156 replies to this topic

[SweetWarmIce]

Nope people would just take the Mechs that come with PPC or Gauss and ignore anything else.

[Belorion]

Go play tactics if you don't want to customize your mech.

[FupDup]

Belorion, on 31 July 2013 - 07:29 PM, said:

Go play tactics if you don't want to customize your mech.

Except that Tactics is even more open in terms of boating small weapons, and tactics doesn't discriminate between weapon classes (no such thing as energy, missile, or ballistic hardpoints, everything is just a "hardpoint"). The only way in which Tactics is more strict than this game is that you can't use nearly as many big weapons.

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[Belorion]

Whatever, I don't care...

Mechwarrior has always been about customization. No reason to change it now. If people don't want customization they don't want mechwarrior.

[FupDup]

Belorion, on 31 July 2013 - 07:33 PM, said:

Whatever, I don't care...

Mechwarrior has always been about customization. No reason to change it now. If people don't want customization they don't want mechwarrior.

Nobody's asking for outright removal of customization, you don't need to use that gigantic of a hyperbole. We're just asking for certain robots to be better at certain tasks than other robots. For instance, here is what I would do with the Catapult K2:

Each arm: 3 energy slots with 2 hardpoints (can mount up to 2 energy weapons as long as they are less than or equal to 3 slots in size)

Each side torso: 4-5 ballistic slots with 2 hardpoints; and 2 energy slots with 1 hardpoint (can carry a single ML or LL, for instance).

That still leaves it with plenty of options while allowing for other mechs of similar weight to have abilities that it doesn't have (i.e. carry bigger ballistics). My version of the K2 can even do some things we currently can't do at all, such as holding 6 ML, 4 MG, etc.

Edited by FupDup, 31 July 2013 - 08:22 PM.

[East Indy]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

Nobody's asking for outright removal of customization, you don't need to use that gigantic of a hyperbole. We're just asking for certain robots to be better at certain tasks than other robots.

Well, that and the fact that in this argument, when players generally demand "customization" they mean "swap out every loadout for multiple apex weapons."

I think a lot of people don't realize that, if this were done right, after that terrible moment when power-gamers comprehend that every 'Mech and variant has pros and cons, the game opens up to 90-plus options for focusing on better piloting and tactics.

[Talrich]

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

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.

You might have many mechs to choose from, and I might have many mechs to choose from, but new players don't. They pick one and may grind for quite a long time. If they can't experiment with different weapons while grinding through their first mech or two, they won't see much of what MWO has to offer, and they won't stick around.

I think it can still be done, but hardpoint restrictions need to flexible enough to allow experimentation and yet still be meaningful.

[Sybreed]

Talrich, on 31 July 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

You might have many mechs to choose from, and I might have many mechs to choose from, but new players don't. They pick one and may grind for quite a long time. If they can't experiment with different weapons while grinding through their first mech or two, they won't see much of what MWO has to offer, and they won't stick around.

I think it can still be done, but hardpoint restrictions need to flexible enough to allow experimentation and yet still be meaningful.

isn't this the whole point of free to play games though? Thay have trial mechs with which they can experience different loadouts already. IMO, that's just another reason to implement hardpoint sizes. You shouldn't be able to do EVERYTHING in the game with just one unlock. That'd be like unlocking a hero in a MOBA and play it as jungler, support, tank, assassin, nuker. Wouldn't make much sense.

[Belorion]

FupDup, on 31 July 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

That still leaves it with plenty of options while allowing for other mechs of similar weight to have abilities that it doesn't have (i.e. carry bigger ballistics). My version of the K2 can even do some things we currently can't do at all, such as holding 6 ML, 4 MG, etc.

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.

[East Indy]

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

Then everyone carries 6ml... you haven't done anything to promote a variety of builds.

There's actually a healthy range of variety among 'Mechs or builds generally limited to small energy weapons.

[Roland]

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

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.

The reason that folks would keep using PPC's is because they are the best weapons in the game.

[MaddMaxx]

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

snip

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

Do tell. What problems has the Heat Penalty System created. Only one that readily comes to the fore is.

No more min/max mounting of 6 PPC's on a Mech and expecting any kind of decent Alpha after Alpha clusters going down range like rain, like before.

Not a problem. Sorry.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 01 August 2013 - 06:45 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

East Indy, on 31 July 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Well, that and the fact that in this argument, when players generally demand "customization" they mean "swap out every loadout for multiple apex weapons."

I think a lot of people don't realize that, if this were done right, after that terrible moment when power-gamers comprehend that every 'Mech and variant has pros and cons, the game opens up to 90-plus options for focusing on better piloting and tactics.

How about when "everyone" realizes that when you customize, now, you have to make sacrifices, or add (pro) and subtract (con) until the final product is fielded. The current customization rules in MWO does open up that 90-plus options.

The fact that so many "comp" type players have total build blinders on, does not negate that fact. It seems very strange when people feel that it would be better to have LESS than FULL customization allowed.

[Khobai]

Quote

Do tell. What problems has the Heat Penalty System created. Only one that readily comes to the fore is.

1) overcomplicated, confuses the hell out of players, have to do complex math to figure out your mechs heat generation

2) arbitrary, clearly no real thought was put into how many weapons of each type could be boated. it makes absolutely no sense to have large lasers and ppcs both be limited at 2 when large lasers are inferior in almost every way.

3) ineffective. nerfed weapons that werent overpowered at all. completely failed to nerf ppc/gauss which is now more prolific than ever due to other weapons being nerfed.

[MaddMaxx]

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

1) overcomplicated, confuses the hell out of players, have to do complex math to figure out your mechs heat generation

Overcomplicated? Build. Load Training ground. Fire guns. Record in your Brain. Go play. Or do you just assume all MWO players are simply idiots and without a clue? If so, you include yourself in that group right.

Quote

2) arbitrary, clearly no real thought was put into how many weapons of each type could be boated. it makes absolutely no sense to have large lasers and ppcs both be limited at 2 when large lasers are inferior in almost every way.

Systems is in place. Can be tweaked. Is doing what it was intended to do.

Quote

3) ineffective. nerfed weapons that werent overpowered at all. completely failed to nerf ppc/gauss which is now more prolific than ever due to other weapons being nerfed.

Here we go again. A 35 pt Alpha is to much for your soft underbelly? Maybe add more armor to that Marshmellow your driving. (not directed at the OP per say, but in general terms)

Edited by MaddMaxx, 01 August 2013 - 07:06 AM.

[Sybreed]

MaddMaxx, on 01 August 2013 - 07:05 AM, said:

Overcomplicated? Build. Load Training ground. Fire guns. Record in your Brain. Go play. Or do you just assume all MWO players are simply idiots and without a clue? If so, you include yourself in that group right.



Systems is in place. Can be tweaked. Is doing what it was intended to do.



Here we go again. A 35 pt Alpha is to much for your soft underbelly? Maybe add more armor to that Marshmellow your driving. (not directed at the OP per say, but in general terms)

about your last point. Not everyone pilots assaults and heavies and yes, 35 points is a lot.

[Khobai]

Quote

Here we go again. A 35 pt Alpha is to much for your soft underbelly?

Yes it is too much. 35 damage strips nearly all of the armor off a medium mech. It has resulted in almost nobody using medium mechs because they die in 2-3 hit.

[Syllogy]

Khobai, on 01 August 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Yes it is too much. 35 damage strips nearly all of the armor off a medium mech. It has resulted in almost nobody using medium mechs because they die in 2-3 hit.

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

[3rdworld]

Khobai, on 01 August 2013 - 07:22 AM, said:

Yes it is too much. 35 damage strips nearly all of the armor off a medium mech. It has resulted in almost nobody using medium mechs because they die in 2-3 hit.

35 is 5 points less than what a TT AC/20 does.

It is weak, as far as BT & MWO goes.

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 August 2013 - 07:31 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

35 is 5 points less than what a TT AC/20 does.

It is weak, as far as BT & MWO goes.

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.

Also, other weapons, like PPCs/Gauss dont converge in tabletop. So instead of doing 35 points to one location you're likely to do 10/10/15 to three different locations. If you even hit with all three in the first place.

Tabletop = random chance to hit, random hit location, weapons dont converge
MWO = potentially 100% chance to hit, can target specific locations, weapons converge

See the difference? Were talking massive damage amplification as a result of precise aiming and convergence. And medium mechs suffer greatly because of it. That is the reason why medium mechs
are the least played weight class.

Edited by Khobai, 01 August 2013 - 07:46 AM.