45 replies to this topic

[Profiteer]

Dracol, on 31 July 2013 - 05:32 PM, said:

One avenue of revenue PGI has selected is premium time. In order to make the c-bill bonus worth while, players require a variety of items to purchase.By designing the hard point system they have, players have flexibility to try out a variety of builds on a single chasis. This increases the c-bills used outside of mech purchases.

If they were to limit hard points further, this would decrease the demand for premium time. Fewer options per chassis would reduce the amount of c-bills spent per chassis.

Another benifit to the greater variety of options available to spend on a single mech chassis is the availability of the MC purchasable chassis. If a player spends a lot of c-bills trying differant things on one chassis, when it comes time to level a new one, or when a new mech is released, the player has the incentive to spend real cash on purchasing the new chassis.

If a player did not have the option to build a variety of mechs, which would happen if a limited hard point setup was initialized, then c-bills would stockpile there by reducing the incentive to spend real world cash on premium time and/or MC mechs.

Are you playing the same game as me?

Step 1. Buy mech.
Step 2. Put 2 PPCs and a gauss on it.
FINISH.

The current "no hard-point restrictions" have resulted in a hand full of cookie-cutter builds with VERY little variety at all.

I submit that hard-point restrictions would actually INCREASE variety, as you wouldn't be able to just boat the best weapon(s) and be done with it.

[Tesunie]

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Wrong. You can actually retrofit some mechs so they fill slightly altered roles:

Atlas-D-DC. Get rid of LRM-20, get another SRM 6 + SRM 4, change your lasers for pulse lasers. You got a serious brawler right there.

Cat K2: Switch PPCs for LLs, switch MGs for AC/2s.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a Hunch 4P pimping 2 PPCs in its RT. A fair trade-off for the 6 Medium lasers and still shows a pretty big weak spot.

The stalker though, it could use a max of 2 PPCs (replacing LLs) and 2 LLs (replacing medium lasers). It could fill more of a ranged assaulter. It would still have room for LRMs or SRMs.

What I'm saying is PGI doesn't have to follow a strick formula. They can use hardpoint sizes so they make sense and keep the intended role of the mech, while permitting some customization without being so easy to abuse as they are now. They don't need to do exactly like what MW4 did, they have the opportunity to do better.

Still limiting a lot, and a lot of other builds that are different now would become exactly the same. Jenner D and K for example. A lot of the Catapults I believe would become just about the same. (Actually, don't some become even worse, as they have the same number of missile points, and less energy?)

I'm not going to say that a sized hard point system wouldn't have merit, but I strongly don't think it would work. I feel it would limit customization, one of the largest selling points of the game, too much. Not to mention, how do you implement it in a way as to not mess up everyone's already existing builds? Are you going to wipe the slate clean? Force all mechs to magically go back to default? Become cleared, empty slates? Grandfather them? How would you make the change?

Now, I know you are all for the idea, which isn't a bad thing. However, even being for the idea, try to think of all the bad things that could happen from the proposed system. Try to think how other people would receive the idea. Could it sell? Could it fix the weapon problems completely? Would it help make all mechs an interesting choice?

Personally, I see your idea, and I'm recalled to many of my mechs that just wouldn't work. My "Hollander 3" Cicada 3C would cease to be. It's a slower Cicada (90 KPH with speed tweak), and all it's got is a Gauss rifle and a med laser. With your proposed system, I could not make this pseudo Hollander 3 as the ballistic points would be too small. I would be forced to try an AC2 version of the mech (done that, died. Didn't like it). If I understand the system, about the only other change I could do would be to add in 3 med lasers (one energy crit slot each) and 2 MG. That, would basically be it for options. AC2s, MGs, and a laser, maybe two. I wouldn't be able to recreate a Hollander mock up to enjoy (and enjoy I do). Other people wouldn't be able to make an Urbie stand in with a Spider (and do well with it).

Yes. It would stop the PPC Stalkers. But think of all the other options that would be getting killed off as well. I think it would cause more harm than good still.

Now, I'm not going to say that I feel the heat penalty is any better. Actually, I feel it's worse. But, that's what PGI did. PGI has said no to sized hard points. If they already said no to it, try to find a different solution or suggestion to bring up to them. They obviously didn't like this idea (and personally neither to I, even though I respect where you are coming from).

[Sybreed]

^^
About your Hollander... would it still an issue if PGI releases the Hollander?

See, that's the thing. There are so many options, some mechs don't even need to show up. The Hollander can already be replaced by the Raven. And it can already be replaced by your Cicada. IMO, PGI is shooting themselves in the foot, because they could sell more mechs if they did use hardpoint sizes.

[Unbound Inferno]

Tesunie, on 31 July 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

Still limiting a lot, and a lot of other builds that are different now would become exactly the same. Jenner D and K for example. A lot of the Catapults I believe would become just about the same. (Actually, don't some become even worse, as they have the same number of missile points, and less energy?)

Actually, not so much.

I might argue a quirk of the Catapult is an extra crit slot for Artemis/missiles leaving it in a unique spot for LRMs. The Energy does remain restricted on the C4 and C1, but the K2 bursts out with far more.

The K2 would have 3-crit in the arms, Assuming it keeps the ML mounting on the side and CT it could rival the Hunchback or Awesome on ML boating being able to sport 10 MLs or MPLs, and still have a pair of MGs to back it up.
Or swap MGs to AC-2s.
Or in the arms go with a LL and ML for the 3 crits. Options get a bit more diverse that way.

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 31 July 2013 - 07:40 PM.

[Marj]

Cheesy stock builds can be balanced with mech quirks. Without a BV system cheesy mechs will always be cheesy relative to other mechs unless they have some kind of chassis specific nerf.

[Sable Dove]

Too restrictive. Now, if you gave mechs a certain number of hardpoint 'slots', you could upgrade weapons over the stock builds, but not without limit.

Take the Catapult K2, for instance. Maybe 3 energy slots in each arm, and 2 in each side torso, and 6 ballistic slots in each side torso. This allows up to one PPC in each arm, or maybe 3 medium lasers. Upgrade the side torsos to large lasers, but not PPCs. No AC20s, AC10s, or Gauss, but any other ballistic is fair game.

No more AC/20 Ravens, or PPC lights, for that matter (though I suppose the Jenner JR7-F would be able to mount PPCs).

The problem is that heavies and assaults often have only a couple more hardpoints than lights or mediums. This means that they pretty much have to use the most powerful single weapon available, rather than being able to choose several weapon 'groups'.

My Atlas has 7 hardpoints total. Of course I'm going to end up using Gauss, PPCs, Large lasers, and whatever the biggest launchers I can fit are (though part of this is that smaller launchers are generally not worth taking in general).


Or better yet, combine a max-crit limit with a hardpoint-size limit. For example, Give the JR7F a max crit limit of 3 in each arm, and a size limit of 2. This allows it to use the stock loadout, and to upgrade, but not to mount heavy weapons.

A couple examples:
CPLT-K2:
Arms: Max Crits - 3E, Max size - 3E. (no energy weapon is bigger than a PPC, so in terms of crits, the K2 can only downgrade)
LT/RT: Max Crits - 2E/6B, Max size - 2E/5B (Up to AC5, but enough room for an additional AC2 or MG on each side. Or, six MGs, if you want).

Atlas D-DC:
Arms: MC - 4E, MS - 3E
RT: MC - 12B, MS - 7 (Pretty much everything that you can cram in is fair game because it's the biggest mech available)
LT: MC - 9M, MS - 3 (again, pretty much anything other than LRM20s and ALRM15s)

Jenner JR7-F
Arms: MC - 3E, MS - 2E (can upgrade to large lasers, but not PPCs or LPLs, and can't just put a ton of SLs in each arm)

This would go a long way towards making MGs more useful, but it also would allow large mechs the option of using more, smaller weapons instead of being limited to a handful of heavy weapons.

[Unbound Inferno]

Sable Dove, on 31 July 2013 - 08:11 PM, said:

Too restrictive. Now, if you gave mechs a certain number of hardpoint 'slots', you could upgrade weapons over the stock builds, but not without limit.

Take the Catapult K2, for instance. Maybe 3 energy slots in each arm, and 2 in each side torso, and 6 ballistic slots in each side torso. This allows up to one PPC in each arm, or maybe 3 medium lasers. Upgrade the side torsos to large lasers, but not PPCs. No AC20s, AC10s, or Gauss, but any other ballistic is fair game.

No more AC/20 Ravens, or PPC lights, for that matter (though I suppose the Jenner JR7-F would be able to mount PPCs).

The problem is that heavies and assaults often have only a couple more hardpoints than lights or mediums. This means that they pretty much have to use the most powerful single weapon available, rather than being able to choose several weapon 'groups'.

My Atlas has 7 hardpoints total. Of course I'm going to end up using Gauss, PPCs, Large lasers, and whatever the biggest launchers I can fit are (though part of this is that smaller launchers are generally not worth taking in general).


Or better yet, combine a max-crit limit with a hardpoint-size limit. For example, Give the JR7F a max crit limit of 3 in each arm, and a size limit of 2. This allows it to use the stock loadout, and to upgrade, but not to mount heavy weapons.

A couple examples:
CPLT-K2:
Arms: Max Crits - 3E, Max size - 3E. (no energy weapon is bigger than a PPC, so in terms of crits, the K2 can only downgrade)
LT/RT: Max Crits - 2E/6B, Max size - 2E/5B (Up to AC5, but enough room for an additional AC2 or MG on each side. Or, six MGs, if you want).

Atlas D-DC:
Arms: MC - 4E, MS - 3E
RT: MC - 12B, MS - 7 (Pretty much everything that you can cram in is fair game because it's the biggest mech available)
LT: MC - 9M, MS - 3 (again, pretty much anything other than LRM20s and ALRM15s)

Jenner JR7-F
Arms: MC - 3E, MS - 2E (can upgrade to large lasers, but not PPCs or LPLs, and can't just put a ton of SLs in each arm)

This would go a long way towards making MGs more useful, but it also would allow large mechs the option of using more, smaller weapons instead of being limited to a handful of heavy weapons.

The idea doesn't have to be completely... limiting. It can adapt to fit what we need.

But you gave me an idea.


Pilot Skill Tree mastery to unlock Hardpoint Expansions. Expansions could allow a certain number of crit slots over hardpoint Crit restrictions - requiring grinding and lots of mech or GXP to earn enough extra slots to do what you want. That'll encourage Premium time actually for the faster XP rates to get what you want to make your Hardpoints larger for better guns.

Want that Dual AC-20 Jag? Quad PPC Stalker? Work for it. Then its far easier to stomach realizing the time needed to get it.

On the flip side, with 300k XP in my C4 and A1... oh, think of the missile racks I can load up on...

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 31 July 2013 - 08:49 PM.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Tesunie, on 31 July 2013 - 06:24 PM, said:

This sounds more like a "I want Stock mechs only as a battle type", which that I would be all for. Have a battle mode that only stock, unchanged mechs can participate. You would so see me in there. However, a hard point system like what I am presuming (correct me if I'm wrong) would be very debilitating, and not helpful. Oh, and a Splat Cat, would still be able to be created. So some mech types would still be as strong and unchanged. If anything, I feel it would reduce the selection of mechs most people would pick up and play.

The limit is on boating large weapons while allowing stock builds and "reasonable" variations thereof.

Hardpoints limitations are based on slot size. If an energy hardpoint is limited to 3 slots, then it can fit a PPC (3 slots, a Large Laser (2 slots) or a Medium laser or Small Laser or Flamer (1 slot) in the same location. However, say the machine gun slot on the K2 - should it be able to mount Gauss Rifles? Maybe, maybe not. Or the energy hardpoints on the Stalker - can they fit 4 PPCs? Maybe, maybe not.

The developers can specify the number of slots each hardpoint can take up, thus having a finer grained control over the game, and preserve the "spirit" of each mech variant.

In the current meta, Splatcats are pretty useless. For all its boating of SRMs, it is still a highly vulnerable mech and not a good frontline chassis.

Edited by Haitchpeasauce, 31 July 2013 - 09:07 PM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

^^
About your Hollander... would it still an issue if PGI releases the Hollander?

See, that's the thing. There are so many options, some mechs don't even need to show up. The Hollander can already be replaced by the Raven. And it can already be replaced by your Cicada. IMO, PGI is shooting themselves in the foot, because they could sell more mechs if they did use hardpoint sizes.

To be perfectly honest, that is one really big reason I don't mind a more stock loadout, it actually means more mechs for those kinds of intended purposes.

The Hollander is a great example for why this current hardpooint system doesn't work - because its bound to be "larger" than either the Raven or Cicada, leaving those as the preferred ones to fill that role of small, light and maneuverable ranged sniper - assuming if for some reason such a role finds a place in this game.

BTW, I think the real Hollander looks cooler than a Cicada:

Edited by Unbound Inferno, 01 August 2013 - 03:09 AM.

[EvilCow]

Hardpoints restrictions would *help* fixing the boating problem but this is not the main point of the proposal. Restricted hardpoints are mainly meant to return variety to the various chassis that do basically the same thing with a different shape.

Restricted HP coupled with restrictions (slowed down or limited or fixed or absent) in convergence would be the optimum IMO.

Edited by EvilCow, 01 August 2013 - 03:19 AM.

[Unbound Inferno]

Only problem is that PGI and competitive players don't want to loose that convergence....

[MustrumRidcully]

Unbound Inferno, on 31 July 2013 - 07:12 PM, said:

If they were going to fix balance issues we've been pointing out - they would have already.

As for your stock cheese: I have no issues for some key reasons:

Thunder Hawk is 100 tons, bound to be massive and easy to hit - and its as slow as an Atlas.

Hunchback II C - I see two problems; XL and Hunchback Side Torsos. 'nuff said I think.

Warhawk - no real problem with that one; see the gun placements? It can't hill-hump with that.

Devastator - another 100 tonner, slow as an atlas and I see no issues with Assaults using that.


So, no, that is fine. But the PPC Stalker hill humping with no real damage? Victor/Highlanders poptarting? Dual AC-20 Jaggermechs that outrun most other opponents? Those I have problems with.


I would actually see a K2 with either 6x MLs and 2x AC-2s, or a mix of 2xLPL+2xMPL in the arms too.

True, the Quad PPC Stalker and the Triple PPC + Gauss Rifle Highlander are really lightning fast mechs, right?

A sniper with 45+ pinpoint alphas doesn't need speed.

A short range mech (brawler or whatever you want to call it) might could perhaps use it, so its targets don't run away, but in your wonderful new world of hard point restrictions, who could exploit this advantage? The medium laser and srm bound Jenner, that must get into close range doesn't seem to be the one. Seems the only mech that would have a chance would be the one PPC + 2 MG Cicada. Good luck with one.

Hardpoint restrictions will make this game worse. It will still leave us with all the stock boats that can effortlessly exploits convergence + group fire, while all the non-boat stocks suck more than ever, since you can't even improve them significantly.

[MustrumRidcully]

Sybreed, on 31 July 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

^^
About your Hollander... would it still an issue if PGI releases the Hollander?

See, that's the thing. There are so many options, some mechs don't even need to show up. The Hollander can already be replaced by the Raven. And it can already be replaced by your Cicada. IMO, PGI is shooting themselves in the foot, because they could sell more mechs if they did use hardpoint sizes.

Be careful here:

1) PGI already managed to sell us mechs with unique hard point layouts that allow builds other mechs cannot do. The Hero Stalker is the only one that can carry a ballistic weapon. The Hero Jagermech is the only one that can put energy weapons in his high-mounted arms.

2) What if I actually don't care for the looks of the only mech that allows a specific build? Now I am stuck with either not playing the build I want, or using an ugly mech.

3) You might be incorrectly assuming that PGI even has interest in creatings lots of different mechs to cover different niches. Creating a new mech is a lot of work, and you can't churn out any number, and if you churn out too much, you risk splitting the market and gain less money per mech design (not per mech sold, but per mech created).
Even if there are 12 new mechs that can use builds I could never use with any of the others, I can still only play one at a time, and I will not have budget an infinite amount of money for MW:O, either, so I will likely not buy all of them.

[idle crow]

The heat penalty is to complex for new players, it going to result in people setting up 0.5 macro's and in general 0.5 seconds to keep aim or reacquire isn't a big game changing deal.

A hard point limitation like MW4 had I be in favor of. But I would make it more like further mods to MW4 we saw that made sure being able to mount 2xPPC didn't automatically allow 3xLL.

This also allows for more differences in variants and more roll warfare.

Right now a light mech is judged on how many medium lasers can it boat, a medium on the number of srms it can boat, a heavy on Gauss+2ppc and assaults are in the same situation.

The only variety new mechs offer the game is if it can do these current rolls better, better meaning superior hit boxes.

[Moriquendi86]

I don't really like the idea of limiting customization... But I can see how different size hardpoint could work and be beneficial for game.

For me it would be best if you could still put large laser in small laser slot but it would result in more heat generation and/or cooldown for that weapon. In similar fashion putting small laser in large slot where you usually put PPC could result in some benefits like better range and/or shorter cooldown.

[Xanquil]

The hard point limit does not keep to the KISS idea, (too many mechs to change). And it doesn't address the problem.
　
There is an obvious problem, all weapons fired at once hit the same place. There is an obvious solution, don't let them.
　
The only hard part is to choose how to stop it.
　
One way is to make all weapons have to use chain fire.(bad idea), another is to make all weapons use some sort of convoluted heat system,(even worse idea).
　
There is also the COF ideas (some good some bad), but the 2 easiest I've see is:
　
1: Adjust convergence on alpha strikes to be a % past the target: (not a bad idea)http://mwomercs.com/...meplay-systems/
　
2: Have any group fired weapons use a "shotgun spread" like the LB-X. (a little harder, but better IMHO)

Edited by Xanquil, 01 August 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[Sybreed]

MustrumRidcully, on 01 August 2013 - 04:15 AM, said:

Be careful here:

1) PGI already managed to sell us mechs with unique hard point layouts that allow builds other mechs cannot do. The Hero Stalker is the only one that can carry a ballistic weapon. The Hero Jagermech is the only one that can put energy weapons in his high-mounted arms.

2) What if I actually don't care for the looks of the only mech that allows a specific build? Now I am stuck with either not playing the build I want, or using an ugly mech.

3) You might be incorrectly assuming that PGI even has interest in creatings lots of different mechs to cover different niches. Creating a new mech is a lot of work, and you can't churn out any number, and if you churn out too much, you risk splitting the market and gain less money per mech design (not per mech sold, but per mech created).
Even if there are 12 new mechs that can use builds I could never use with any of the others, I can still only play one at a time, and I will not have budget an infinite amount of money for MW:O, either, so I will likely not buy all of them.

1) that's their own damn problem for doing so.

2) Sorry but I just don't believe you. Do people really pilot Stalkers all the time because they like the look? No, everyone will use one because of the better profile, high arm mounted weapons. A raven has a silly smaller profile and is more likely to be used as a gauss rifle carrier than the hollander itself. There's a disadvantage at using such a big weapon, which is the size of the gun itself (see hunchback, hollander). Most mechs, even with the new weapons mesh, still abuse that system.

3) I simply disagree here. It's a better move for PGI to sell niche mechs then make all mechs the same between themselves

Edited by Sybreed, 01 August 2013 - 06:15 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Quote

2) Sorry but I just don't believe you. Do people really pilot Stalkers all the time because they like the look? No, everyone will use one because of the better profile, high arm mounted weapons. A raven has a silly smaller profile and is more likely to be used as a gauss rifle carrier than the hollander itself. There's a disadvantage at using such a big weapon, which is the size of the gun itself (see hunchback, hollander). Most mechs, even with the new weapons mesh, still abuse that system.

Competitive players don't care for looks, other gamers might. You could still make people happier if they could use the FOTM in a mech design they prefer, though.

Quote

3) I simply disagree here. It's a better move for PGI to sell niche mechs then make all mechs the same between themselves

There are plenty of niches with the hard point system already.

Lots of stock mechs have bad weapon configurations. Unless PGI only uses the one that are really good (which would then be all those PPC and Gauss Rifle monsters or other types of boats you wanted to avoid with your system), this means buying certain mechs would be just a bad choice because they don't have enough design space left to make them interesting or good. Worse even, you create or increase the financial incentive for PGI to sell us mechs that have superior loadouts.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Moriquendi86, on 01 August 2013 - 04:42 AM, said:

For me it would be best if you could still put large laser in small laser slot but it would result in more heat generation and/or cooldown for that weapon. In similar fashion putting small laser in large slot where you usually put PPC could result in some benefits like better range and/or shorter cooldown.

Nice idea but again heat scaling as a penalty is not curbing high alphas in optimal chassis like the Stalker.

[Haitchpeasauce]

Xanquil, on 01 August 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

The hard point limit does not keep to the KISS idea, (too many mechs to change). And it doesn't address the problem.

Actually quite simple to represent visually and understand, easier than heat scaling. Slots would have larger encapsulating boxes and color codes to represent the hardpoint sizes. The main reason hardpoint restrictions will never happen is because it will alter UI2.0 too much.

I agree with cone of fire convergence. I think heat, movement, and damage should affect this. Pinpoint convergence could be possible, but the mech needs to be stationary and have lined the shot up for quite some time. After firing the cone expands, and it takes time for the shots to converge again. Just like any FPS game or World of Tanks.

Also, longer refire rates. WoT does fine with long refires, and MWO was like that until the delays were halved.