74 replies to this topic

[RedDragon]

Shadey99, on 08 November 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

Yes, because fixing one of the few things that is not broken is so very constructive... The Mehclab is not your enemy, sorry but that is the truth. This thought that we need to 'fix' a system that is not really broken seems more like some weird kind of MW4 (limited hard points) or TT (BV) sickness to me.

That's where our views differ. I think the mech lab in fact is "the enemy" (or at least a problem), like many other people also do, what should be obvious by the number of threads/posts about it. Allowing the players to configure their mechs in the way we have now will always lead to imbalances because players tend to min-max and use every loop-hole they can get their hands on. So realistically spoken, if you want to have a balanced MW, there is no place for a flexible mech lab like we have it now. Further, if the game shall take place in the BT universe and time line, there should also not be the possibility to fully customize your mech. There are chassis and variants for a reason. If players want to fully customize their mechs, there should be an extra game mode like Solaris 7 or something.

Shadey99, on 08 November 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

Realistically what I was trying to suggest is that 'BV' should be based on hard stats that show X weapon provides X bonus to a player. However even that you seem to start to get it in your last line, you go out into 'ghost heat' land where the goal is to penalize anything that becomes popular. That is not the goal of BV, the goal of BV (at least should be) a fairly accurate numerical value representing the advantage a particular mech/variant/build has over some sort of baseline.

I think you are hanging up on semantics here. penalizing too good builds is the same as "representing the advantage a particular mech/variant/build has over some sort of baseline". A BV does nothing else than to make mechs and pieces of equipment comparable to other items, no matter how you call it.

Shadey99, on 08 November 2013 - 03:02 AM, said:

What I said was that you need a system like the one that we don't yet have that lets you pick a mech or this becomes a mess. That mess will not be 'better than we have now' in most ways, only at some variation of the word 'balance'. No, what we need are game modes and strategies that don't emphasize 'killing the enemy is all that is important' and 'blobbing up wins'. We need some reason for tactics or strategy at all. We don't have that. Goals other than 'crush all the enemy mechs' are not rewarded and we have no cause what so ever to split up with the sole exception of the end of a conquest match on smaller maps.

We need game reasons why taking something lighter is useful. Trying to force people to play 'lower' is a tactic bound to cause player rejection. "Our BV is to high, someone gimp themselves." Is not a good method of player feedback and unlikely to cause happy players. Unhappy players stop playing. Tactical reasons for 'lesser' machines along with 'lesser' mechs to have a place in the meta will fix that. But as has been said before 'Why take a medium? It's gimping yourself' is the hard issue that needs fixed. We have suggested fixes to make certain classes, mechs, and variants more viable and if they were even taken seriously that would go miles to fixing why everyone plays assaults and heavies. BV, R&R, and other added systems only force at least some players to do something that hurts their play in the hope of fixing balance.

I wholeheartedly agree about new game modes, CW, rewards etc. But where is forcing players to fill a certain role better than forcing players to take a certain BV? Without BV, those rolls will also be filled by ever the same mechs because they are just better than others. There still won't be a reason to take anything but the FOTM. And BV doesn't even force you to take a mech. The lobby could suggest going by X BV because that is what is needed at the moment, but you could as well take something completely different and hope you get a slot or wait a bit longer, same as we have now with ELO, only that you have the choice to actually influence your waiting time.

[Shadey99]

Lykaon, on 07 November 2013 - 11:24 PM, said:

You are making a leap in assuming that a hardpoint limitation would be as strict as your are illistrating.
A well designed hardpoint limitation would allow for some specific variants to mount somewhat outlandish loadouts while limiting the outlandish to specific chassis variants.

An example would be if say the all too popular twin AC 20 Jaegermech was not an option for every Jaegermech chassis as it is now but only an option on a few or one Jaeger variant.

If for example the Jaeger DD was the only variant with any ballistic hardpoints that had capacity in crit slots to hold an AC 20.This would make the DD variant the only AC 40 platform within the Jagermech family.

Now if it turns out that twin AC 20s are being difficult with balancing the game we don't have the devs run off and make ghost heat or nerf the AC 20 they can instead address the Jagermech DD variant directly.

The Jagermech DD is the problem not a Hunchback 4G with a single AC 20.So the Jagermech DD gets some engine cap adjustments and/or chassis quirks or alterations to torso rotation arcs or arm pitch.

Now we have a mech that can mount twin 20s but it's also the slowest least manuverable or most difficult to aim etc variant and that is what balances the loadout not some all encompassing nerf.

Hardpoint limits can become a potent tool for devs to balance the game by allowing the focus to come away from all encompassing effects like Ghost heat or specific weapon nerfs like Gauss charge and instead allow for isolation to specific chassis variants.Now it's Mech Variants being adjusted not everything under all circumstances regardless of if it was in need of changes.

I've started to see plenty of AC40 Jagers again, because frontloaded damage is king. If I don't have to wait a second while I stare at you to inflict damage then I have a vast advantage over someone who does. Personally I still prefer my 2xAC2+2xAC5 Jagers, but I'm 'odd'.

Now if the JM6-DD was the only AC40 Jager and people wanted to do AC40 Jagers, then all you would ever see is the JM6-DD. Making variants 'unique' is also a good way to kill off any variant that doesn't fit the current 'meta'. I mean, if you want to play an AC40 build and the JM6-DD is the only one that can run it, then why own anything other than the JM6-DD?

Now if you also decide that it has to be the slowest least capable Jager, then not running the 'optimal build' is just 'gimping' yourself. I mean, why exactly would you run paired AC2s and AC5s if we have nerfed the JM6-DD because it can run 'AC40'? The system already is designed to penalize builds that take big weapons, while allowing you to run 'lesser' builds without penalty. Want to take those big dual AC20s? Well then you'll need to take a fairly small engine to have room for ammo and can we even fit backup weapons? Well those will require some tweaking. But if we want to run MGs or AC2s we can go with a bigger engine and any extras we would care to run.

[MustrumRidcully]

Hardpoint restrictions might be good for flavor and realism, but for balance, they do very little.

The canon has mixed weapon builds that can only be described as suboptimal, and min/maxed optimized mono-cultural/specialized/boated builds that come straight from a muchkin powergamer's wet dreams.

Battle Value was designed for the table top game. It was imperfect, but let's say it was good enough (and it might be) - it was definitely not made for MWO, however, which changes a lot of assumptions. Heat works differently. Armor has different values. Attack results are not determined by a to-hit roll and a hit location table with specific probabilities, but with mouse aim aided by computer-calculated convergence of weapons. Weapons in the table top had different damage output and heat production, they had different ranges (and range had a different effect).
In short, you want battle value? You need a set of numbers that needs to be carefully estimated. And you need a way to calculate Elo rankings into it too (the BV system also considers the pilot quality, after all).
You want Battle Value to balance team? You must drop the 12v12 system and become more flexible in team setups.

A very complex redesign on many fronts.

And ultimately, if you're clever enough to figure out battle values for weapons - could you not also use this knowledge to balance the items in game better by nerfs and buffs?*

*) there might be honestly an argument against this. The way the heat system works, it seems to me you can only balance on a build level - which means you would have to predefine allowed builds and could tweak them, but you can't tweak a single weapon value for a customizable system. Basically, you could only come up with a set of legal variants, but no freedom of customization.) That is why I am always and constantly pushing for a different heat system and to find a solution for the convergence problem. Without that, you just can't achieve a game with customziation and balance.

[Gryphorim]

Chiming in late here, but what if the was a restriction to hardpoints like small, large huge whatever, and you put a huge weapon in a small hardpoint, this being allowed, BUT the weapon suffers reduced efficiency, by way of slow cycle, jams, or ghost heat, (and remove ghost heat in other circumstances.) for example. Thoughts?

[Shadey99]

RedDragon, on 08 November 2013 - 03:22 AM, said:

But where is forcing players to fill a certain role better than forcing players to take a certain BV? Without BV, those rolls will also be filled by ever the same mechs because they are just better than others. There still won't be a reason to take anything but the FOTM. And BV doesn't even force you to take a mech. The lobby could suggest going by X BV because that is what is needed at the moment, but you could as well take something completely different and hope you get a slot or wait a bit longer, same as we have now with ELO, only that you have the choice to actually influence your waiting time.

I'm suggesting we cannot force anyone. Forcing them is the problem. Some people should want to play mechs that the current meta considers 'unoptimal', because we would theoretically provide bonuses that makes them worthwhile. Going back to medium mechs lets fix the oversized nature of most if not all of them, give them accel/decell benefits, increase their turning ability. Now they would have uses besides being underpowered heavies.

[Karl Streiger]

Gryphorim, on 08 November 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

Chiming in late here, but what if the was a restriction to hardpoints like small, large huge whatever, and you put a huge weapon in a small hardpoint, this being allowed, BUT the weapon suffers reduced efficiency, by way of slow cycle, jams, or ghost heat, (and remove ghost heat in other circumstances.) for example. Thoughts?

Why people always applied about hardpoint sizes? (no offense intended)

the MWO Mechlab - is more permiting as "field refit kits" rules of CBT but on the other hand it is more restrictiv. In my opinion in a combination that is mostly a disadvantage. (number of new combination of Mech Hardpoints is dwindling = no reasons for MOAR Mechs -> no real difference between Mechs -> only difference is measured in degrees, micro seconds and not measure able hit point sizes)

What about critical sizes at all?
A light Mech has light Mech criticals
a assault Mech has assault Mech criticals

a Gauss Rifle comes with 7 heavy Mech cricials = 9 medium criticals or 12 light criticals or 5 assault criticals
= Assault Mechs can pack more weapons and components into there huge hitboxes. Light Mechs can not.

same for engines -
-200er rating = light
200-250 rating = medium
250-280 rating = heavy
295-400 rating = assault
resulting in engine sizes (could mean a assault with a 200 rating could have XL - and will survive the lost of a side torso)

This change is neighter cannon - but it affect everything but FF, ES

[CDLord HHGD]

If you go with sized hardpoints, you gotta keep it simple. Large and Small. Large can equip small but not the other way around.

Small Weapons: TAG, SL, ML, MG, AC2, AC5, NARC, SRM2, SRM4, LRM5, LRM10.
Large Weapons: LL, PPC, AC10, AC20, Gauss, SRM6, LRM15, LRM20.

*Includes variations of the listed weapons; ER, pulse, streak, LB-X, UAC, etc.

[Shadey99]

cdlord, on 08 November 2013 - 05:37 AM, said:

If you go with sized hardpoints, you gotta keep it simple. Large and Small. Large can equip small but not the other way around.

Small Weapons: TAG, SL, ML, MG, AC2, AC5, NARC, SRM2, SRM4, LRM5, LRM10.
Large Weapons: LL, PPC, AC10, AC20, Gauss, SRM6, LRM15, LRM20.

The problem with this is the way that works with things like arms (which may or may not have hands or other articulators) and center torsos. A 'large energy weapon hardpoint' in the CT in your system would have to fit a PPC (or it becomes even more confusing along the lines of ghost heat). A 'Large Ballistics Hard point' in an arm then has to mount an AC20 even though you have a hand. Or in a case like the JM6-DD, does that now mean I can mount 3 AC5s in a single arm since theoretically 3 are all 'small' weapons?

Hard points in MW4 and MW Tactics both come in a variety of sizes to adjust for these kinds of issues. However both systems also have lots of other problems.

[CDLord HHGD]

Shadey99, on 08 November 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

The problem with this is the way that works with things like arms (which may or may not have hands or other articulators) and center torsos. A 'large energy weapon hardpoint' in the CT in your system would have to fit a PPC (or it becomes even more confusing along the lines of ghost heat). A 'Large Ballistics Hard point' in an arm then has to mount an AC20 even though you have a hand. Or in a case like the JM6-DD, does that now mean I can mount 3 AC5s in a single arm since theoretically 3 are all 'small' weapons?

Hard points in MW4 and MW Tactics both come in a variety of sizes to adjust for these kinds of issues. However both systems also have lots of other problems.

No, the second level of constraint would continue to be available crit space like it is now. If the standard loadout comes with MLs in the CT, they would automatically be Small Energy Hardpoints. If it comes with a single LL in the CT, that would be a Large Energy Hardpoint basically allowing for any Energy weapon to be installed provided the crit space is available. I do not see this as a hard thing to adjust to because we are already used to it.

[Karl Streiger]

Not to mention that I'm not able to replace for example a AC 10 with 2 Large Laser and a SRM 4 - what would have been a field modification in CBT (STRATOPS) rules.

(Mounting additional heatsinks however would have to be done in a real maintenance hangar )

[Shadey99]

cdlord, on 08 November 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

No, the second level of constraint would continue to be available crit space like it is now. If the standard loadout comes with MLs in the CT, they would automatically be Small Energy Hardpoints. If it comes with a single LL in the CT, that would be a Large Energy Hardpoint basically allowing for any Energy weapon to be installed provided the crit space is available. I do not see this as a hard thing to adjust to because we are already used to it.

That is overly complicated... A constrained hard point system on top of a critical space system would leave lots of people asking why the AC20 won't fit in this large hard point, but it does in that large hard point. One or the other is less complex as there are no contradictions to deal with.

Obviously in a critical space system a AC20 doesn't fit in that arm because it doesn't have the room for it. Obviously that AC20 won't fit in that arm because it's a small hard point, etc. When you combine both criteria you confuse certain people the forum will not let me describe and who need to be my canon fodder...

Edited by Shadey99, 08 November 2013 - 06:22 AM.

[Thejuggla]

I think MW4 hard point sizing would work well, it would at least be a start to make mechs a lot more unquie and balance out heavier weapon boating. I think if that were to happen ghost heat would still be needed but to stop boating of smaller weapons instead.

[CDLord HHGD]

Shadey99, on 08 November 2013 - 06:20 AM, said:

That is overly complicated... A constrained hard point system on top of a critical space system would leave lots of people asking why the AC20 won't fit in this large hard point, but it does in that large hard point. One or the other is less complex as there are no contradictions to deal with.

Obviously in a critical space system a AC20 doesn't fit in that arm because it doesn't have the room for it. Obviously that AC20 won't fit in that arm because it's a small hard point, etc. When you combine both criteria you confuse certain people the forum will not let me describe and who need to be my canon fodder...

So I think we are on the same page with sympathy for those who would be confused by such a mechanic but I stand by my idea and it'll be no worse than when people came on here asking why they cannot fit a laser in a ballistic hardpoint. I expanded on another thread concerning the clans and how they would be implemented and introduced the Universal Hardpoint for omnimechs. It works for the most part and lets face it, the mechlab is no place for (I don't want to say noobs because we all started there)...... No place to go into without some knowledge of the mechanics of the game.

[Blacksoul1987]

Thejuggla, on 08 November 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

I think MW4 hard point sizing would work well, it would at least be a start to make mechs a lot more unquie and balance out heavier weapon boating. I think if that were to happen ghost heat would still be needed but to stop boating of smaller weapons instead.

You would think so, but........ in reality it didn't work that way at all in mw4 you only saw boats nothing else unless the person was new or just messing around, what did the hard point restriction in that game accomplish? well mw4 had a lot of mechs and many were very unique but well only a few were ever used seriously if it couldn't boat it was trash.

[Destoroyah]

well the boat problem in MW4 was cause they didn't restrict how many weapons you could fit in as the only limit was how much crit space you had so you had a 5 size energy harpoint you could put in 5 1cit energy.

The hardpoint system most are advocating for isn't complicated. If you got a large hardpoint you can put any weapon of the appropriate category in that slot even small weapons providing you got the free crit space and weight to fit the weapon just like we got now. Hardpoints both small and large will still be in the game just as they are now to help prevent boating. So if you got 1 large ballistic and 2 small ballistic it still totals 3 weapons just that the large one gives you the option to put in a larger weapon. They can even label the weapons in the UI as Small/Medium/Large to let players know where they rank and what is available to them.

I think there needs to be a medium category just for ballistics where the AC5s and AC10s go.

Edited by Destoroyah, 09 November 2013 - 12:47 AM.