156 replies to this topic

[Sybreed]

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.

[East Indy]

Much agreed. One of the stronger motivators for variety is the limitation of jump jets and ECM, especially the contrast between 'Mechs that can house one, the other, or both. Or to a lesser extent, critical ceilings like CT mounts. It really doesn't make sense that PGI is wisely frugal about one but liberal on weapons in general.

Now, that does shift focus in trends to individual models, but it's presumably when intrinsic liabilities like the Awesome's (only PPC boat) and Hunchback's (only factory non-assault for AC/20) come into play for a decent cost-benefit calculation.

I'll take the heat scale for now but would prefer hardpoints.

Edited by East Indy, 31 July 2013 - 08:51 AM.

[Waking One]

We need more restrictions on the hardpoints themselves tbh, yeah, instead of the heat penalties etc.

[mania3c]

Waking One, on 31 July 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

We need more restrictions on the hardpoints themselves tbh, yeah, instead of the heat penalties etc.

and introducing even more inbalances...yea yea..way to go.. NOT!

[Waking One]

mania3c, on 31 July 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

and introducing even more inbalances...yea yea..way to go.. NOT!

yes the current system works great

you make a very compelling argument

not

[mania3c]

Waking One, on 31 July 2013 - 09:23 AM, said:

yes the current system works great

you make a very compelling argument

not

So..make your argument then..how creating more variables will create more balanced or more diverse system? Simple answer is ..it wont..it can't ...not under current conditions nor design philosophy..basically it's pretty impossible in video games overall ..you want diversity and balance? try to keep things homogeneous where it make sense..... hard point size system would fix almost nothing and would create even more problems..

[Jesus Box]

Waking One, on 31 July 2013 - 09:14 AM, said:

We need more restrictions on the hardpoints themselves tbh, yeah, instead of the heat penalties etc.

But doing a MW game in a MW way would make too much sense! I got a better idea. Let's put in a completely artificial made up mechanic to fix the problem by directly punishing people for using builds we don't like.

mania3c, on 31 July 2013 - 09:33 AM, said:

So..make your argument then..how creating more variables will create more balanced or more diverse system? Simple answer is ..it wont..it can't ...not under current conditions nor design philosophy..basically it's pretty impossible in video games overall ..you want diversity and balance? try to keep things homogeneous where it make sense..... hard point size system would fix almost nothing and would create even more problems..

You're describing the heat scale system. It fixed no problem and only created problems itself.

[mania3c]

Jesus Box, on 31 July 2013 - 10:31 AM, said:

You're describing the heat scale system. It fixed no problem and only created problems itself.

I didn't describe any system.. but aside of arbitrary numbers, no transparency within the system, it fixed what it was supposed to fix.. penalizing alpha strikes without reducing customization..

However.. there are few main reasons why people want hard point size system..

1) To have more balanced environment - it wouldn't happen..actually it would brake balance even more simply because there will be more variables to balance around

2) Make mechs more diverse - while it's true hard point size system would make mechs more diverse, it would also cause less mechs used in matches..based on current meta...

3) Hard point system is good way to control boating - on some mechs yes..but many mechs are supposed to boat..even with stock loadout and more will come... so..everyone would just play mechs which are supposed to boat..again..less mechs types on battlefield and reducing customization.

maybe there are more reasons why people want hard point size system..and maybe some reasons are good..but this is all what I know..

[Sybreed]

mania3c, on 31 July 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

However.. there are few main reasons why people want hard point size system..

1) To have more balanced environment - it wouldn't happen..actually it would brake balance even more simply because there will be more variables to balance around

2) Make mechs more diverse - while it's true hard point size system would make mechs more diverse, it would also cause less mechs used in matches..based on current meta...

3) Hard point system is good way to control boating - on some mechs yes..but many mechs are supposed to boat..even with stock loadout and more will come... so..everyone would just play mechs which are supposed to boat..again..less mechs types on battlefield and reducing customization.

1) What variables? If all pieces of equipment and weapons are made viable, then it's balanced, end of story. What variables are you talking about?

2) Again, what are you talking about? You mean that everyone will pilot Awesomes? That would be kind of neat actually, such big targets for me to shoot at.

3) I already talked about this in my OP and how it could be managed, so all you did is bring a point that already got covered.

[Lexx]

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.

[Rovertoo]

I don't understand why a more restrictive hardpoint system is needed, especially now. I mean, we are very, very close to good balance! I mean, aside from the confusing new heat thing, all we need is to mess with the heat for some weapons (PPC...) and we're golden!

After all, do any of you remember MW4? Ton of fun, but only a few mechs were ever used, because their hardpoint system just wasn't easy to balance between mechs. The way we have now, the only thing making any mech less viable than another is it's hitbox shape, and perhaps the amount of hardpoints. But these things can be changed without rebuilding the mechlab from scratch,

[mania3c]

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

1) What variables? If all pieces of equipment and weapons are made viable, then it's balanced, end of story. What variables are you talking about?

2) Again, what are you talking about? You mean that everyone will pilot Awesomes? That would be kind of neat actually, such big targets for me to shoot at.

3) I already talked about this in my OP and how it could be managed, so all you did is bring a point that already got covered.

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..

Edited by mania3c, 31 July 2013 - 11:17 AM.

[FupDup]

Rovertoo, on 31 July 2013 - 11:11 AM, said:

I don't understand why a more restrictive hardpoint system is needed, especially now. I mean, we are very, very close to good balance! I mean, aside from the confusing new heat thing, all we need is to mess with the heat for some weapons (PPC...) and we're golden!

After all, do any of you remember MW4? Ton of fun, but only a few mechs were ever used, because their hardpoint system just wasn't easy to balance between mechs. The way we have now, the only thing making any mech less viable than another is it's hitbox shape, and perhaps the amount of hardpoints. But these things can be changed without rebuilding the mechlab from scratch,

PGI already said they aren't going to change hitboxes (or the hardpoint system for that matter). Our current balance isn't anywhere near golden because adding more heat to PPCs still leaves most weapons pooptastic like the LPL, LBX, MG, Flamer, SL, MPL, AC/10, sorta AC/5, and SSRM2. MW4's problems weren't caused by hardpoints, they were caused by certain weapons being superior to all others; hardpoints are not an issue if all weapons are viable.

[Twisted Power]

Sigh another hard point size thread. Let me just say No, bad idea and go away. The game is already restrictive enough with the rtarded new heat penalties.

[SirLANsalot]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

PGI already said they aren't going to change hitboxes (or the hardpoint system for that matter). Our current balance isn't anywhere near golden because adding more heat to PPCs still leaves most weapons pooptastic like the LPL, LBX, MG, Flamer, SL, MPL, AC/10, sorta AC/5, and SSRM2. MW4's problems weren't caused by hardpoints, they were caused by certain weapons being superior to all others; hardpoints are not an issue if all weapons are viable.

Hitboxes are getting changed but they said its harder to find whats wrong in order to fix it. The size of mechs is also something they are "working" on but again it will take the art department some time to resize the Cent and the Awesome.


As for hardpoints? Won't ever happen, they even said it themselves SEVERAL times, so SHUT THE EFF UP and leave it alone already.

[Rovertoo]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:

PGI already said they aren't going to change hitboxes (or the hardpoint system for that matter). Our current balance isn't anywhere near golden because adding more heat to PPCs still leaves most weapons pooptastic like the LPL, LBX, MG, Flamer, SL, MPL, AC/10, sorta AC/5, and SSRM2. MW4's problems weren't caused by hardpoints, they were caused by certain weapons being superior to all others; hardpoints are not an issue if all weapons are viable.

I agree, sucky weapons need tweaking as well. But all that can be done with the system we have now! I mean, almost all those weapons need slight changes to become viable (except a few that are really wonky, so they'll need something drastic). What I'm saying is that the only weapons I never see fielded are Pulse lasers, Flamers, and NARC. So I say buff them. The only weapons I see being used a ton are PPCs, Gauss Rifles, AC/20s. So nerf them a bit. And obviously I'm not covering every single weapon and nuance that I think needs balancing, but the list of things to do is a lot shorter than the things needed to add balanced hardpoint sizes to all the Mechs.

Also, if all the weapons are viable, as you said, then why would we need hardpoint sizes?

[FupDup]

SirLANsalot, on 31 July 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Hitboxes are getting changed but they said its harder to find whats wrong in order to fix it. The size of mechs is also something they are "working" on but again it will take the art department some time to resize the Cent and the Awesome.

Didn't they say that resizing/hitbox changes were just really long and difficult to do (which is politician speak for "not gonna happen")? I don't recall seeing them actually confirm that they ever want to change mechs like the AWS. Take a look at Ask The Devs #42. It basically translates into them saying that they won't do it because it's too hard.

Rovertoo, on 31 July 2013 - 11:26 AM, said:

...
Also, if all the weapons are viable, as you said, then why would we need hardpoint sizes?

Because making all weapons useful still leaves many chassis and variants completely obsolete, such as the overused example of the Awesome. Fixing hitboxes would be great for the AWS (even though PGI all but confirmed that they won't do it) but that stills leaves the Stalker and upcoming Battlemaster as superior energy/missile boats.

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2013 - 12:28 PM.

[Sybreed]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Because making all weapons useful still leaves many chassis and variants completely obsolete, such as the overused example of the Awesome.

Apparently not overused enough, because a lot of people still don't get it...

[Rovertoo]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Because making all weapons useful still leaves many chassis and variants completely obsolete, such as the overused example of the Awesome.

I see that, and I almost agree with you. But I still think that there are other ways to make Obsolete mechs better, perhaps through their Quirk system (which I admit I've never actually had effect my mech choices...) or some other way, like hardpoint additions (which they did a ton in closed beta). And they have re sized Hitboxes, if not mechs. Back in closed Beta tons of mechs had their hitboxes adjusted, like the Dragon, and most notably the Catapult went through several different iterations of hitboxes. So, I dunno. A whole new Mechlab/hardpoint system seems to me to bring in way too many new balance issues and problems then the reasonably few we actually have, glaring though they may be.

[mania3c]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 12:22 PM, said:

Because making all weapons useful still leaves many chassis and variants completely obsolete, such as the overused example of the Awesome.

Yet..tons of mechs are used ..so we need introduce system which will screw useful mech while making awesome useful..good plan right?
Not many mechs are in bad position as Awesome... very few mechs have problem of usability honestly.. usage of each chassis is in pretty good ratio already...thanks to customization freedom.. you can basically play what you like because your favorite loadout can be applied on multiple mechs... we really don't want to remove this.. at least.. I don't want to remove this from the game..

however.. I am all for fixing Awesome and less used mechs.. but we should look on each chassis individually ..there is not any golden rule which will fix everything..

Edited by mania3c, 31 July 2013 - 12:36 PM.