115 replies to this topic

[Antony Weiner]

For how long will I still hear cries about damage and heat numbers?

For how long will PGI develop additional layers of balancing mechanics in order to emulate stricter hardpoint restrictions?

Edited by Antony Weiner, 26 August 2013 - 11:54 PM.

[StaIker]

What's the matter, other players killing you too quickly?

[Renthrak]

The very idea that MWO's woes can be traced to a single system is folly. Similarly, there is no single 'magic bullet' that will make the game perfect either.

As for the hardpoint system, there is very little room between additional restrictions and stock-weapons-only, which is no better than no hardpoints at all.

[Khobai]

Nine of out ten balance issues are due to convergence actually.

Changing the hardpoint system would help limit convergence, but its the same sort of bandaid solution as ghost heat, because it still doesnt address convergence directly, it just artificially limits its effectiveness.

[Onmyoudo]

I still can't get over how there are so many short-sighted people who want to kill this game with stock loadouts only. A separate "hardcore" queue or whatever sure, but it's either total customisation or none - and none would see the game die instantly.

[Kitane]

A limited hardpoint system would prevent us from deviating too far from stock builds.

It would give mechs more unique flavor, but it would also make the current balance worse as the gap between good mechs and bad mechs would grow larger.

[Devils Advocate]

95% of mechwarrior from where I'm standing is outfitting your mech the way you want to. Hardpoints already restrict that. Let's not turn this into stockwarrior to make brawls take longer.

[StaIker]

Kitane, on 27 August 2013 - 01:28 AM, said:

A limited hardpoint system would prevent us from deviating too far from stock builds.

It would give mechs more unique flavor, but it would also make the current balance worse as the gap between good mechs and bad mechs would grow larger.

No, it would not do that at all. A few standout Mechs would be all that anyone would use, as the rest would be garbage. Customisation is what makes this game a game, and not a chore. It allows the garbage builds to be changed into something useful. People could use stock right now if they wanted to but they don't, because stock sucks.

[Khobai]

Quote

No, it would not do that at all. A few standout Mechs would be all that anyone would use, as the rest would be garbage. Customisation is what makes this game a game, and not a chore. It allows the garbage builds to be changed into something useful. People could use stock right now if they wanted to but they don't, because stock sucks.

Correct.

Limiting hardpoints does not fix convergence. It simply makes it so only certain mechs can use convergent loadouts. And those would be the only mechs players would use.

The best way to fix pinpoint alphas is simply to eliminate convergence.

Edited by Khobai, 27 August 2013 - 05:32 AM.

[Kitane]

StaIker, on 27 August 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

No, it would not do that at all. A few standout Mechs would be all that anyone would use, as the rest would be garbage. Customisation is what makes this game a game, and not a chore. It allows the garbage builds to be changed into something useful. People could use stock right now if they wanted to but they don't, because stock sucks.

That's what I said. The increased gap between mechs would result in everybody using best mech variants. The rest would be "flavored" with all kinds of suck.

[Chemie]

DHS are the root of the problem. That and pin point damage. Not hardpoints.

Before DHS (and endo), you could not carry as much and balance was much better,

Since they have said convergence is too hard to implement sever side, how about splash damage instead? PPC does 5 pin point and 5 splash. Fixed.

Edited by Chemie, 27 August 2013 - 03:46 AM.

[Livewyr]

9/10 balance issues are a result of smarter players learning to use what is given to them in the most effective manner.

[zorak ramone]

StaIker, on 27 August 2013 - 02:31 AM, said:

No, it would not do that at all. A few standout Mechs would be all that anyone would use, as the rest would be garbage.

Well, this is mainly due to the fact that in the current state of weapon balance, there are very few standout weapons (PPCs, GR). If you could imagine a theoretical scenario where EVERY weapon was equally useful, then you could go full stock only and every mech would still be useful.

Hardpoint restrictions don't make mechs garbage: they just limit the set of configs that each mech can carry (IMO a good thing: mechs should have different characters). The fact that only a small set of configs are competitive and other physical factors (mech size/profile and handling characteristics) are what makes mechs garbage.

EDIT: not that it matters anymore, since this game just received a 3PV stake to the heart.

Edited by zorak ramone, 27 August 2013 - 04:11 AM.

[SiriusBeef]

NBT-Hardcore remains the best balance we have ever had in an MW game. I'll never understand why PGI just did not use that as a starting point. Sure the CerLL may still have been a bit over powered but nearly all weapons and mechs were viable . Even IS and Clan tech was not far off the mark. I think PGI has so much BS to filter through with the beta process that the voices of people with a real understanding get lost in the shuffle.

[Naja]

http://www.timeandda...ardpoint+System

[zorak ramone]

SiriusBeef, on 27 August 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

NBT-Hardcore remains the best balance we have ever had in an MW game. I'll never understand why PGI just did not use that as a starting point. Sure the CerLL may still have been a bit over powered but nearly all weapons and mechs were viable . Even IS and Clan tech was not far off the mark. I think PGI has so much BS to filter through with the beta process that the voices of people with a real understanding get lost in the shuffle.

The ideal hardpoint system would be a combination of MW4s and MWOs: MWO hardpoints but with size restrictions.

MW4's system made mechs that could carry big guns unique, but mechs that could carry lots of small guns lost their uniqueness because any big gun could be turned into a lot of small guns (since small guns were worthless in MW4, this wasn't really noticed).

MWO's system makes mechs that can carry lots of smaller weapons unique, but mechs known for carrying big guns loose their uniqueness as any small gun can be turned into a massive gun (see K2 mguns to GRs).

A combined system with some restrictions could maintain customization flexibility, but give mechs unique characters. Imagine a hardpoint system with three sizes (small, medium and large). Now take ballistic weapons as an example:

BS: AC2, AC5, UAC5, Mgun
BM: AC5, UAC5, AC10, LBX10, GR
BL: AC10, LBX10, GR, AC20

This gets more interesting when you add the full set of ballistic weapons from CBT:

BS: AC2, UAC2, LBX2, AC5, UAC5, LBX5, Mgun, LGR
BM: AC5, UAC5, LBX5, AC10, UAC10, LBX10, LGR, GR
BL: AC10, UAC10, LBX10, AC20, UAC20, LBX20, GR, HGR

Each hardpoint gives you a lot of options, and using these allows you to differentiate mechs based on what weapons they can carry.

[StaIker]

zorak ramone, on 27 August 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

Well, this is mainly due to the fact that in the current state of weapon balance, there are very few standout weapons (PPCs, GR). If you could imagine a theoretical scenario where EVERY weapon was equally useful, then you could go full stock only and every mech would still be useful.

In an ideal world, sure. But this is far from an ideal world. Even a genius could not balance all weapons perfectly, and even if they were mathematically balanced, tactics are always evolving and would suit some Mechs better than others. And that's if a genius was in charge of the process. We have PGI in charge.

[Khobai]

Quote

9/10 balance issues are a result of smarter players learning to use what is given to them in the most effective manner.

Which is indicative of poor balance. If you give a player multiple choices, and one choice is obviously better than the rest, then you have failed to balance properly.

Smarter players are simply able to recognize that the choices are not equal. But the imbalance has to exist in the first place for smarter players to take advantage of it.

[SiriusBeef]

zorak ramone, on 27 August 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

MWO's system makes mechs that can carry lots of smaller weapons unique, but mechs known for carrying big guns loose their uniqueness as any small gun can be turned into a massive gun (see K2 mguns to GRs).

They must be worried about small pulse laser assault boats or some such nonsense.

[Tombstoner]

Antony Weiner, on 26 August 2013 - 11:54 PM, said:

For how long will I still hear cries about damage and heat numbers?

For how long will PGI develop additional layers of balancing mechanics in order to emulate stricter hardpoint restrictions?

cause hard points are not the issue.... when new hard point combos come out game play alters. this is a symptom not the cause.