74 replies to this topic

[Hisashi No Oni]

So with years of PVP in at least a half score of other games, many that have failed in PVP badly. The word Balance to me has become a dirty word. Balance can never be achieved and still maintain game realism. I think it is time to consider a big change that would put MWO into the next generation and still respect its great past. The flaws of Battletech and MW games of the past is still with us in MWO. We see it in things like “Ghost heat” fire convergence, Alpha shutdown one shot monsters, and juggling weapons stats all the time. There is an answer to this other than complex changes like “Ghost heat” that make players have fits. Just make different weapon hard points and hard point locations restricted to size or weight. Battletech did this itself with locations. Adding hand actuators and such to keep big weapons out of locations. This size/weight restricted hard point would control what could go into a hard point area and leave Mechs in more traditional configuration. This would eliminate the need to penalize players for making the best customizable choices. Needless to say this would be a big departure from the other versions of this game but one that I think is needed if you ever wish to get close to balance. Begin firing......NOW!

[wintersborn]

I like the idea of weapon hard point sizes since it makes sense.
I would also make it a open weapon hard point and not limit it to one type of weapon but some TT lore players will scream bloody murder since this a TT sim to them.

[Krivvan]

There is already an entire group of people that want this change.

I'm not a part of that group, nor do I think it's likely that they'd make such a drastic change at this stage, but it's been suggested many, many times before.

[RedDragon]

The real problem is that people think they are entitled to have a mechlab and when they get one, they scream bloody murder about balance. There won't be any kind of overall balance as long as people can freely modify their mech. If we had a stock only mode, it would be possible to balance most of the weapons and allow for a wide range of useful mechs, because most configs would be unique. But as it stands now, the Devs struggle to balance the mechs versus the weapons, and they will have more work with every new mech/variant and every new weapon that is added because it could tip the whole system over. And that is something they don't seem to get.

[Shadey99]

Crit size limits (and generalized hard point size limits) have been brought up before. Personally I don't support them, the mechs that would be hurt the most are lights and mediums which already have issues. Why Should I not be able to mount an AC5 in a 3C Cicada which has 3 ballistics hardpoints (designed for MGs)? Why should I not be able to chose a Locust with a single LL instead of a ML? To make it crazier some say a AC5 should be the 'size' of a MG, yet not an LB-10X or AC10 (or a Gauss or AC20). Why should I not be able to build a Hollander Cicada if it fits?

Most lights and mediums don't have the ability to mass lots of small guns (not enough hard points), so the only option is larger guns. It is very easy to find yourself with 5-8 free tons of weight and no way to mount anything else to fill that space on these machines. I mean lets take a Spider 5D, max armor with ES, FF, and DHS and you have 10.14 tons of open weight to use. Do you mount 2 LL (trimming armor)? Do you mount 3 MPL (6 tons and leaving you at .64 tons left with a single JJ and 3 extra DHS) ? Or what about 3 ML builds with ~7 tons of hard to use weight? With space restricted hard points the later is more likely than the former.

[Shadey99]

RedDragon, on 07 November 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

The real problem is that people think they are entitled to have a mechlab and when they get one, they scream bloody murder about balance. There won't be any kind of overall balance as long as people can freely modify their mech. If we had a stock only mode, it would be possible to balance most of the weapons and allow for a wide range of useful mechs, because most configs would be unique. But as it stands now, the Devs struggle to balance the mechs versus the weapons, and they will have more work with every new mech/variant and every new weapon that is added because it could tip the whole system over. And that is something they don't seem to get.

Stock only mode would suck. Only DHS mechs would sell and we would be screaming bloody murder about the heat issues that DHS help cover up. Lets not even begin to talk about how stock only mechs also have the downside of needing 3-5 weapons groups in many cases or how SSRMs are rare (in this era) for IS heavies and assaults. The QQ over lights would increase many times over.

[Captain Stiffy]

[RedDragon]

Shadey99, on 07 November 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Stock only mode would suck. Only DHS mechs would sell and we would be screaming bloody murder about the heat issues that DHS help cover up. Lets not even begin to talk about how stock only mechs also have the downside of needing 3-5 weapons groups in many cases or how SSRMs are rare (in this era) for IS heavies and assaults. The QQ over lights would increase many times over.

That's why you'd need to give players incentive for using different mechs (Battle Value, R&R etc.)

[Joseph Mallan]

wintersborn, on 07 November 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

I like the idea of weapon hard point sizes since it makes sense.
I would also make it a open weapon hard point and not limit it to one type of weapon but some TT lore players will scream bloody murder since this a TT sim to them.

If I read you correctly, I we had say a Large HP or a AC20 and another for an LRM20, I could have either 2 AC20 or 2 LRM20 Or a Gauss and a PPC. I am I correct?

[Shadey99]

RedDragon, on 07 November 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

That's why you'd need to give players incentive for using different mechs (Battle Value, R&R etc.)

The 'incentives' would often have to be huge.

Just goign by BV... 12v12 games would have to go for a start unless we could exactly match BV/other random numerical value equivalent for each mech/variant/weapon/ton of ammo between teams on a paired basis (so each player would have to have a BV match opposing player consisting of 12 such pairs). The matchmaker already sucks, I cannot see this helping anything. not doing 1 for 1 BV matching in 12v12 play would be a balance disaster.

That said BV was near random. No math makes up BV. No stats were crunched to determine an AC-20 should be a BV of 178 or that in BV 2.0 a ton of AC20 ammo is worth 22 in BV. The value is basically pulled out of a hat.

Repair and Re-arm is almost worse. Anything using ballistics has added costs as do missiles (though missiles get the absolute worst of it with so many hard counters like ECM and semi-hard counters like AMS). Mechs like a locust may not cost much to be repaired, but it's hard for a Locust (non-3M) to earn funds and they die incredibly easily (which should maximize repair costs). Creating a balanced R&R system is a train wreck.

Oh and even with those systems I cannot imagine a Locust or Flea being competitive. Also Commandos would go back to 97 kph speed, Jenners would max at 119 kph. Cicadas, Locusts, and Spiders would be the fastest mechs at 129 kph. The speed advantage of all the fast mechs would go down. Some Assaults would be downright horrible as well with speeds of a whopping 48 kph.

Edited by Shadey99, 07 November 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[RedDragon]

Shadey99, on 07 November 2013 - 12:12 PM, said:

The value is basically pulled out of a hat.

Actually... no, it's not.
http://www.heavymeta...com/bv_calc.htm

You don't have to do matched BV for single players. There are a lot of ways to implement it, e.g. limiting the total team-BV to a certain value. And regulating BV for single weapons or mechs would be quite easy, just give underperforming mechs a cut in BV and vice versa for FOTM-mechs etc. But the discussion about BV has been done to death. Fact is, we need a system to balance the game. And because the Devs decided to use a rather bad hard point system and much too open mechlab (IMO), they opened Pandora's Box regarding anything resembling balance. Given that because of their modifications to heat, damage and armor, not even stock mechs are balanced in any way, it will be next to impossible to achieve overall balance without any system of R&R or BV, in my opinion.
And yes, R&R could work, if implemented properly. Punishing builds that rely heavy on ammo is bad (at least if that isn't balanced in another way to counter it), but making the play more costly for mechs with better equipment is a good start to making the game balanced.

[Mechteric]

Thanks Al Gore, say hello to Tipper for me.

[Kaox Veed]

I think it would make more sense to have weapons take up a certain number of hard points, that way you could shove a bigger weapon in a spot but not multiples. So like an Awesome could mount its PPCs saying that takes 2 energy slots, but it could mount 2 medium lasers in that spot if it wanted to instead because they would take up 1. LLas and PPC 2 slots, all the other energy weapons would be 1.

SRM4s and 2s LRM 5s and 10s, would be 1, while SRM6s and LRM15 and 20s would be 2.
MG AC2 would be 1, AC5 UAC5 and AC10 would be 2, and AC20 would be 3.

Just a thought.

[Fut]

Shadey99, on 07 November 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Crit size limits (and generalized hard point size limits) have been brought up before. Personally I don't support them, the mechs that would be hurt the most are lights and mediums which already have issues. Why Should I not be able to mount an AC5 in a 3C Cicada which has 3 ballistics hardpoints (designed for MGs)? Why should I not be able to chose a Locust with a single LL instead of a ML? To make it crazier some say a AC5 should be the 'size' of a MG, yet not an LB-10X or AC10 (or a Gauss or AC20). Why should I not be able to build a Hollander Cicada if it fits?

Most lights and mediums don't have the ability to mass lots of small guns (not enough hard points), so the only option is larger guns. It is very easy to find yourself with 5-8 free tons of weight and no way to mount anything else to fill that space on these machines. I mean lets take a Spider 5D, max armor with ES, FF, and DHS and you have 10.14 tons of open weight to use. Do you mount 2 LL (trimming armor)? Do you mount 3 MPL (6 tons and leaving you at .64 tons left with a single JJ and 3 extra DHS) ? Or what about 3 ML builds with ~7 tons of hard to use weight? With space restricted hard points the later is more likely than the former.

Why can't you fit 10lbs of **** into a 5lbs bag?
Sometimes things just don't fit, Man.
I'd love to see some restrictions on the customization of Mechs.
Some sort of tolerance +/- as to what will fit in the hardpoint. Being able to squeeze an AC2 into a MG slot makes sense - cramming an AC20 into an MG slot defies physics.

Edited by Fut, 07 November 2013 - 12:53 PM.

[Adridos]

RedDragon, on 07 November 2013 - 11:48 AM, said:

The real problem is that people think they are entitled to have a mechlab and when they get one, they scream bloody murder about balance.

Pretty much this.

You have two options:
Show them a middle finger and balance the game out with no mechlab, MW:LL style.
Make a SP game where balance is irrelevant, MW 1-4 style.

[topgun505]

There was a {Scrap}-ton of calculations that went into a BV2 value for TT units. Go ahead and say it wasn't and I'll throw you in front of Herb (the former line developer) and I'll watch you melt from the heat when his head explodes from your statement.

Edited by topgun505, 07 November 2013 - 01:02 PM.

[CyclonerM]

Actually MW4 had sized hardpoints.
This is one of the few changes i would have loved to see, would have solved many problems.
But you know what would have solved even more problems?
Homeless Bill's targeting computer idea! here his old http://mwomercs.com/...d-clans/]thread[/url].
It may have solved alphas, boating, crazy builds and Clans issues without Ghost Heat.
Moreover, it would have added more complexity and deepness to the game and in some way resembled more the TT with accuracy penalties, while still basing the kills on the player's skill.

[Nation Uprise]

I wanted Hardpoint Restrictions from the beginning. And by beginning I mean closed beta. There were many of us who realized very early in the games development that in order to have more overall balance and have a better way of tweaking individual mechs, hardpoint restrictions had to be put into the game. Tweaking a mech's hardpoints is infinitely easier to do in order to address over and underpowered mechs, instead of changing weapon numbers that affect every single mech.

When I saw that PGI is more willing to waste time redesigning and remodeling every mech based on the weapons equipped (the first being the K2 that showed equipped Gauss or AC20s on side torsos) I realized that HP restrictions are never going to come to fruition. PGI is willing to spend man hours going back and remodeling mechs than easily implementing, through the UI, stops on equipping certain weapons. Funny, seeing how it could've easily been done since they're already working on UI2.0. Now we're stuck with what we have; its too late. Can't wait to see the how they try to figure out how multiple mechs are gonna basically be copies of eachother only with different skins. We already see how Awesome has been completely usurped by Stalker, cause it can do everything the Awesome can and more.

Edited by Nation Uprise, 07 November 2013 - 01:36 PM.

[Nothing Whatsoever]

Kaox Veed, on 07 November 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think it would make more sense to have weapons take up a certain number of hard points, that way you could shove a bigger weapon in a spot but not multiples. So like an Awesome could mount its PPCs saying that takes 2 energy slots, but it could mount 2 medium lasers in that spot if it wanted to instead because they would take up 1. LLas and PPC 2 slots, all the other energy weapons would be 1.

SRM4s and 2s LRM 5s and 10s, would be 1, while SRM6s and LRM15 and 20s would be 2.
MG AC2 would be 1, AC5 UAC5 and AC10 would be 2, and AC20 would be 3.

Just a thought.

This is an alternative that can be explored, and could keep the mechlab open and flexible enough, without reducing available hardpoints on mechs.

[Tiamat of the Sea]

Kaox Veed, on 07 November 2013 - 12:42 PM, said:

I think it would make more sense to have weapons take up a certain number of hard points, that way you could shove a bigger weapon in a spot but not multiples. So like an Awesome could mount its PPCs saying that takes 2 energy slots, but it could mount 2 medium lasers in that spot if it wanted to instead because they would take up 1. LLas and PPC 2 slots, all the other energy weapons would be 1.

SRM4s and 2s LRM 5s and 10s, would be 1, while SRM6s and LRM15 and 20s would be 2.
MG AC2 would be 1, AC5 UAC5 and AC10 would be 2, and AC20 would be 3.

Just a thought.

Wait, we could refine it further! Make it even more specific! Have Small/Medium lasers and AC/2s and MGs and SRM2s and 4s and LRM 5s take up one slot each, have LLs and LRM 10s and SRM 6s take up two slots each, have PPCs and LRM 15s take up three slots, and AC/5s take up 4 slots, then give LRM-20s and UAC/5s 5 slots and you can have even bigger things take up, like, 6 or 7 slots for the AC/10 forms and the Gauss, and the AC/20 can occupy 10 because it's huge!

.....oh wait.