156 replies to this topic

[East Indy]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

pretty easy to figure it out.

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

Which 'Mech starts with a Gauss and two PPCs? How likely would this 'Mech appear in twos and threes with tonnage limits?

[Roland]

Quote

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.

I admit that there are additional balance issues which I suspect would need to be addressed.

Currently, with no tonnage limits, that alone is effectively neutering a large number of mechs.

Quote

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

What if it didn't have JJ's? That would certainly impact the choice somewhat, wouldn't it?

Currently, would you ever take a PPC awesome over a Stalker? It would be a fairly tough sell, given the Awesome's geometry. Generally, the only awesomes I see on the field these days are running large missile loadouts. I rarely see the Awesome used as an energy boat, which is sad given that it's designed around that notion. Even with tonnage limits, that wouldn't tend to increase usage of the Awesome.

I guess I just don't see how the types of hardpoint limits we're talking here would result in some huge crushing of innovation in the mech lab, given that it didn't result in that back in MW4.

[FupDup]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Which 'Mech starts with a Gauss and two PPCs? How likely would this 'Mech appear in twos and threes with tonnage limits?

Well, the Devastator comes with dual PPC and dual Gauss, although it does weigh 100 tons and runs an XL engine stock (vulnerability).

[3rdworld]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 09:06 AM, said:

Which 'Mech starts with a Gauss and two PPCs? How likely would this 'Mech appear in twos and threes with tonnage limits?

Atlas K
Atlas RS

Good thing about running them after this change, you won't have to worry about anything over 1 Gauss & 1 PPC from any other mech.

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 August 2013 - 09:14 AM.

[East Indy]

FupDup, on 01 August 2013 - 09:08 AM, said:

Well, the Devastator comes with dual PPC and dual Gauss, although it does weigh 100 tons and runs an XL engine stock (vulnerability).

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Atlas K
Atlas RS

Good thing about running them after this change, you won't have to worry about anything over 1 Gauss & 1 PPC from any other mech.

You've both made my point. Massive 'Mechs, one not even (yet) in the game, with pretty clear weaknesses and limited deployment — maybe even a team liability — with tonnage limits in place.

[Butane9000]

East Indy, on 31 July 2013 - 08:50 AM, said:

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.

CN9-AH comes stock with an AC20 but we're likely to never see it in MW:O again.

[3rdworld]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

You've both made my point. Massive 'Mechs, one not even (yet) in the game, with pretty clear weaknesses and limited deployment — maybe even a team liability — with tonnage limits in place.

tonnage limits that aren't in place.

Great argument.

Edited by 3rdworld, 01 August 2013 - 09:22 AM.

[Galenit]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 09:02 AM, said:

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

From another topic, hardpoints with critlimits.

A gauss needs 7 ballistic crits:
Victor 9b will have 3 ballisticslots with 10 crits max. together (it comes with an ac20)
Victor 9k comes with a gauss, he will have 1 ballisticslot with 7 crits max (ac20 on this mech isnt possible)
Victor 9s comes with an ac20 and 2 ballisticslots, it will have 10 crits max. for ballistics
Victor DS comes with a gauss and 2 ballisticslots, they have a max of 7 crits for ballistic

A ppc needs 3 energie crits:
9b/9s has 2 energieslots with 2 crits together (it comes stock with one), sorry, no pcc only 2 small energy or one ll or lpl
9k comes with 3 energieslots with 3 crits together, thats 1 pcc or 1ll+1ml or 3ml
DS has 1 energyslot with 3 crits (thats the ppc in the arm) and 2 energieslots with 2 crits together in the torso.

Want 3 pccs? Then take the awesomes large torso and his 80 tons.
Want a ac20? Take a mech that has the slots for it.
Want 2 uac5 in a victor? You need to take the 9b or 9s.
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.)

This way you have more diversity and can choose if you want to use all hardpoints with small weapons or put them together for a bigger one. Slotnumbers prevent massboating of small weapons, max. crits prevent boating of big weapons. But the intended boats can still boat like the hb or aws or nova.

Edited by Galenit, 01 August 2013 - 09:34 AM.

[East Indy]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 09:22 AM, said:

tonnage limits that aren't in place.

You're suggesting that weight limits won't be introduced? That's like saying, _We won't be able to plant a garden in the future because we haven't gone to the greenhouse yet!"

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

This way you have more diversity and can choose if you want to use all hardpoints with small weapons or put them together for a bigger one. Slotnumbers prevent massboating of small weapons, max. crits prevent boating of big weapons. But the intended boats can still boat like the hb or aws or nova.

Interesting. I think there are a number of ways to do this, definitely.

[3rdworld]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

You're suggesting that weight limits won't be introduced? That's like saying, _We won't be able to plant a garden in the future because we haven't gone to the greenhouse yet!"

You're suggesting that mech won't be introduced? That's like giving a terrible analogy.

[RG Notch]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 10:09 AM, said:

You're suggesting that weight limits won't be introduced? That's like saying, _We won't be able to plant a garden in the future because we haven't gone to the greenhouse yet!"

How do you know that tonnage limits alone won't help some of this?
I'm all for hard points for mech diversity but I think you're silly to think that there will be proper balance to these limits and to weapons in general that there won't still be clearly optimal variants. I doubt it will take the min maxers long to find out what's the best and then you'll have even more dead variants.
One of the key issues I see in most of the pro hard point folks is a belief that the "competitive" players want diversity. They may give lip service to it, but their actions speak otherwise. If you want real diversity rather than remove customization you need to remove min maxers.
And honestly, I don't care how you try to come up with ways, just like all game devs try to come up with ways around optimal builds you won't. You may add a tiny bit more at the cost of limiting those folks who aren't min maxers and I don't know if the tiny amount is worth it.
Finally, you're expecting PGI to A) do this prior to launch in a few weeks, and properly.

Edited by RG Notch, 01 August 2013 - 10:26 AM.

[East Indy]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 10:22 AM, said:

You're suggesting that mech won't be introduced? That's like giving a terrible analogy.

You're making even less sense than when you began? Okay, I accept your forfeiture!

[3rdworld]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

You're making even less sense than when you began? Okay, I accept your forfeiture!

I was actually showing you how your argument against mech x, applies to tonnage limits as well.

[Dock Steward]

RG Notch, on 01 August 2013 - 10:25 AM, said:

How do you know that tonnage limits alone won't help some of this?
I'm all for hard points for mech diversity but I think you're silly to think that there will be proper balance to these limits and to weapons in general that there won't still be clearly optimal variants. I doubt it will take the min maxers long to find out what's the best and then you'll have even more dead variants.
One of the key issues I see in most of the pro hard point folks is a belief that the "competitive" players want diversity. They may give lip service to it, but their actions speak otherwise. If you want real diversity rather than remove customization you need to remove min maxers.
And honestly, I don't care how you try to come up with ways, just like all game devs try to come up with ways around optimal builds you won't. You may add a tiny bit more at the cost of limiting those folks who aren't min maxers and I don't know if the tiny amount is worth it.
Finally, you're expecting PGI to A) do this prior to launch in a few weeks, and properly.

I just wanted to point out that this guy (properly) used the word "optimal" instead of (the improper) "optimum" (which is my cable service).

Also, I'm against hardpoint restrictions. While both sides of this debate are making good points, in the long run (read: When Clans are introduced) one of the few ways of balancing Clan mechs against IS mechs is going to be the fact that IS mechs are already secretly omnimechs. It may not be cannon, but it's a balancing point. The whole lop-sided numbers on each side (e.g. 8 IS vs 5 Clan) is never going to work balance-wise. In cannon IS mechs weren't really competitive against Clan mechs, but that can't be the case in this game.

If we keep neutering IS mechs and weapons, we're going to be in big trouble when the Clans arrive.

Edited by Dock Steward, 01 August 2013 - 11:02 AM.

[Lightfoot]

I'd go with MechWarrior 4 styled hardpoints, where you fill them as you choose too. One big weapon or several small ones.

It's not going to solve MWO's core problem which is the mechs are too weak for 2xRecharge. They shouldn't be so easy to destroy which has nothing to do with alphas or convergence. They are just too squishy. The new Heat Scale is like a band-aid for this looming problem. In essence they gave you 2xRecharge and then took half your weapons away.

Do you think new players will understand how to build a mech and then use it without nerfing it or overheating all the time? It's one of those things that looks transparent to us or the devs, but is totally opaque to a new player.

[MaddMaxx]

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.

The Mechs chosen would be directly related to their Alpha load-out abilities. Sort of like now. The best would rise, the not so good, would slink over to the shelf and weep.

Well to be fair, neither of those items will ever kill an enemy Mech directly.

Funny you mention ECM. Everyone hated it, went near ape-****, and yet because of it, we now have uses for BAP, NARC, TAG etc. Without it, none of them would be worth a damn.

I don't use them much but no jump jets would be a tad sour.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 01 August 2013 - 11:27 AM.

[Shadey99]

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.

IMO, hardpoint sizes with a good selection of mechs is all the customization we need and it would make for a better game.

The problem is that your 'fix' would hurt Light and medium mechs more. Why exactly can't I switch out a medium laser spot for a PPC if I can free up the space? For instance the Ninja Sniper Cicada 3M, which trades 4 medium laser sized spots for dual PPC/ER PPC by using an XL engine, FF, and ES to get the space.

If we had Hard point crit restrictions those would be fixed hard points of 1 crit each. That would rule out LLs and PPCs. Leaving lots of unusable space and dropping any reason to upgrade to FF or ES at all and fixing it as 'only a 4xML platform' and turning it into an oversized Jenner with ECM.

Or How about a Cat K2, which right now can run an energy mix as factory, or trade out it's energy weapons for Ballistics with it's 2 ballistic hard points. If those mounts which are designed for Machineguns become a fixed 1 crit size then the only ballistics you could run are dual AC2s or MGs. Say goodbye to the gauss cat, or a balanced 2xAC5+energy build.

Even when I played MW in Pen & Paper in the mid 90's I always tweaked my mechs (at some points they even had rules to completely make new mechs from scratch). A tweaked Cicada for instance is expensive, 3-4 mil for the chasis stock, another 6 mil for an engine, 1.5 mil for DHS, ES & FF are both about 600k. That is all before mounting guns. The result is around 12-16 mil spent and a total 'cost' in a mech creation tool of around 10.5 mil. So we are paying quite alot for custom mechs that we can tweak and edit pretty much per the original game rules.

It is about the only place the developers have kept a good idea from TT/P&P. Sure it allows boating in some sense, but it also allows us to adapt a design that is close to what we want in playstyle to our preferences. Taking it away makes the Jager the only dual AC heavy, makes the cicada into an oversized Jenner again, and limits our options in ways I don't think you realize.

[MaddMaxx]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

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.

And 2 PPC's and a Gauss Rifle on an Assault Mech is by no means the "perfect" solution, despite what many will try and tell you.

Try some stuff, build some Mechs, if you have them. You may be pleasantly surprised. If not, no worries. The Lemming pool, always has room for one more.

[mania3c]

East Indy, on 01 August 2013 - 10:28 AM, said:

You're making even less sense than when you began? Okay, I accept your forfeiture!

But he used good counterargument ...

if devs will make some global changes.. big changes..they can't pretend that nothing will happen after this and MWO will stay same forever ... this is why most community ideas (hard point size systems for example) are horrible ideas and devs just can't walk into these waters.. sadly..most players can't see it..

[Roland]

3rdworld, on 01 August 2013 - 09:13 AM, said:

Atlas K
Atlas RS

Good thing about running them after this change, you won't have to worry about anything over 1 Gauss & 1 PPC from any other mech.

Don't these mechs start with Large Lasers in their arms, not PPC's?
And the RS has an AC10, not a gauss, doesn't it?