54 replies to this topic

[Roland]

I tend to favor a system where each hardpoint just has a limit on the number of slots that can fit into it, and this limit is sometimes greater than the stock weapon that fit into it.

It's fairly simple, shouldn't require large changes to implement, and is easily understood.

[General Taskeen]

Specifically what I'm saying though Mustrum is that the original suggestion of hardpoint sizes is not the end all, be all solution. A combination of other solutions might be better, since as you have listed examples of Assault Mechs with massive weapon loadouts.

[FupDup]

Galenit, on 05 August 2013 - 06:09 AM, said:

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 ....)

No, it wasn't you for sure. My guess is that it might have been Thontor or something else with a "T."

[Corbon Zackery]

I would like to see the hard point system removed completely I want the freedom to customize my mech as I see fit.

I want to be able to slap 2 AC 20 on the arms of my atlas while shooting you with 4 Medium lasers in the RT and LT.

A real atlas not some atlas that can be nerfed of all its weapons by removing the LT and RT.

[GroovYChickeN]

They only need to add 1 degree of separation, normal and large.

lasers, ac2-10(including lbx), srms, lrm 5-15 = normal.

ppc, gause, ac20, lrm20 = large.

This would fix a lot of the issues with boating large weapons on mechs that are not supposed to boat them while causing the smallest impact to customization.

[Squid von Torgar]

Quote

How would you handle omnimechs, and clan weapons in general?

Why would you want to balance omnimechs against IS? The entire point is that they are far better. However that's not to say you cant have the clan team fielding less mechs than the IS in a match.

[MustrumRidcully]

Squid von Torgar, on 05 August 2013 - 07:50 AM, said:

Why would you want to balance omnimechs against IS? The entire point is that they are far better. However that's not to say you cant have the clan team fielding less mechs than the IS in a match.

IS also has Omnimechs later on. Some of the mechs with problematic builds for M:WO are also not Clan Mechs.

That Quad ER PPC or that Triple Gauss Clan Mech would still be a better choice than the 4 Clan LRM10 + 2 Clan ER LL + 4 Clan MPL + 3 Clan SSRM6 mech (or whatever works out to a 85 to 100 ton equivalent mech). You might be operating on a higher level, but within that level, you still have clearly superior choices for the same reason you did have it at lower levels.

Do you believe that on every Clan Mech player, there come 1.5 IS Mech player? If not, how would you deal with population identity? What do you do if there are more Clan Mech players than IS Mech players?

Clan Tech also doesn't add more armour to the game, that means should Clan tech actually be implemented as superior to IS tech, a Clan vs Clan tech game would have a much faster pace then the current IS vs IS game would have - considering that people already complain mechs die too fast, do you think this would fly well?

[Lykaon]

Squid von Torgar, on 04 August 2013 - 10:11 AM, said:

Thats exactly what I am suggesting, the current hp type limitations along with the weapon size limitations. (Can only fit a same size weapon or smaller)

I support hardpoint restructuring but I do feel that limiting a hardpoint crtical capacity to that of the original weapon loaded is overly structured and does not allow for enough flexability in customization.

If a hardpoint is assigned a critical capacity it should be based on potential utility and preventing the cheese boating from fitting on any mech with hardpoints.

an example of what I feel is a balanced hardpoint layout would be something like the following.

Catapult K2

Head: no hardpoints
C.Torso: no hardpoints
R/L Torso: 1 energy hardpoint with 2 critical capacity,1 ballistic hardpoint with 5 critical capacity
R/L Arm: 1 energy hardpoint with 3 critical capacity
R/L Leg; no hardpoints.

It becomes evident that some of the common popular K2 builds are now resticted.The twin Gauss or AC 20 or quad PPC builds are no longer possible.However the hardpoints do allow for more flexability than simply assigning a critical value to them equal to the criticals needed for the stock weapons.

I believe there is a place for twin gauss builds I do however believe this place should be on specific chassis not any chassis with ballistic hardpoints.

I could continue to detail my reasons for having a more flexable hardpoint reform than a "one for one" value or sml/med/lrg format but that would fill several pages so let's leave it at this.

[FatBabyThompkins]

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

How would you handle omnimechs, and clan weapons in general?

Upon the system I outlined above where a mech can only output so much burst and sustained damage. Clan mechs will have a higher X such that 5 Clan mechs = 8 IS mechs. The clan mechs will be able to kill an IS mech one-on-one with almost double the firepower. But 2 IS mechs will kill one Clan mech. In PUG play, Clan will dominate (MOAH POWAH!), especially given that the IS team needs some communication and coordination to take down the, obviously, more potent, but fewer, Clan mechs.

But watch what happens if they stay on their current course, which is trying to balance an equation with a huge amount of variables (I would even venture to say they haven't found all of the variables as they tweak one and 5 more spring up). It'll be grossly unbalanced, or anything they do to balance it will wreck what balance they may have been able to obtain with the IS battles. Or it'll be so under performing to not even feel like Clan tech (as an example of this say hello to the 1.4 double heat sink and 24 phantom heat from 2x AC/20).

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

Omnimechs are actually far easier to balance than you might assume.

1 - Fix their engine, structure, armor, and all other "fixed" gear (that is, gear that is across all standard load-outs).

2 - Take the remaining weight and call it "pod space," meaning critical slots and weight that are available for additional equipment.

3 - Pod space can only be used for weapons, ammo, electronics, AMS, and heat sinks. Armor, engine, structure, etc., cannot be changed.

Why do it this way? Omnimechs are far more complicated machines than standard mechs. In exchange for the freedom to swap out their weapon pods at will they sacrifice the ability to change anything else. Standard mechs, on the other hand, though limited in loadout, are much easier for techs to modify in much more fundamental ways. Thus, they can change their armor, structure, engine rating, etc. (at a significant c-bill cost of course), but they can't slap in new weapons at will - they face the limitations of the base designs with regard to power relays, ammo feeds, etc.

What does it mean for balance? Omnimechs become glass cannons. When they can't upgrade their engines, they are stuck going whatever speed they started with. When they can't swap from STD to XL, or from XL to STD, they are stuck having to live with the relative advantages and disadvantages of whatever stock engine they come with. When they can't change armor, they might find themselves dying far more quickly than a standard mech that put more weight into protection and less into Moar Dakka. To balance this out, they have far more freedom when it comes to payload. Want to swap an AC for those lasers? Sure! Want to put a dozen small lasers on your light mech? Feel free! You just can't put in a bigger engine or increase your armor from its paper-thin stock levels.

As for Clan tech, that's a bit harder. I prefer a mixed system that adapts Zellbrigen (pilots "claim" targets and are penalized for firing at something somebody else has claimed) and gives IS pilots a sizable numbers advantage. 12v10 might work, but it's something we'd have to see live to know for sure.

[Lucinator]

i've been saying this solution for a long time now. It is definitely warranted

[Decadre]

Hey the vehicle sheet says it has 1 engine slot...

[nitra]

Hard point limitations will solve nothing ,

as it stands we have limited hard points and people are complaining about "optimum builds".
all limiting hardpoints will do is shift the focus onto a another build that is optimum for those load outs .

What people are really asking for is, a level playing field where all mechs fit nicely into a predetermined role and dps profile. Thus making the game more generic .

the real solution is to have a stock only mode providing those who are demanding their highly sought after balance.

This is what it boils down to . there is a large percentage of people who do not want to play against player created builds. they want every thing even steven .
they don't want to be traumatized by lights or ac20 toting ravens, or black jacks. they dont want to fight against , splat cats, or fast assults.
They want to be paired up against something similar to their build so they too can have a good game, every game.

that is what hard point limitation is all about . over simplification of the dynamics that make a mech warrior online game. they dont want to participate in the challenges that a diversified battle field brings.

Before those say there is no variety. I beg to differ , the field is diversified. while we do see the fotm 2ppc gauss builds regularly , i do see a lot of surprising builds that do well on their own. so take that argument that every one is playing the same build and shove it. because they are not.

Also hardpoint limitations does nothing for the well played team who rofl stomps the enemy.
this happens because either by chance or coordination a group of mechs is able to work well together and wipe the floor with enemy. and it has nothing to do with hard points .

so stop trying to limit the game further . how about some true diversification, add in a stock only mode where you can really prove your skill and play in a truly competitive environment. (and get trinkets for the wins )
And let those of us who enjoy tinkering with different builds and creating different mechs to run around and enjoy that .

Because to some of us winning is not the only way to have fun, we enjoy watching something we created run around on the field performing above our expectations. win or loose.

I know there are those who think it's all about winning in the end,and those of us who are not properly fitting our mechs are hampering those goals.
thus why their should be a stock only mode . so the truly competitive can have their roleified mechs, controlled game play, and even battlefield so it comes down to just skill and good team play.

[Decadre]

nitra, on 05 August 2013 - 12:38 PM, said:

Hard point limitations will solve nothing ,
...

I'm a hardpoint limitation backer and I'm am not any of what you describe.

I'm a person who looks at a Catapult K2 and thinks (look at a post I have above with the car with the engine) that there is no way an AC/10 or an AC/20 (perhaps even an AC/5) should fit into that mech where a MG just was.

I'm a person who thinks it is BEYOND silly that I can have a ballistic weapon in my right arm, and have ammo for it in my left leg. How does that ammo travel up the leg through perhaps through the knee joint and then the hip joint, through the torso, and then through the shoulder joint and then perhaps the elbow?!?!?!?

I'm a player who has run mechs with 3 and/or 4 weapon groups who would love other players to stop running builds in which they are most of the time only pressing the left mouse button. I'd like to see them start having to think about what finger they need to get off of the WASD keys to press those #3 and #4 keys on their keyboard to fire other weapon groups (or learn how to reprogram their mouses if they have more than 2 buttons on them)

THIS IS WHY I BACK HARD POINT LIMITATIONS.

P.S.

Which is kind of funny and ironic right now as I'm running a Cataphract-4x with 4 AC/5s only.

But then again I've run a Stalker-5m that has 2 LL, 2ML, 2 SRM4s, and 2 LRM15s with tag. I do really well with it too...

[FatBabyThompkins]

Decadre, on 06 August 2013 - 05:53 AM, said:

Which is kind of funny and ironic right now as I'm running a Cataphract-4x with 4 AC/5s only.

I sometimes run a Cataphract-4X with 2 AC/2 and 2x UAC/5s (I'm usually a light pilot). Insane burst damage, makes even the PPCWarrior think twice about coming around a corner. And to top it off... one small laser =) Like you said, I have right arm/left arm groups so that if I only expose a portion of my torso/arm I'm not wasting half of my ammo. If I'm high on heat (thanks AC/2 bug) I can fire one arm until the UAC jams, then switch arms and fire that AC/2 and UAC. Or that Jager that walked in my firing lane, I can fire one arm around him until I or he can move out of the way. Mouse button is ALL THE DAKKA, but is only used when a clean firing lane is open on a fairly presentable target.

My buddy runs a brawler DDC with an AC/20 and 3x SRM-6. He doesn't group fire a thing, firing each individually. And although he is usually killed fairly quickly in a large brawl, he is also almost always one of the highest damage mechs in that game. I like running the Cataphract-4X with him because he gets in there, puts a boom on someone, then I back him up with the DAKKA DAKKA DAKKA. Our two mechs have taken out 3 assaults before. Not unscathed of course. My friend usually dies, but he is resigned to be the meat shield.