156 replies to this topic

[Gallowglas]

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.

I'm not arguing against hardpoint sizes. However, playing a bit of devil's advocate here: how would restricting the hardpoints further make chassis choice more diverse or customized? Wouldn't it just mean we'd see more of a single chassis with the best hardpoint layouts rather than different chassis with the same weapon loadout? You already see some of that, but it sure seems like further restrictions would make it more pronounced.

Yes, I can see the argument that *IF* PGi were to change hardpoints to account for balance rather than necessarily just for canon that perhaps you could make the choices compelling enough that the restriction wouldn't provide clear chassis choices. However, that would also set off its own firestorm of controversy.

[3rdworld]

Khobai, on 01 August 2013 - 07:35 AM, said:

Incorrect. In tabletop the AC/20 could hit the medium mech anywhere... an arm, a leg, etc... its completely random. But in MWO you get to choose exactly where it hits by aiming. And you can hit the same location again with subsequent shots.

Also lets not forget you actually have to roll to hit in tabletop. So theres a chance of the AC/20 completely missing the medium mech. That random chance to miss does not exist in MWO because someone with perfect aim can connect 100% of their shots.

Tabletop = random chance to hit, random hit location
MWO = potentially 100% chance to hit, can aim your shots at the location you want to hit

See the difference?

I isn't incorrect at all, you just feel the need to add extra stipulations.

LT-CT-RT-HD is a 47.22% chance to hit in TT. I would wager that is probably similar to the hit % we see here.

Oh and a single roll of 12 with an AC/20 is an instant kill against any and all mechs.

No one shoots 100% so even implying it as a possibility is ridiculous.

[Khobai]

Quote

LT-CT-RT-HD is a 47.22% chance to hit in TT. I would wager that is probably similar to the hit % we see here

Not even close. I can easily put two subsequent alphastrikes into a mechs CT.

Quote

No one shoots 100% so even implying it as a possibility is ridiculous.

Actually Ive played perfect games where Ive nailed every single AC/20 shot. Doesnt happen every game, but it does happen.

[East Indy]

MaddMaxx, on 01 August 2013 - 06:59 AM, said:

It seems very strange when people feel that it would be better to have LESS than FULL customization allowed.

It's not strange at all. It's why games have rules.

When restrictions prevent players from following the plainly optimal route, forcing them to choose from several other paths with contrasting drawbacks, diversity of choice increases because one choice is now only subjectively -- at best arguably -- better than another.

In context: if only variants with PPCs could field them up to their stock maximum, only variants with AC/20s or Gausses could interchange and field them up to their stock limit, and only variants with LRM 15-20s or SRM-6s could interchange and field them up to their stock limit, players would reevaluate and explore dozens of previously overlooked 'Mechs and variants, because they no longer had an obviously superior choice.

[MaddMaxx]

Syllogy, on 01 August 2013 - 07:25 AM, said:

So what is an acceptable Alpha strike then? 20pts?

Seems very strange. They rail against 35 but will never answer that exact question. Why is that?

20 is way over the top as well dude. Many carry less than that in the rear arc so they can carry more dakka dakka. It is all about the dakka dakka. Apparently applying enough armor, in sufficient quantities and locations, to protect yourself from the mean old enemies dakka dakka, is strictly a Newb thing.

The real Comps will have none of that and continue to rail about the 35.

[Khobai]

Quote

So what is an acceptable Alpha strike then? 20pts?

The problem isnt high damage alphastrikes but rather all the damage hitting the same location. I dont believe you need a practical limit on how much total damage an alphastrike can do, just a limit on how much of that damage can hit one location. As far as damaging a single location is concerned, 20 is probably a reasonable limit. 35 is definitely too high for medium mechs to handle though. Because 35 damage to the same location repeatedly will kill a medium mech in 2-3 hits.

Edited by Khobai, 01 August 2013 - 08:11 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

It's not strange at all. It's why games have rules.

When restrictions prevent players from following the plainly optimal route, forcing them to choose from several other paths with contrasting drawbacks, diversity of choice increases because one choice is now only subjectively -- at best arguably -- better than another.

In context: if only variants with PPCs could field them up to their stock maximum, only variants with AC/20s or Gausses could interchange and field them up to their stock limit, and only variants with LRM 15-20s or SRM-6s could interchange and field them up to their stock limit, players would reevaluate and explore dozens of previously overlooked 'Mechs and variants, because they no longer had an obviously superior choice.

Your kidding right? Did you play MW4? And its hard point restricted MechLab? If not, I highly recommend it. It will give you the proper insight to what the players do when that type of system is in play.

If you did play MW4, then you should know better. It is their nature. There is no "restricted" system that would not be gamed and simply cut out half or even 75% of the Mechs would be shelved in under a week. Once the Comps take out the Cream. The rest goes to feed the rest of the animals.

[3rdworld]

MaddMaxx, on 01 August 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Your kidding right? Did you play MW4? And its hard point restricted MechLab? If not, I highly recommend it. It will give you the proper insight to what the players do when that type of system is in play.

If you did play MW4, then you should know better. It is their nature. There is no "restricted" system that would not be gamed and simply cut out half or even 75% of the Mechs would be shelved in under a week. Once the Comps take out the Cream. The rest goes to feed the rest of the animals.

We have even seen what happens when you put more restrictions on the mechlab first hand.

Khobai, on 01 August 2013 - 07:51 AM, said:

Not even close. I can easily put two subsequent alphastrikes into a mechs CT.

Actually Ive played perfect games where Ive nailed every single AC/20 shot. Doesnt happen every game, but it does happen.

That has nothing to do with it. Look at your hit % with any weapon. Do you think you hit the RT/CT/LT/HD more than 47% of the time?

For instance my hit % with an ER PPC is 59.89%. Of my hits are >13% of them against legs or arms? I would bet so.

In which case the chance of having your armor stripped by a single AC/20 in TT is > than the chance in MWO on average.

[East Indy]

MaddMaxx, on 01 August 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

Did you play MW4?

MWO is sufficiently different to make analogies difficult. Which 'Mechs would everyone start playing?

In any case, a good example is already in the game -- ECM and jump jets are restricted to specific variants, particularly encouraging a lot of variety in the field among 40 tons and lower.

[3rdworld]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 08:14 AM, said:

MWO is sufficiently different to make analogies difficult. Which 'Mechs would everyone start playing?

In any case, a good example is already in the game -- ECM and jump jets are restricted to specific variants, particularly encouraging a lot of variety in the field among 40 tons and lower.

What game are you playing?

In my matches it is Jenner-F or go home.

Does JJs add variety to Cataphracts? No, it kills it. Does ECM add variety to Spiders or Cicadas or Atlas? Not in any way shape or form.

Sorry boss. More restrictions = less choices.

[East Indy]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 08:17 AM, said:

In my matches it is Jenner-F or go home.

Yeah, that's not representative, so I'll have to turn the question around to you.

If you guys don't understand how a lab that leans more Omni than not turns 'Mechs into apex gunbags, we're at an impasse.

[Roland]

MaddMaxx, on 01 August 2013 - 08:04 AM, said:

If you did play MW4, then you should know better. It is their nature. There is no "restricted" system that would not be gamed and simply cut out half or even 75% of the Mechs would be shelved in under a week. Once the Comps take out the Cream. The rest goes to feed the rest of the animals.

Actually, in MW4, almost every single mech had utility, especially in the mixtech leagues.

In puretech, many of the IS mechs ended up being unused, but that was mainly due to deficiencies in the IS weaponry.

But even that set of unused mechs was pretty tiny.

In reality, MW4 actually illustates pretty well how having hardpoint restrictions didn't prevent a wide usage of different mechs at all.

[3rdworld]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 08:21 AM, said:

Yeah, that's not representative, so I'll have to turn the question around to you.

If you guys don't understand how a lab that leans more Omni than not turns 'Mechs into apex gunbags, we're at an impasse.

sure it would, but there would be more choices than we have now.

right now you need art/hardpoints/engines/ECM.

after you would only require good art, which many currently mechs have, but they don't have the hardpoints / engines / ECM / JJs to be viable.

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 08:28 AM, said:

sure it would, but there would be more choices than we have now.

right now you need art/hardpoints/engines/ECM.

after you would only require good art, which many currently mechs have, but they don't have the hardpoints / engines / ECM / JJs to be viable.

A big thing that folks need to keep in mind is that by limiting what certain mechs can carry, you end up making them less viable... but in the case where you are limiting the current king mechs, you are effectively lowering the bar for what is required to make a mech viable.

So while those mechs may lose some capability, other mechs whose capabilities don't even change suddenly BECOME viable, because they are no longer forced to go up against the few mechs currently which are dominating the field.

This is how restrictions could potentially increase variety and choice for the players.

As it stands now, many of the choices are in fact not choices at all, because they are simply suboptimal versions of other mechs. While you could theoretically build them, there's no reason for anyone to do so, so suggesting that the current system enables player choice is an error.

[East Indy]

Roland, on 01 August 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

but in the case where you are limiting the current king mechs, you are effectively lowering the bar for what is required to make a mech viable.

So while those mechs may lose some capability, other mechs whose capabilities don't even change suddenly BECOME viable, because they are no longer forced to go up against the few mechs currently which are dominating the field.

This is how restrictions could potentially increase variety and choice for the players.

Exactly. The purpose of customization in a game is to provide a choice between mixed results. Tradeoffs. If there's a perfect solution, there's no fun.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 01 August 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

A big thing that folks need to keep in mind is that by limiting what certain mechs can carry, you end up making them less viable... but in the case where you are limiting the current king mechs, you are effectively lowering the bar for what is required to make a mech viable.

So while those mechs may lose some capability, other mechs whose capabilities don't even change suddenly BECOME viable, because they are no longer forced to go up against the few mechs currently which are dominating the field.

This is how restrictions could potentially increase variety and choice for the players.

As it stands now, many of the choices are in fact not choices at all, because they are simply suboptimal versions of other mechs. While you could theoretically build them, there's no reason for anyone to do so, so suggesting that the current system enables player choice is an error.

What does that change though? After a week or two the new best mechs will be found, and the situation is the same, or worse as you have already said many currently viable mechs could no longer be viable.

Example: Stalkers. mediocre missile boats at best, Terrible brawlers. The only thing they can do well is hill pop with PPCs. Take that away and you may as well remove stalkers from the game.

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 August 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[FupDup]

Belorion, on 01 August 2013 - 04:46 AM, said:

Then everyone carries 6ml... you haven't done anything to promote a variety of builds. The ML only meta is just as boring as any other weapon meta that becomes dominant. With the current heat restraints there is at least a reason to not boat PPCs, there would be no draw back for everyone to start boating smaller weapons. The larger weapons still have to be a viable choice.

Did you actually read my K2 suggestion? It can still carry large weapons like dual PPCs, quad LL, dual AC/5 or UAC/5, etc. Having the added ability to carry two more ML doesn't suddenly make ML overpowered. Mechs that already carry 6+ ML aren't overpowered so how the crap would a ML meta come about?

Edited by FupDup, 01 August 2013 - 08:53 AM.

[Roland]

Quote

What does that change though? After a week or two the new best mechs will be found, and the situation is the same, or worse as you have already said many currently viable mechs could no longer be viable.

Well, the idea is that by imposing limitations, you would reduce the liklihood that you'd even HAVE such a small set of "best" mechs.

The mech capable of carrying the best loadout, for instance, may have bad geometry... So, the decision becomes deeper than simply "Put best weapons on best chassis." You are then forced to decide, based on what you want to do with it, whether you want to take a less optimal weapons config on a tougher chassis, or the best loadout on a weaker chassis.

Thus, you aren't just shifting to different better mechs, but rather to having a larger number of mechs who are now equal in their overall capabiltiies.

[East Indy]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 08:47 AM, said:

What does that change though? After a week or two the new best mechs will be found, and the situation is the same, or worse as you have already said many currently viable mechs could no longer be viable.

What best 'Mechs, though? There's enough information to give examples.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 01 August 2013 - 08:51 AM, said:

Well, the idea is that by imposing limitations, you would reduce the liklihood that you'd even HAVE such a small set of "best" mechs.

The mech capable of carrying the best loadout, for instance, may have bad geometry... So, the decision becomes deeper than simply "Put best weapons on best chassis." You are then forced to decide, based on what you want to do with it, whether you want to take a less optimal weapons config on a tougher chassis, or the best loadout on a weaker chassis.

Thus, you aren't just shifting to different better mechs, but rather to having a larger number of mechs who are now equal in their overall capabiltiies.

Aside from disagreeing in that being the outcome. You are living in a fantasy land if you believe that PGI balanced game is capable of that kind of parity.

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 08:54 AM, said:

What best 'Mechs, though? There's enough information to give examples.

pretty easy to figure it out.

Mech with Gauss & 2 large energy ports would be a start.

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 August 2013 - 09:02 AM.