115 replies to this topic

[Syllogy]

AC, on 28 August 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

I don't understand why we just can try them. It wouldn't hurt anything to try limiting the weapons slots slightly to see if we can improve game balance.

Except for the part where you spend hours programing a major overhaul to the current system only to find out that all of your work may have been in vain.

This wouldn't be so bad if the other 15 projects you were assigned with a hard deadline didn't also suffer because of the time you had to invest in this.

[Tombstoner]

Have people forgotten about the panther. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Panther A light mech equipped with a ppc. but its not viable in MWO you say... its too slow. MWO would let you put in a much larger reactor at some cost. but its still a light with a large energy hard point. This is the kind of mech that would clearly circumvent any hard point size restrictions. a mech exists some where it lore that breaks MWO. cant wait for the 3x gauss mechs or the 10x ac2 mechs....modified to be a 10x mg. given time and evey perverted weapon combo will come out and we havent even seen PGI's clan OMNI system. think about how that will be abused.
hard point size restrictions or not.

[Almond Brown]

3rdworld, on 27 August 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Weapons are all that counts, it should be pretty clear that is true looking at the current meta, with every mech from 50 - 100 tons using gauss & ppcs.

stuff

Not true. If you really believe that then you should get out and play more. There is weapons variety on the field and your insistence that there isn't just makes you sound like an idjit.

[Almond Brown]

Khobai, on 27 August 2013 - 04:47 PM, said:

Exactly.

The problem is hardpoint restrictions wont work unless the weapons are balanced perfectly first. And if the weapons are balanced perfectly, do you really need hardpoint restrictions anymore?

With multiple factors, such as heat, weight, range and ammo needs, there will never be "perfect balance". Best that can be hoped for is that at some point a single 15 damage, long range weapon, somehow gets setup such that, when its short range counterpart, the 3 x 5 damage equivalent switch roles when the ranges are reversed.

When that happens, things will be better, but players will still die and blame the "balance".

AC, on 27 August 2013 - 08:34 PM, said:

stuff

Not to mention all the mechs are starting to be the same. I can build the same config on so many mechs that they have lost their character or personality. They are all generic IMO.

Listen to yourself dude. "You build them all the same" and its the Games fault? LOL! This is why the Dev shouldn't ever venture in here. The BS is so thick you need a machete' just to cut through it.

Edited by Almond Brown, 28 August 2013 - 10:15 AM.

[Xanquil]

Changing the hardpoint system will not fix anything. Hardpoints are not a non issue. If anything the only thing it may help is add more reasons to pick different chassis. But that will only help if the major issues are fixed first, pinpoint alphas being the main one. Hardpoint restrictions do not help with heat, engine/speed, pinpoint alpha, hitbox size, mech size, or matchmaker issues. So what balancing issues does it "fix"?

[NineTails]

IMHO, 50% of the balance problems in MWO are due to convergence, 30% due to heat sinks increasing total heat capacity along with heat dissipation, and 20% fall under 'other'.

Edited by NineTails, 28 August 2013 - 05:34 PM.

[3rdworld]

Almond Brown, on 28 August 2013 - 10:01 AM, said:

Not true. If you really believe that then you should get out and play more. There is weapons variety on the field and your insistence that there isn't just makes you sound like an idjit.

Among people that know the game, and are good at it. There isn't any variety. Saying there is, makes you look like a bad.

Also I have played 2945 games since the last stat wipe.

Edited by 3rdworld, 29 August 2013 - 07:18 AM.

[AC]

Almond Brown, on 28 August 2013 - 10:14 AM, said:

With multiple factors, such as heat, weight, range and ammo needs, there will never be "perfect balance". Best that can be hoped for is that at some point a single 15 damage, long range weapon, somehow gets setup such that, when its short range counterpart, the 3 x 5 damage equivalent switch roles when the ranges are reversed.

When that happens, things will be better, but players will still die and blame the "balance".


Listen to yourself dude. "You build them all the same" and its the Games fault? LOL! This is why the Dev shouldn't ever venture in here. The BS is so thick you need a machete' just to cut through it.

Are you on Crack??? If all the mechs are capable of the same (or generally the same) loadouts, what motivates me to buy new mechs?? This is in PGI's best interest. Look at the Shadowhawk, Griffin, and Wolverine. Most of the capable loadouts can already be done with one of the Treb's. What motivates me to buy a pack when I can already make and config the weapons I want on mechs that exist???

[Sybreed]

AC, on 29 August 2013 - 05:50 PM, said:

Are you on Crack??? If all the mechs are capable of the same (or generally the same) loadouts, what motivates me to buy new mechs?? This is in PGI's best interest. Look at the Shadowhawk, Griffin, and Wolverine. Most of the capable loadouts can already be done with one of the Treb's. What motivates me to buy a pack when I can already make and config the weapons I want on mechs that exist???

PGI is taking the approach of "buying a mech is bit like buying a skin for MOBA"

[CyberRage]

The hard-point system is not only bad for balance, but also killing variety. Seeing the new phoenix mechs just seems like more of the same. They look different, but under the hood they are pretty much the same as we already have. There is no possibility for truly unique layouts like that in MW4, which was in my opinion a much better system for both variety and balance. Not to mention it's much easier to customize a mech in the MW4 interface than the current mess we have.

[Khobai]

Quote

With multiple factors, such as heat, weight, range and ammo needs, there will never be "perfect balance".

Thats just it. You dont need perfect balance. You just need the game to be balanced enough so that everything has a counter. Like PPC/Gauss should be countered by brawlers if the brawlers get within 270m. But this currently isnt the case due to the poor heat efficiency of lasers and the low damage on SRMs.

[Riptor]

3rdworld, on 27 August 2013 - 10:15 AM, said:

Weapons are all that counts, it should be pretty clear that is true looking at the current meta, with every mech from 50 - 100 tons using gauss & ppcs.

Why do I have to respond to a system which isn't in effect, and that I have never purposed?

Yeah.. only that certain mechs in the game have huge disadvantages for no real benefit. So no.. the argument that only weapons count is a false one. Or else people would use the awesome... wich they dont.

Or take the hunchback.. shoot its huge right torso and its out of the game... the same goes for the soon to be Griffon whos weapons are all located on the right toso/right arm.

With hardpoint restrictions those mechs would actually have the advantage of being able to field big guns for having such blatant weakspots.

Right now they have all the disadvantages but no advantages what so ever that they had for example in mw4,

Or the awesome... if it was the assault to go to for PPCs because the other assaults cant carry them then it would actually see some usage.. instead no one wants to touch that one with a 10 foot pole because its center torso is gigantic and a real fire magnet.

Also if you dont want to respond to a system that aparantly doesnt exist (whatever that means)... what are you doing in a discussion about proposing systems that dont exist in the game again?

I mean restrictionless customisation doesnt exist ingame so by your logic you shouldnt talk about that one either right?

[3rdworld]

Riptor, on 29 August 2013 - 10:04 PM, said:

Yeah.. only that certain mechs in the game have huge disadvantages for no real benefit. So no.. the argument that only weapons count is a false one. Or else people would use the awesome... wich they dont.

Or take the hunchback.. shoot its huge right torso and its out of the game... the same goes for the soon to be Griffon whos weapons are all located on the right toso/right arm.

With hardpoint restrictions those mechs would actually have the advantage of being able to field big guns for having such blatant weakspots.

Right now they have all the disadvantages but no advantages what so ever that they had for example in mw4,

Or the awesome... if it was the assault to go to for PPCs because the other assaults cant carry them then it would actually see some usage.. instead no one wants to touch that one with a 10 foot pole because its center torso is gigantic and a real fire magnet.

Also if you dont want to respond to a system that aparantly doesnt exist (whatever that means)... what are you doing in a discussion about proposing systems that dont exist in the game again?

I mean restrictionless customisation doesnt exist ingame so by your logic you shouldnt talk about that one either right?

Awesomes can carry gauss? News to me.

Your example of the griffin is a poor one. The Highlander has the same issues you claim are a detriment. Doesn't seem to slow it down any.

But many mechs do not have "blatant" weak spots. Victor/ Highlander/Misery/Atlas all carry an Gauss or larger. They have no weakspots. Hell the HBK wouldn't be the best at carrying an AC/20 in its own class. The YLW is better. Does your system help the Hunchback? No; does it hurt any mediums? Yes.

So give the awesome mech affirmative action so that it isn't a complete waste of space. Great idea. Even if you did, you can only carry 2 PPCs effectively and the Dragon slayer with PPC & Goose or the HGN-733P with 2 PPCs would be better.

Does your system help the Awesome? Not really. but who does it hurt? Pretty much every assault that I did not name.

You are proposing a different system. I am here to show that it is a poor system. Not defend something we don't have or that I did not put forth.

If you want me to show you how full customization would be better for the game, I can. But that is not the purpose of this conversation.

As far as weapons being all that matters. Lets go through a list of the best mechs in the game:

JR7-F
CTF-3D
STK-M
HGN-733C

the only one of those that doesn't or can't run 2PPC + Gauss is the Jenner, which coincidentally is the fastest mech in the game, and the only light capable of running >4 energy weapons.

Edited by 3rdworld, 30 August 2013 - 06:49 AM.

[xengk]

Tombstoner, on 28 August 2013 - 08:08 AM, said:

Have people forgotten about the panther. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Panther A light mech equipped with a ppc. but its not viable in MWO you say... its too slow. MWO would let you put in a much larger reactor at some cost. but its still a light with a large energy hard point. This is the kind of mech that would clearly circumvent any hard point size restrictions. a mech exists some where it lore that breaks MWO. cant wait for the 3x gauss mechs or the 10x ac2 mechs....modified to be a 10x mg. given time and evey perverted weapon combo will come out and we havent even seen PGI's clan OMNI system. think about how that will be abused.
hard point size restrictions or not.

I love the Panther and also the Clint a medium size poptart.
Speaking about MGs, the 12xMG Piranha is just 1 year away.

[CyberRage]

Omnitech will utterly break the hard point system since there would be no size restriction to omni slots. Giving a mech as little as two omni hardpoints will pretty much guarantee that most people will run those mechs with double ppc, double gauss or double ac20. You won't even have to buy new mechs at that point since it'll all be just practically reskins outside of little quirks like ECM or AMS.

Point being is that the hardpoint system breaks not only the longevity of this game but also the balance. It allows people to boat relatively large slotted long-range weapons whereas in a weapon slot based system there would be limits in the size of the hardpoints so you can't boat large weapons on every mech and in every arm or torso piece. For that we have specialized support mechs like Jagermech whom have their own weaknesses, while more generalised mechs are forced to combine their large weaponry with smaller side weapons.

[AC]

Khobai, on 29 August 2013 - 09:42 PM, said:

Thats just it. You dont need perfect balance. You just need the game to be balanced enough so that everything has a counter. Like PPC/Gauss should be countered by brawlers if the brawlers get within 270m. But this currently isnt the case due to the poor heat efficiency of lasers and the low damage on SRMs.

And don't forget about the recycle time. If I remember right, in MW4 the ERPPC had a recycle of 7 or 8 seconds and the gauss was at least 6 seconds. If these long range, high power, sniping weapons had longer recycle times then they wouldn't make effective brawling weapons as well. (Which is why people bring the ERPPC and not the PPC.) The Twin ERPPC, Gauss config that is so popular is able to compete with brawling weapons solely based on their recycle times right now.

And I completely agree with CyberRage. That was a well thought out post, and I hadn't fully considered the clan omnis yet.

Edited by AC, 30 August 2013 - 08:20 AM.

[Khobai]

Quote

Omnitech will utterly break the hard point system since there would be no size restriction to omni slots.

We dont even know if omnislots will be a thing. Because having omnislots kindve defeats the purpose of having different variants... since a madcat with 2 omnislots can basically be any variant of madcat.

[SiriusBeef]

Khobai, on 30 August 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

We dont even know if omnislots will be a thing. Because having omnislots kindve defeats the purpose of having different variants... since a madcat with 2 omnislots can basically be any variant of madcat.

That's exactly why when we are referring to omni-mechs we do not say "Variants". The proper term would be "Alternate Config" .

[Khobai]

Quote

That's exactly why when we are referring to omni-mechs we do not say "Variants". The proper term would be "Alternate Config" .

Right but mechwarrior online requires that you buy 3 different variants of a mech to master it. If one madcat can be any config, it means it wont have 3 variants...

so either clan mechs will level up different or omnislots wont be a thing and alternate configs will just be treated as variants.

[Tombstoner]

Khobai, on 30 August 2013 - 08:22 AM, said:

We dont even know if omnislots will be a thing. Because having omnislots kindve defeats the purpose of having different variants... since a madcat with 2 omnislots can basically be any variant of madcat.

This is why i think the clans will be able to swap out configurations.... primary to A,B,C,D. the hard point selection will be fixed just the type of weapons will be changeable tonnage allowing. for example

http://www.sarna.net...28Black_Hawk%29

prime has 12 energy slots
alt A is the same as prime but with one more ams
alt B 2 ballistic + 2 energy
alt C same as B
alt D 2 missile and 2 balistic
alt E and on not part of time line

just my 2 cents PGI may add more hard points as they see fit.

so this system will let you build just about anything you want within reason tonnage permitting. basicly IS get to change everything but the hard points. Clan can change hard points but nohing else. engine size and armor is fixed.