 3C.

[Crixus316]

Lykaon, on 02 August 2013 - 07:45 AM, said:

I have been doing a whole lot of winning but each repetition of the same game I play (and likely win) bores me.The core mechanics of the game have not changed and that is where the real error lies.
I no longer use a 2 PPC 2 ER-PPC Stalker I use a 1 Gauss 2 ER-PPC Misery same tactics same mechanics same same same boring!

We are to far along to expect the armor mechanics to change or for how weapon damage is applied to targets or even to see a functional convergence system.As long as these conditions persist the single best way to kill a mech is to apply as much front loaded damage to a single location as often as possible.

This means PPC+Gauss on a Stalker Highlander or Atlas and little more than that.

And that is boring this winner to tears.

I have already reduced my playing time and have not even played in about 10 days because PPC+Gauss assault mech cluster f#ck is boring me.

I fear nothing short of a hardpoint system overhaul will change this meta of optimized alpha builds vs the same always.

How is changing the hardpoint system going to make the game less boring for you? You are already running a configuration many think is OP. If the hardpoints are changed, you will still take a mech you feel gives you the best chance of winning. So will everyone else. If your tired of winning with your PPC/Gauss , take a lighter mech. Experiment, do something to keep the game fresh.