54 replies to this topic

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Systems similar to this have been proposed before. I even put one up a while back more as a thought experiment than anything else. There is pretty much no real consensus around them, and lots of the people who don't like them really don't like them. I myself am indifferent, but tend to think that it's unnecessary. Let people put whatever they want on their mechs, but give them consequences. My preference is soft heat penalties that get worse as you climb the heat scale (lower max speed by %, reduce turn/twist/arm reflex rates, and accuracy deviation).

The only workable system that I can see is if they regularized hard point distribution based on stock load-outs. Put each weapon into one of three categories - compact, standard, and bulky (rename to taste). Compact weapons require 1 hard point, standard weapons require 2, and bulky weapons require 3. When assigning hard points to a mech, simply see what weapons are installed and convert them directly to the appropriate number of hard points.

Assuming the AC20 is bulky, the ML is standard, and the SL is compact, here are some examples:

Hunchback 4-G? 3 ballistic hard points in the side torso, one energy in the head, and two energy in each arm.

Hunchback 4-P? 12 energy hard points in the side torso, one in the head, and 2 in each arm.

Again, I don't like this system all that much, but it or something like it seems to be the best way to balance hard point sizes. Still, my preference is not to bother. The current system allows for a bit more freedom in mech design (both for PGI with differentiating variants and for players with finding builds that they like). Far better to fix underlying gameplay issues using soft heat penalties that scale as your heat climbs.

[Squid von Torgar]

Well as a thought experiment, go to the mechlab and pretend these rules are in place. Now come up with an uber build. I would honestly like to see the results that are OP.

Everyone reading this thread should do so and then consider their vote.

[Squid von Torgar]

No replies to the challenge? Guess you lot love the current meta.

[warner2]

Yes, because it would make the game better right now for the reasons you mentioned (although I'd lose the boating of smaller weapons, 1 weapon per hard-point should remain). Yes, because it would ease the balance issues that there are there now without needing the heat scale penalty.

However it's not a long term solution to balance, see Hunchback IIC and Masakari and probably others. So you'd need something else.

PGI's something else is heat scale, and they presumably see that as the mechanism going forward to balance all incoming 'mechs.

PGI are going to balance the Clans with heat nerfs

[KuruptU4Fun]

You are aware that is ultimately what we have now right?

Let's take the Pretty Baby as an example:

Each location has 12 slots, the right arm is taken up by 3 "actuator" slots. leaving 9 slots. The hardpoint restriction means you can only have 1 weapon in that arm (1 Energy), your choice of any energy weapon can go there. Since slots aren't a problem you only have to balance out the heat and tonnage, which has been a consideration (heat mostly) since MW 2.

Then there's the side torsos, each has 12, along with the prerequisite HP restrictions. Further limited down to 9 slots if you use an XL engine.

Then there's the left arm, some changes differ since it has 4 "actuators" leaving 8 slots and 2 missile HP's.

There's your hard point limitation right there, sans the simplicity some want, but ultimately it requires more attention to the meta game MW:O has.

There's a bit more that goes into the meta game, but I'll cover it in a later paragraph.

Now let's take the Trebuchet 7-M:

12 slots overall, 3 taken by actuators and 2 energy HP restrictions, leaving you to choose which weapons to use that can fit in those 9 slots. Both side torsos have missile HP's and AMS in the right, your choice to use it or not. Left arm has 1 energy and 1 missile for use in 9 slots.

On into discussing the Cicada 3 now:

Left arm and right arm cannot fit any weapons, but feel free to use them as places to put heat sinks. Right torso limited to 1 energy and 1 AMS thru 12 structure slots, 9 if you use XL Engines. The left torso can hold within the 12 slots 1 ballistic/1 energy an ECM.

It seems what the people who want to put in place simple hard point limitations are to basically make any mech a Clan Omni mech. Any weapon (within 1/2/3 hard point sizes for energy; ballistic or missile) could be used in any open slot not taken by a heat sink; engine; or specific HP like AMS or ECM.

But wouldn't that allow any mech to house ECM as well? If you open that possibility than EVERY mech will carry it. Because then it becomes a necessary piece of equipment to protect you from missiles. That makes running missiles pointless. Limiting the "openly varied mech builds" that these HP limitations would implement.

So in my last paragraph I'll note how endo-steel structures and double heat sinks also add to the meta game by changing the use of open slots to dynamic structure slots and can therefore restrict how many heat sinks (SHS or DHS) you have available to use overall. Also making the meta game in the mech lab even more intricate.

Since most Clan mechs are in and of themselves Omni-Mechs that actually allow your idea of open hard point restrictions then that further differentiates the Clans from the IS. Which in this game is needed, since the only real difference between the introduction of the clans is that the clan warriors are restricted in group size and limited to their honor code (hopefully implemented) is all their weapons must be used within direct visual contact...

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 04 August 2013 - 03:54 PM.

[Ralgas]

It wont alter the meta significatnly, and it'll kill alt config customisation (including a lot of stock ones).

Solution is to expand the weapon linking to all weps and set gauss at 1. That way 2ppc gauss adds on 2nd level of penalty (ie add on heat as if you fired 4ppc together now)

Edited by Ralgas, 04 August 2013 - 03:59 PM.

[KuruptU4Fun]

But that's where yet another issue lies. All mech classes have a similar armor levels. Making the responsibility of keeping yourself defended, but since changes to armor are minimal for the most part. Heat limitations (both rising and falling rates) forces the player to pay attention to how they make their mech effective on the battlefield.

Removing lots of armor to open tonnage up to use in other ways is inherently stupid on a pilots part. Having to consider how heat is managed while you fight is a much better way to limit things in combat.

Yes the heat system is a bit broken, they're not far off from keeping it a big part of the meta game but not leaving it the biggest thing to consider.

Edited by KuruptU4Fun, 04 August 2013 - 04:15 PM.

[MustrumRidcully]

The only purpose of hard point limitations should be aesthetics. It shouldn't affect game balance at all whether you install a 8 medium lasers, 4 PPCs or 2 SRM6, 1 AC/10 and 1 LL

That it evidently does - and strongly so - is a failure in the game's design and cannot be fixed with hard point limitations. There are canon mechs that equip 2, 3 or even 4 PPCs, there are canon mechs that equip 8 or 12 medium lasers, t here are canon mechs that equip 2 AC/20s, there are canon mechs that equip 3 Gauss Rifles, there are canon mechs that equip 1 Gauss Rifle and 2 PPCs. Hard point limitations will not limit such mechs, and instead be the standard choice.

The only way to get variety is to get a decent balance. That requires tweaking weapons, but it can also require tweaking addiitonal mechanics. Boats gain a synergistic benefit from group fire and convergence, and they will do that regardless of whether there is only one single mech that can run the problematic boating configuration of the day or if there are dozens that can be customized to do so.

[MustrumRidcully]

Squid von Torgar, on 04 August 2013 - 01:29 PM, said:

Well as a thought experiment, go to the mechlab and pretend these rules are in place. Now come up with an uber build. I would honestly like to see the results that are OP.

Everyone reading this thread should do so and then consider their vote.

How well does your system limit the following stock mechs:

Thunder Hawk (TDK-7X)
Annihilator (AN-2A with 4 LBX-10, ANH-1A with 4 AC/10, ANH-1E with 4 PPCs, ANH-1HG with 3 Gauss Rifles)
Devastator (DVS-2 with 2 Gauss + 2 PCC)
Nova/Black Hawk (12 ER Medium Laser)
Supernova (Prime with 6 ER LLs)
Nova Cat (Prime with 3 ER LLs and 2 ER PPCs)
King Crab (KGC-000 2 AC/20, plus an LRM15 and an LL)
Awesome (9Q with 4 PPC)
Black Hawk (4 Medium Pulse, 4 Medium Laser, 2 Small Lasers)

How would you handle omnimechs, and clan weapons in general? You know that a Clan PPC only occupies 2 crits and is one ton lighter, so any mech that currently could only use LLs with your system would be able to use Clan PPCs.

Or are you just telling me that these mechs will either never be added to M:WO, or that they will need a different balancing mechanism?
I suggest just trying that different balancing mechanism for everyone, so you don't end up ruining the fun of experimenting in the mech lab. It's bad enough that the fun is diminished by too many bad weapons and mechanics that give boating the best synergy.

[Khobai]

I dont agree with this suggestion, because it'll just reduce mech variation even more. At least with the current system, you have several different mechs to choose from for Gauss/PPC, and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. But with this proposed system, maybe only one mech will still be able to do Gauss/PPC, and that will be the only mech anyone picks. Variation will be non-existent on top of Gauss/PPC still being a problem. Itll be like MW3 all over again with people using nothing but ER Large Laser Shadowcats because everything else is inferior.

The only way to fix Gauss/PPC is to actually fix Gauss/PPC. Not add a convoluted hardpoint system that completely fails to address the real problem. Convergence is the problem and thats what actually needs to be fixed.

Edited by Khobai, 05 August 2013 - 03:38 AM.

[Faithsfall]

Joseph Mallan, on 04 August 2013 - 09:42 AM, said:

Since more variants of PPCs are coming(eventually), why not just separate PPCs from Energy Weapon Hard points. It would instantly kill 6 PPC Stalkers. Yes you could have 6 Large but that is not as OP as 6 PPCs.

So I would think making PPC Hard Points would be the cure to whats binding peoples under garments.

I agree with this if the hardpoint is a laser you can change it for sm-large laser/ ppc= ppc/erppc/ ac = ac2-ac20 etc etc etc.
If you have a mg/flamer hardpoint these stay as such.

you still have choice in your builds but you are limited by your mech choice.

I doubt this will ever appear as this should have been considered in closed beta.

[Xanquil]

No, Not only will it not fix anything, it will cause more work in the long run for the devs. Which will make mechs come out even slower than they already do. The biggest issue with weapons is pinpoint accuracy, which this does nothing to. Additonal hardpoint limitations is a waste of time and resources best used fixing the problems at hand.

Edited by Xanquil, 05 August 2013 - 03:43 AM.

[Boyinleaves]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 August 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

The only purpose of hard point limitations should be aesthetics. It shouldn't affect game balance at all whether you install a 8 medium lasers, 4 PPCs or 2 SRM6, 1 AC/10 and 1 LL

Yes, pretty much this. There are plenty of rules outlining different options for the limitations of 'Mech Customisation, such as for use in campaigns: Field Refits, Factory Refits and so forth. Not only do 'Mechs have character when limited to certain loadouts (thus so many calls for things like Stock matches, or timeline based Tournaments), which Hardpoints reflect, 'Mech customisation does not exist in a vacuum.

Should a persistent Metagame ever be introduced, plenty of campaign based salvage, repair and refit rules could come in to play, which would affect weapon balance also (such as by making ammunition valuable, limiting customisation options to salvaged components, etc.)

While Hardpoints shouldn't be necessary to maintain game balance, they do have a foundation in reflecting the lore and the character of individual 'Mechs, but they just don't go far enough by themselves, thus I am in favour of additional limitation to Hardpoints as something that encourages diversity.

MustrumRidcully, on 05 August 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

That it evidently does - and strongly so - is a failure in the game's design and cannot be fixed with hard point limitations. There are canon mechs that equip 2, 3 or even 4 PPCs, there are canon mechs that equip 8 or 12 medium lasers, t here are canon mechs that equip 2 AC/20s, there are canon mechs that equip 3 Gauss Rifles, there are canon mechs that equip 1 Gauss Rifle and 2 PPCs. Hard point limitations will not limit such mechs, and instead be the standard choice.

The only way to get variety is to get a decent balance. That requires tweaking weapons, but it can also require tweaking addiitonal mechanics. Boats gain a synergistic benefit from group fire and convergence, and they will do that regardless of whether there is only one single mech that can run the problematic boating configuration of the day or if there are dozens that can be customized to do so.

I agree, but "Weapon Balance" isn't the only answer here either. Currently, we're also limited to very defined game modes, which do not fully reflect the role 'Mech warfare plays either in the Lore, or in the TT (or even what they were like in other MW titles). Not that they necessarily should, but if they did, we'd see objectives that favoured other weapons besides PPCs/Gauss, more light and medium 'Mechs and therefore more diverse loadouts (either out of necessity or preference), and more tactical play in matches.



I would personally be in favour of both limiting weapons by Hardpoints, as well as limiting each Hardpoint to a number of Critical slots (and possibly tonnage, though Criticals are probably enough). As to the 'arbitrary' categorisation of weapons into groups - I haven't been convinced this is the right way to go, and I've so far read every thread I can find on the subject.

To make each chassis interesting enough, introducing more quirks would also be necessary, and there's a heck of a lot that PGI could implement there. The more a particular chassis differs from just being a 'bag of guns' that can be made into anything, the more appeal each 'Mech or Variant can have. Some people will be partial to the frequently suggested 3PPC Awesome with a quirk for firing 3PPCs at once. Others will be partial to the HBK-4J with a reload bonus for its LRM launchers. Others may prefer using something else for its benefits.

The thing is though, perfect balance shouldn't be (and probably isn't) achievable. Rather, focus some development into making game modes that can utilise a diverse set of weapons, or a diverse set of individually specified 'Mechs or Lances. Provide some randomness to matches that encourages diversity and an ability of a team to respond to a wide range of situations and environments, even within a map (and even within Player selected ones, if that ever happens). Balance Hardpoints, Weapons, Mech Quirks, Modules and everything else around the certainty of being uncertain of what will be optimal in any particular game, and weapon balance becomes far less of an issue, and can instead be something to add flavour. Each 'Mech should not be able to do every job by itself, or at least, a single 'Mech should not be able to do everything well at the same time. Unfortunately, at the moment, there's only really one job to do, and that's kill stuff quickly. Change that simple fact, and you change a heck of a lot about 'Mech and Weapon balance.

TL;DR

I am in favour of Hardpoint restrictions with Critical Slots.

Game needs to encourage diversity to become 'balanced'.

Extra bonus points:

A pinpoint convergence change would be very welcome (if unlikely), as this single change would drastically alter the current weapons balance situation, probably for the better.

[Boyinleaves]

Xanquil, on 05 August 2013 - 03:42 AM, said:

No, Not only will it not fix anything, it will cause more work in the long run for the devs. Which will make mechs come out even slower than they already do. The biggest issue with weapons is pinpoint accuracy, which this does nothing to. Additonal hardpoint limitations is a waste of time and resources best used fixing the problems at hand.

You're right, restricting hardpoints won't fix anything on it's own, and pinpoint accuracy is a far greater weapons balance issue.

I don't agree though that hardpoint limitations are a waste of time, but they may not be the most urgent priority. I would hope however, that eventually both can be done.

Khobai, on 05 August 2013 - 03:31 AM, said:

I dont agree with this suggestion, because it'll just reduce mech variation even more. At least with the current system, you have several different mechs to choose from for Gauss/PPC, and they all have their own strengths and weaknesses. But with this proposed system, maybe only one mech will still be able to do Gauss/PPC, and that will be the only mech anyone picks. Variation will be non-existent on top of Gauss/PPC still being a problem. Itll be like MW3 all over again with people using nothing but ER Large Laser Shadowcats because everything else is inferior.

The only way to fix Gauss/PPC is to actually fix Gauss/PPC. Not add a convoluted hardpoint system that completely fails to address the real problem. Convergence is the problem and thats what actually needs to be fixed.

Just out of interest, as I never played MW3 in multiplayer - were there ever any game modes in it that required anything of you other than "Kill Everything"?

[Nubsternator]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 August 2013 - 12:04 AM, said:

Hard point limitations will not limit such mechs, and instead be the standard choice.

The only way to get variety is to get a decent balance. That requires tweaking weapons, but it can also require tweaking addiitonal mechanics. Boats gain a synergistic benefit from group fire and convergence, and they will do that regardless of whether there is only one single mech that can run the problematic boating configuration of the day or if there are dozens that can be customized to do so.

My thought exactly. Instead of fixing this problem of seeing many mechs house PPCs and Gauss, we will all see a lot of the certain mechs that can do it. The problem is being moved from every mech down to just certain mechs.

[Aastarius]

Cats out the bag with the existing "total flexibility" allowed for mech builds. Other than an unnecessary additional complication, this type of restriction wouldn't really add anything to the game.

[FatBabyThompkins]

I voted no because I believe the best approach would be one where the capability of the mech should be limited in a different way. The original way (TT) was through a combination of tonnage, crit slots, heat, and ammo that when fired were based entirely upon a chance to hit and randomized hit locations. The entire TT system was balanced upon probabilities. MWO does not have probability, rather skill. If MWO took the entirety of TT, including chance to hit and randomized hit locations, then we would likely see a balanced game... that few would play. Instead, we have a game that has effectively removed the balancing mechanism to these high damaging, high heat weapons: randomization and fixed probability of missing. Trying to limit hard points, to me, is just another bandaid put upon a broken core.

There needs to be a way to limit the peak and sustained output of these mechs. No mech should be able to put out X damage instantly, if using instant convergence, or Y damage (where X<Y and only Z% of Y can be applied to any one location) if distributed damage is capable (and fun). Some mechs will have less, but your biggest, baddest mechs cannot go above that burst damage. Next, get the CT of several mechs and check their survivability assuming 100% hits (harder to do if you have distributed damage models, but probability should give you a good mean). You now have a system were you can reliably determine the time to kill an Atlas or a Commando with any mech. Finally, make flavors of weapons between Ballistics, Energy, and Missiles that meet those numbers. If there are combinations that would exceed X, then make some fluff as to the reason why it can't. PPC? Too much power draw. You can fire, but you couldn't get the full power of each system so you have weaker projectiles headed towards your enemy. X was applied. PPC + Gauss? Too much power draw again. You were able to get full power from your PPC, but the Gauss rifle wasn't able to reach full acceleration, resulting in a slower round that caused less damage. X was applied. 2x AC/20? Recoil compensators and main gyro would not be able to handle the stress of firing both at the same time applying a safety lock to one of them. X was applied (or less). Safety lockout expires in 1 second.

What does that leave us? Guaranteed survivability one on one for a number of seconds determined by fun. More mechs firing upon you? Your survivability is now a function of the number of mechs firing (X * [number of mechs])/Armor. That is, your survivability is halved if two are firing upon you, a third if three... making positioning more important. Ballistics can have a flavor where they have a higher burst damage, but lower sustained damage and they run out eventually. Energy have better sustained damage, but don't run out. The hybrids (PPC and Gauss) have a mixed flavor with good front loaded damage and other quirks. Another thing it affords is the emergency capabilities. Want all your damage in this emergency? Turn off the safeties and let your boom go. You've just damaged yourself in the process. Maybe your recycle time is slower. Or your accuracy is now compromised. Or damage is lower. Or slower projectile speed... You've compromised the safety of the mech to try and save yourself. Do it enough times, you might even blow up your weapon.

Long story longer, heat is not enough to balance all weapons. It balances sustained DPS, but not burst DPS, especially considering damage can be fully converged upon a location. Further, hardpoint restrictions are just another strip of duct tape on an already compromised system. Unfortunately, it would require a good systems engineer to create a balanced, yet still fun, base upon which all mechs are derived. It would also require a validated hit box system, else lights would become gods on the battlefield (in the current model).

[General Taskeen]

MustrumRidcully, on 05 August 2013 - 02:56 AM, said:

How well does your system limit the following stock mechs:

Thunder Hawk (TDK-7X)
Annihilator (AN-2A with 4 LBX-10, ANH-1A with 4 AC/10, ANH-1E with 4 PPCs, ANH-1HG with 3 Gauss Rifles)
Devastator (DVS-2 with 2 Gauss + 2 PCC)
Nova/Black Hawk (12 ER Medium Laser)
Supernova (Prime with 6 ER LLs)
Nova Cat (Prime with 3 ER LLs and 2 ER PPCs)
King Crab (KGC-000 2 AC/20, plus an LRM15 and an LL)
Awesome (9Q with 4 PPC)
Black Hawk (4 Medium Pulse, 4 Medium Laser, 2 Small Lasers)

How would you handle omnimechs, and clan weapons in general? You know that a Clan PPC only occupies 2 crits and is one ton lighter, so any mech that currently could only use LLs with your system would be able to use Clan PPCs.

Just commenting on this (I don't really know whether or not 'hard point' sizes is an answer, perhaps different modes with customization restrictions).

I don't know about the question of handling Omni-Mechs specifically, but some of those Mechs listed have all their weapons in one spot or in vunreable, less armored sections. The Annihilator, is of course, a remarkably slow turret. King Crab, remarkably low ammo. Nova, all lasers in each arm. Devastator has an XL, so would be the primary targeting areas.

Personally I think separating customization between game modes for "lax customization" (what people have been use to as it currently exists in MWO) and "restrictive customization" in other game modes, but also in combination with 'convergence' solutions, which probably take more time anyways.

[Galenit]

FupDup, on 04 August 2013 - 09:50 AM, said:

I prefer a hardpoint system proposed by somebody who I can't remember the name of. Basically, it combines both slots and a set number of hardpoints within those slots. The slots decide how big of something(s) you can shove in there, and the hardpoints decide the total number of weapons you can shove within those slots.

Maybe it was me? http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__2613082 (the last post that i find, there must be one i wrote earlier in the forum ....)

For those that dont want to read the original post:
We take the original slots but the max. crits of the stockloadout too. (Some mechs will maybe get more crits as balancing factor) Crits means the maximum of crits you can use for this weaponslot, they are taken, like now, from the overall crits in the section you install the weapon.

Example:
Ctpl A1:
It comes with 2x3 missileslots
It has 2x LRM15 with 3 crits each.
It will have 3M/3 in each arm then, that means each arm can have up to 3 missileweapons witch together have 3 critslots max.
You can then mount a lrm15 but no lrm20, you can mount up to 3 srm4 or 1srm4+1srm6 and so on...

Hbk-4G:
It comes with 3ballsitic and 3 energyslots.
It will have 3x1E1, there you can mount energyweapons that use not more then 1 crit.
The AC20 with its 10 crits sits in the hunch, it has 3B10 (3ballisticslots with 10crits).

Maybe some mechs have more crits then the stockloadout says, the mechs with gauss can have up to 8 ballisticslots, this way you can change the gauss for 2 ac5, but 2 uac would only fit where a ac20 sits.
The missilemechs, like the a1 can have more crits for artemis, but maybe artemis dont count for the missilecrits and they dont need them?
And the k2 should have 2 energycrits more in the sidetorso, it will then have 2x 1E3, 2X 1E2, 2X 1B1, a true energyboat as intended.

This prevents massboating of small and big weapons and let you chose what you want.

Edited by Galenit, 05 August 2013 - 06:19 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

General Taskeen, on 05 August 2013 - 05:52 AM, said:

Just commenting on this (I don't really know whether or not 'hard point' sizes is an answer, perhaps different modes with customization restrictions).

I don't know about the question of handling Omni-Mechs specifically, but some of those Mechs listed have all their weapons in one spot or in vunreable, less armored sections. The Annihilator, is of course, a remarkably slow turret. King Crab, remarkably low ammo. Nova, all lasers in each arm. Devastator has an XL, so would be the primary targeting areas.

Personally I think separating customization between game modes for "lax customization" (what people have been use to as it currently exists in MWO) and "restrictive customization" in other game modes, but also in combination with 'convergence' solutions, which probably take more time anyways.

The Jagermech has its 2 AC/20 in its arms, the lowest armored section besides the head. It also typically uses an XL Engine, and it's only a 65 ton mech, so would have a lot less armor than the assault mech examples.
The Quad PPC Stalker pretty much does the same with its PPCs (though it doesn't have to, it's probably the best position due to the high mount).

Regarding the King Crab's low ammo limit - ditch that LRM15 launcher and add more ammo. I have yet to see a build limitation system that also doesn't allow adding more sinks and ammo for removing gear. Of course, you could do that as well, but you could also say then "delete the mech bay".

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 05 August 2013 - 06:28 AM.