156 replies to this topic

[Roland]

Quote

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

I'm not sure that PGI has stated that they would never consider such a change.

Personally, I think that it could potentially increase the viability for certain chassis, without negatively impacting the overall mech construction experience.

[FupDup]

Roland, on 31 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

I'm not sure that PGI has stated that they would never consider such a change.

Ask The Devs #42.

miSs, on 12 July 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Question from Ed Steele: There have been rumors from PGI mutterings and forum chatter, that hardpoint limitations may be implemented in the near future. If so, could we get any details on this?

Answer from David B: We currently have no plans to implement any sort of hardpoint limitations. Our current system allows for flexibility in terms of customization, while being balanced by a weapon’s size and weight, in addition to the tuning we do to the weapon’s damage/heat/etc.
Answer from Paul: Not sure where this statement was made but there is no plan to alter hardpoint limitations at this time.

Also...(this is directed at other people, not you Roland)

miSs, on 12 July 2013 - 02:28 PM, said:

Question from Felio: How feasible is it for you to address Mech scaling? (such as mediums being large enough that they are just as easy to hit as assaults, even at top speed) Is this something you'd like to do in the future?

Answer from Dennis: To re-scale a ‘Mech is not as simple as most might assume; it’s not just: 1.) select geo; 2.) rescale to x%; 3.) save.

As far as art is concerned, there are quite a few steps that would have to be taken.

Rescaling the actual ‘Mech geometry is just one of the many steps involved. There is also the re-scaling of every variant module (weapon) and damaged versions of the geometry; then there’s the re-scaling of LOD’s and hit-boxes (which would need re-alignment) and then re-exporting.

Depending on the amount of re-scaling, ancillary geometry i.e. Ladder rungs, tie-down cleats etc. would have to be scaled independently to retain consistency. This would necessitate re-baking the AO as well as texture correcting.

There’s also re-scaling and exporting the skeleton, retargeting animation and correcting foot-slide and other inevitable animation adjustments.

FX origin nodes would also have to be re-aligned. Then there’s (pov) camera and cockpit re-alignment.

Basically, it's politician speak for "we aren't going to rescale mechs." This means that mechs like the AWS will keep sucking.

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2013 - 12:40 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

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.

Actually the hardpoint system has held back the stupid Gaming builds for a while. But Gamers are a crafty bunch and given time will learn how to exploit any system. When Jump Jets were broken and all you needed was 1 to have full Jump or up to 8 Jets, \What did the players do? It doesn't matter what system that gets implemented players will abuse it. When ERPPCs and PPCs were known to be separate players flocked to 2 ER and 2 PPCs Why? Cause it was the best/most they were allowed. 30 years playing these games and I have not once built a 5-6 PPC Build or a 20 Medium laser Build or a 16 Machine Gun Build. I have build Good Alpha Boats cause killing my enemy before they can kill me just makes sense tactically.

[Roland]

mania3c, on 31 July 2013 - 12:35 PM, said:

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..

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.

[FupDup]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 July 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

30 years playing these games and I have not once built a 5-6 PPC Build or a 20 Medium laser Build or a 16 Machine Gun Build. I have build Good Alpha Boats cause killing my enemy before they can kill me just makes sense tactically.

Not to go too far off-topic, but 20 ML would never be viable because you'd need 30 DHS to keep it from shutting down instantly; and 16 MG as way too little range (not to mention ammo asplosions). 5-6 PPC isn't really effective with IS tech due to oversized DHS, but Clanners can very easily use 30 DHS and 4 ERPPC (which is actually a stock Hellstar).

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2013 - 12:46 PM.

[Sybreed]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 July 2013 - 12:41 PM, said:

I have build Good Alpha Boats cause killing my enemy before they can kill me just makes sense tactically.

It does make sense tactically, but it makes for a boring gameplay.

Roland pretty much nailed it with his last post.

[Joseph Mallan]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 12:44 PM, said:

Not to go too far off-topic, but 20 ML would never be viable because you'd need 30 DHS to keep it from shutting down instantly; and 16 MG as way too little range (not to mention ammo asplosions). 5-6 PPC isn't really effective with IS tech due to oversized DHS, but Clanners can very easily use 30 DHS and 4 ERPPC (which is actually a stock Hellstar).

Part of my point is these changes are screwing up Stock Builds. An Awesome on TT Is pretty Much what its name implies. An Awesome is a really good Mech to have. In MWO it sucks. It was designed to suck and now thanks to boating heat it sucks even more!

As to the Medium laser example, I heard it would fire shut down as the enemy died then restart to wash rinse and repeat.

[mania3c]

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.

As you said..we already have limitations so we are not able to put any loadout onto any mech ..and as you can see..current system is already putting many balancing issues on dev shoulders..could you imagine what would hard point size system would cause? it would be MW4 all over again..

I still don't understand what is wrong when K2 can mount AC20 ...he has to build whole mech around it.. there is already tons of penalization for mounting such a powerful weapon.. critical slots, tonnage, ammo dependency and risk of ammo explosion..this is all what spice up whole customization feel.. when you will force just machine guns in machine guns ballistic slots.. the only thing you will achieve is that people will have less fun while making their mechs..

MWO is first and foremost THE Game.. it supposed to be fun.. it's not simulation ..it's FPS with huge robotic killers.. just don't bring some real life logic into a argument.. I don't care about some real life examples at all..So making changes just for sake of some real life limitations is stupid.. Trying to make changes to improve game is good..but hard point size system wouldn't improve it.. would cause more problems..the worst thing is trying to improve the game but use arguments which are not even important just for sake of winning the argument.. why K2 should be able to mount AC20?? Hell..why it shouldn't? Whole walking mechs are nonsense anyway..

Edited by mania3c, 31 July 2013 - 12:54 PM.

[Joseph Mallan]

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 12:49 PM, said:

It does make sense tactically, but it makes for a boring gameplay.

Roland pretty much nailed it with his last post.

If it did the Military would be fielding garbage like that now.

Edited by Joseph Mallan, 31 July 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[Sybreed]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 July 2013 - 12:52 PM, said:

If it did the Military would be fielding garbage like that now.

it's not the army, it's a videogame, where the goal is that everyone has fun playing the game.

[Postumus]

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,

You just made a great argument for hardpoint sizes. Once the MASC mechs are in, there really won't be any reason to add any new mechs. Almost all of the hardpoint location/configurations have been done, with the exception of a non-hero with ballistics in both torsos. The point of having so many mechs in Battletech/Mechwarrior is that they are each supposed to do a specific something which other mechs cannot do or do differently. Right now mechs do not have any defined role other than weight class and the presence of ECM/jumpjets. In many cases there is also no real reason to choose one variant over another based on it's intended role, since the stock loadout has little to do with the potential for customization. For example, very few players choose the Hunchback G, because the H can equip the same AC/20 and has more energy hardpoints in addition. Unlimited customization has lead to extremely limited diversity. I'm not saying we should go stock-only, but hardpoint sizes seem like a very reasonable restriction

[Joseph Mallan]

See that may be a mistake Sy. Not everybody will have fun. It is probably impossible for that to happen. Stomping the other side into the dirt is fun for some people but then you have the stomped to contend with if they get to be happy then you upset the stomping crowd. Mutually impossible to make everyone happy in a MMO or PvP game.

Second it is a military styled game, it is armies and Mercs fighting each other for king and paycheck, so we do in fact need to consider some of the military considerations for the designs. A Spider was never meant to be a Battlefield system. It is a recon package. Get in, get info, get out. That's why it is fast, lightly armored and has few weapons. Awesomes were fire support and like Stalkers, Siege weapons. But all we have is a variant of TDM and that only needs DpS and Alpha Bursts. I am bored of running out to find the bad guys and kill em for no real reward. I on' have a planet to defend or to lose. there is no reason behind the fighting except to practice for the Clans. And I can't do that if we keep Nerfing the weapons at my disposal. There are lots of Clan Mechs that can throw 60 point Alphas Or carry 4 ERPPCs,4 Large Pulse Lasers, or 2-4 Ballistic weapons. All I am seeing is us trying to make it so the Clans won't be the Clans. They will be just a better House military.

[Budor]

It would fix nothing while taking away the illusion of customization. No thanks. To be honest im pretty sure it would break the game even more but im probably on a bit of an island here...

How can you people still believe in PGI implementing such complicated systems and completely re-doing existing ones if they struggle to balance 1 ( O N E ! ) weapon over months.

[VanillaG]

It makes no sense to limit mech customization until they put in limits on team composition, like tonnage limits or some sort of BattleValue system. The issue with customization is that most heavier mechs can carry the same loadout as a smaller mechs and have similar speed and handling as the smaller mech, but carry more armor and ammo. Right now there is no reason to take the lighter mech because based on how the match maker works there is no guarantee that you will even get class parity.

Once the drop limits are put in place and the new meta forms you can see if hardpoint limits need to be introduced.

[AaronWolf]

Joseph Mallan, on 31 July 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Part of my point is these changes are screwing up Stock Builds. An Awesome on TT Is pretty Much what its name implies. An Awesome is a really good Mech to have. In MWO it sucks. It was designed to suck and now thanks to boating heat it sucks even more!

As to the Medium laser example, I heard it would fire shut down as the enemy died then restart to wash rinse and repeat.

I know this is a bit off topic-but what is with all the Awesome hate? That does sound funny...Awesome Hate.

Edited by AaronWolf, 31 July 2013 - 01:20 PM.

[Sybreed]

VanillaG, on 31 July 2013 - 01:17 PM, said:

Once the drop limits are put in place and the new meta forms you can see if hardpoint limits need to be introduced.

A fair request, although I believe you still won't see any Awesomes as long as the Stalker can fit the same weaponry and keep its current better profile + 5 tons advantage. I wouldn't be surprised if most teams would ask a Cataphract player to use a Jager so they can use a Stalker instead of an Awesome.

Joseph, I think you make decent points, I'll try to give you an answer later tonight after I'm done working, I already believe I took too much time on the forums during work hours

[FupDup]

AaronWolf, on 31 July 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

I know this is a bit off topic-but what is with all the Awesome hate? That does sound funny...Awesome Hate.

We aren't hating the Awesome, we're wanting it to get somehow useful. In Joe's example, the stock Awesome is pretty much built out of the box to fire its PPCs in a 3-2-3-2-3 pattern all match without penalty, but here PGI gave it ghost heat to penalize it.

[AaronWolf]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

We aren't hating the Awesome, we're wanting it to get somehow useful. In Joe's example, the stock Awesome is pretty much built out of the box to fire its PPCs in a 3-2-3-2-3 pattern all match without penalty, but here PGI gave it ghost heat to penalize it.

Ahhhh, okay. That's what you guys were getting at. Thanks for the clarification.

[Khobai]

Agreed. The hardpoint system doesnt differentiate mechs enough. You can have two different mechs with roughly the same hardpoints, but one can be completely better than the other.

A good example is the Cataphract-4X vs the Jagermech JM6s. They both get 2 ballistic in each arm, but the Jagermech gets 2 extra energy hardpoints, can use PPCs, gets higher mounted guns, and gets a bigger engine. All the Cataphract-4X gets is 5 extra tons and a missile hardpoint in the head that isnt useful anyway.

Hardpoint sizes as well as giving each mech unique skills in its skill tree suited for its particular role would really help differentiate the mechs.

[Roland]

mania3c, on 31 July 2013 - 12:51 PM, said:

I still don't understand what is wrong when K2 can mount AC20 ...he has to build whole mech around it.. there is already tons of penalization for mounting such a powerful weapon.. critical slots, tonnage, ammo dependency and risk of ammo explosion..this is all what spice up whole customization feel.. when you will force just machine guns in machine guns ballistic slots.. the only thing you will achieve is that people will have less fun while making their mechs..

Believe me, back in closed beta I said the exact same thing. Partially, because at that point, the K2 offered a unique capability. Removing the K2's ability to do that would have effectively removed that loadout from the game completely.

But as more and more variants are introduced, restricting the K2's ability to mount that loadout does not ultimately restrict players from running it. It merely forces them to run that loadout on a chassis that was specifically designed for it, such as a Jagermech or something.

In this way, you end up giving each chassis more character, which in turn creates a reason for them existing.

The same effect could potentially be achieved though addition of "quirks" to specific chassis and variants, but it seems like such a system would be far less transparent and understandable than a simple system which says each hardpoint can fit a specific number of critical slots.

Again, the point here is that if you only had a handful of variants, then hardpoint limitations would result in a huge limitation to players' ability to play as they want. But since we have a huge number of mech variants already, and even more in the pipeline, it seems like we don't need to worry about that.

Even with hardpoint size restrictions which held variants close (but NOT exactly to) their original loadouts in terms of weapons sizes, you'd still be able to build virtually any loadout you wanted to.

The only change is that certain chassis types and variants would almost certainly enjoy more usage than they currently do.