74 replies to this topic

[Shadey99]

GalaxyBluestar, on 07 November 2013 - 04:43 PM, said:

because if you want a small mech with a big weapon than wait for that mech to come along like the panther for ppcs and the hollander for gauss, those mechs have no reason to be added with such free customisation now and we're seeing the fruits of such concepts HERE.

we could justify having more mechs and mechs carrying off their intended rolewarfare if designs had a few more hardpoints but limit them in slots. sick of duo highlander poptarts? give them an hard point then cut down their slots so they can't fit 2 ppc's or 2 ac5s. want an ac20 on a light mech? GIVE US URBIE and stop forcing us to use the raven or cicada like a derp.

but no you guys screamed my customisation i should have it all. so now we have omnis with no point to try others as the spreadsheet warriors find one mech to rule them all instead of one role mech being taken out by another role mech etc etc. it's what a bunch of us argued a year ago and they catered for people like you. so don't whinge when the next splatcat or next ppc stalker rules you all. that's customisation the freedom for everyone to reach the top and junk the rest.

I want the Panther. Heck I'd also take an Urbie, a Hussar, Javelin, Mercury, Mongoose, Flea, or Firestarter. I also see no issue with either any of them in the current game.

The original place of a Panther was to be one of the only lights mounting a PPC. I don't mind that it is possible for other lights to run PPCs, though currently it is a pretty short list. Commandos can run a PPC, the Spider 5D can run one, so can Jenners and Ravens. I don't think we need to hurt the options of those mechs to 'make' a role for the Panther.

It would look exactly like this: Panther PNT-10K or Panther PNT-9R. However Physically it should look more like the Spider. It could also likely be tweaked more like this by players: Tweaked Panther.

The problem most people would have with it is not it's 'odd' mix of weapons. No, it's the speed of 106 kph. I however don't see that being a huge issue.

[FupDup]

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

Not sure what you mean. You mean like an Atlas might have 5 ballistic slots and an AC/20 takes up 4 ballistic slots while an AC/5 takes up 2 ballistic slots? That would get really confusing since we already have critical slots... unless you got rid of critical slots like MW4 did.

If you ask me MW4's system was the best. Because it got rid of critical slots completely. You just had hardpoints of varying types and sizes.

No. I mean our current critical slot system that we have. For instance, XL engines take up 3 slots per side torso, DHS are 3 slots, Medium Lasers are just 1 slot, etc. etc. It's the "slots" stat as indicated in Smurfys.

On the Atlas example, it comes stock with an AC/20. That weapon currently occupies 10 critical slots, so the Atlas's right torso would have a minimum of 10 slots open for ballistics (I would bump it up to 12 because it's an assault mech, and as such should carry lots of dakka). In this example, any ballistic weapon could fit into that spot. A different example would be the Catapult K2, which I would give up to 4 ballistic slots per side torso. This means the K2 could wield up to dual AC/5, but nothing larger.

Additionally, there would be a limit on the total number of weapons you can fit, besides the raw number of slots. For instance, that Atlas would probably be able to hold something like 2-3 ballistics max in that right torso, even if their total slot occupation would be less than 12. That means the Atlas could only carry 3 MGs, and not 12 (even though each MG only takes up 1 slot). The reason for this secondary limitation is to help distinguish between mechs that are designed to carry large numbers of small weapons, and mechs that are designed to carry small numbers of giant weapons--an MW4 system would let the mechs with big guns carry very large amounts of the little guns (i.e. MW4 Annihilator with 16 Machine Guns).

Edited by FupDup, 07 November 2013 - 05:44 PM.

[Khobai]

Ah ok I understand now. That could work, although it would require a major overhaul to the game. The advantage of just having large and small hardpoints is that it can be coded into the game in less than a week.

[GalaxyBluestar]

Shadey99, on 07 November 2013 - 05:37 PM, said:

I want the Panther. Heck I'd also take an Urbie, a Hussar, Javelin, Mercury, Mongoose, Flea, or Firestarter. I also see no issue with either any of them in the current game.

The original place of a Panther was to be one of the only lights mounting a PPC. I don't mind that it is possible for other lights to run PPCs, though currently it is a pretty short list. Commandos can run a PPC, the Spider 5D can run one, so can Jenners and Ravens. I don't think we need to hurt the options of those mechs to 'make' a role for the Panther.

It would look exactly like this: Panther PNT-10K or Panther PNT-9R. However Physically it should look more like the Spider. It could also likely be tweaked more like this by players: Tweaked Panther.

The problem most people would have with it is not it's 'odd' mix of weapons. No, it's the speed of 106 kph. I however don't see that being a huge issue.

then how oftern have you heard this...

why run victor when highlander does it better.

why run raven when jenner does it better.

the list goes on, customisation takes the jobs other chassis could have, i won't be running a panther if the speed and hitboxes aren't uber better than the spider or jenner. this is one of the things we talked about a year ago when wanting some role warfare, because the pilot trees aren't coming soon enough as well.

[Sybreed]

Shadey99, on 07 November 2013 - 04:13 PM, said:

How do you balance a AC20 or Gauss with this though? It makes no sense if we adopt your system and then say if we have 3 ballistics slots (Battlemaster arm), but we cannot mount an AC20... Which is the case of the Battlemaster 1D. The hand articulators block it from mounting the AC20 though not the Gauss... and if we then need 4 ballistics slots for a AC20, but 3 for a Gauss we would have to vastly adjust all existing mechs... Which could now chose to hold 4+ AC2s instead.

So... Lets take our new Misery with 3 ballistics hard points instead of 1 and it's new 3xAC2 loadout... Or the Atlas D-DC with as many as 4...

Why go through all this and not just keep a functional long lasting critical space and weight limitation we already have?

they could just give a one heavy HP from the get go? jesus why is it so hard to understand?

[KhanHeir]

GalaxyBluestar, on 07 November 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

then how oftern have you heard this...

why run victor when highlander does it better.

why run raven when jenner does it better.

the list goes on, customisation takes the jobs other chassis could have, i won't be running a panther if the speed and hitboxes aren't uber better than the spider or jenner. this is one of the things we talked about a year ago when wanting some role warfare, because the pilot trees aren't coming soon enough as well.

a super gold realises something Kong was trying to explain in january.....

In other news water is wet and PGI is incompetent.

[Shadey99]

Sybreed, on 07 November 2013 - 06:01 PM, said:

they could just give a one heavy HP from the get go? jesus why is it so hard to understand?

And what per se does 1 'Heavy HP' actually entail? Just an AC20, so you can never mount another ballistic? And that still doesn't explain if a 'Heavy HP' overrides the normal limits in things like arms with functional hands.

These systems cause as many problems as it fixes. I didn't like these odd hard point setups in MW4 ages ago because it obfuscates things that are not so complex that they need it. Underneath the pretty designs and the mythos presented for them all mechs are functionally identical. It's not a surprise to me that anything that follows the rules presented for developing mechs is going to start to make mechs that are functionally identical.

[Kaijin]

Probably one of the most extreme of the adherents to restricted hardpoints, I've advocated since closed beta for limiting weapon loadout customization to 1 or 2 weapon changes, which would be in module format in 2 levels, (which is generous, considering the lore) with unlimited weapon loadout customization restricted to Solaris matches. There are very few of us who desire this level of lore immersion. We are like a grain of sand on 'The Island.'

It'll never happen.

[GalaxyBluestar]

KhanHeir, on 07 November 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

a super gold realises something Kong was trying to explain in january.....

In other news water is wet and PGI is incompetent.

so was i during the course of a1 streak sauce, that k2's shouldn't mount gauss causs the 4x phract was redundant and awesomes have always been in the shadow of stalkers. but you guys attacked the catapult mech not the customisation mechanics!?

[Prezimonto]

I don't mind that we can make Hollander cicadas... I just want them to have a chance to fall over every time they fire.

Oh the lulz that would be had.

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:49 PM, said:

Ah ok I understand now. That could work, although it would require a major overhaul to the game. The advantage of just having large and small hardpoints is that it can be coded into the game in less than a week.

I bet it still took them 3 months.

[Wolfways]

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 hardpoints could equip any type of weapon PGI would have a hard time selling hero mechs.

[Wolfways]

CyclonerM, on 07 November 2013 - 01:05 PM, said:

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.

This, this, and so much this.

[Lykaon]

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?

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.

[Wolfways]

Khobai, on 07 November 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

If you ask me MW4's system was the best. Because it got rid of critical slots completely. You just had hardpoints of varying types and sizes. That was the best and most streamlined system to date and MWO took a huge step backwards not implementing it.

Was that something like this?: (1:03)

[mike29tw]

Wolfways, on 07 November 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Was that something like this?: (1:03)

I'm not pointing fingers, but some players still mistake this game with that.

[Destoroyah]

Hardpoint sizes to limit large weapons and the current hard point numbers restriction is the best way to go as the hardpoint sizes will keep the large weapons in check and the hardpoint number limits keep small weapon boating in check. It's also one of the simpilest systems to impliment. A HNK-4G gots 1 large ballistc and 2 small ballistic hp so it gots 1 ballistic hp it can put whatever it wants in and 2 it can only fit the smaller ones. Or a Catapult-K2 gots 1 large energy in each arm, also 1 small energy and 1 small ballistic in each side torso. The change is simple in that it doesn't require drastic changes, just a slight pasthrough of the mechs and a bit of coding to recognize when you got a suitable HP slot to determeine what it shows you is available to decide what is appropriate for that mech while still giving players cutomization freedom just with a few more restrictions.

Out of many MMOs I played especially those with a PvP focus. Freeform systems are the worst thing you can do as your never achieve any real level of balance cause once you change something a new power setup is always going to pop up and the droves will flock to it. Yes there are always going to be complainers even in a more restricted system, but at least then its a bit easier to deal with the situation as you only have to look at a specific mech instead of changing a uniform feature like a weapon that could have wide spreading ripple effects. If certain mech chassis are deemed overpowered there are ways too help bring them in check like noticabley decreasing its handling or placing speed limits or tweaking the hitboxes.

Lykaon basically hit the reason why hardpoint sizes are a very good thing for the game on the nose. it allows the devs to make fine tuning balance changes without the risk of causing widespread damage with sweeping changes.

Edited by Destoroyah, 08 November 2013 - 01:43 AM.

[RedDragon]

Shadey99, on 07 November 2013 - 03:07 PM, said:

We actually had BT developer on here discussing this a few months ago.... Their may be a 'BV formula', but the base numbers are all pretty much whatever the developers felt like at the time. Which sort of explains why their has been 2 versions of BV.

As for the rest, you either balance per player or we must be able to select mechs after getting onto a team. It would take hours to match 12 players versus 12 players having to match the team BVs while people can randomly take any BV value. I mean how close in BV do you even expect to get? A locust is BV of 356 or 432, so even a difference of 300 BV coudl be crippling. This is even worse if your trying to match ELO.



Making R&R worthwhile, yet not crippling games is going to be nearly impossible... A single mech who decides to be optimized and go for the alpha meta instead of playing to R&R benefits (like many older players sitting on fortunes could do) could lopside entire games. So play for R&R benefits and lose or play with no regard for R&R and win. Seriously what do you think people will do? Losing tends to give very low rewards, because that is what people want (higher rewards for winning than losing) so how long can you afford to lose?



Except I have 10 tons and my options are 6 tons or 10 tons and I only wanted one or the other?

Or to make this easy, I have a a basket that can hold 8 apples. I can either fit in 6 apples or 8 apples and there is no difference.

To make this battletech instead... I have 4 slots and 8 tons, a AC2 is 1 and 6 or a AC5 is 4 and 8. Now why exactly can't I stick a AC5 in that space again? Because to me it sure ******* looks like it fits.

*sigh* Can you actually provide anything close to constructive critique or is your sole goal to tell everyone here their ideas suck? If you perfectly know why things won't work, please provide us some insight what would work. Or are you satisfied with the current system, a.k.a. no system to balance drops and mechs/weapons?

Naturally the BV numbers come out of thin air. There is no physical law that states "a large laser must have X BV". The point is to put those numbers into perspective towards each other so that you get a system that approximately can show how much better some equipment is than something else. Sure, it can't be perfect, you'd only need to change one outside variable (choosing a map with many hills that benefit jump jets for example) to have a heavy impact on balance. But it's a good system nevertheless (in regard to the task at hand) and it did work if you put some common sense into it. At least it was the best system for TT, which had the same equipment as MWO, so it would at least be a good starting point.
And the best about this system is that it could be tuned on the fly. Everybody takes dual AC20? Just add an algorithm that punishes boating. Just like Ghost Heat but without messing with the actual game play.

Regarding the matching: Naturally you'd have to change the way the matchmaker works as a whole. Giving a range for "needed" BV before you choose your mech for example. It wouldn't be much different than now with ELO. Either you have a good match on the fly or you wait a little longer and/or the matching range becomes wider. If people want to have their mech lab and still play fair games, they have to endure longer waiting times if there are not enough players only.
It's not a perfect system, but it's miles better than what we have now or what you'd get by matching weight. The system doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be one of the better alternatives, that's the point you don't seem to realize.

If you put in R&R into the game now, that may happen. So you'd have to combine it with something like BV or a drop limit by C-Bill-value of your team or something like that. Again, it's not a perfect system, but you could make it a better one than the one we have now where everyone can take the heaviest and best mechs and weapons without being penalized in any way (or without being rewarded for not doing it).

[xengk]

Wolfways, on 07 November 2013 - 11:38 PM, said:

Was that something like this?: (1:03)

Goto 2:04

Mech building would just be about sticking the biggest gun a slot can hold.

No one want to gimp their mech by putting a "small" weapon in a "big" slot. Why should I replace the PPC or LLaz with Mlaz or SLaz in that energy HP, as long as I have the free weight?
Variants with multiple small slot (4x 1EN vs 2x 2EN) would be DOA and abandon by players.

HP system would eliminate cheese builds but at the cost of turning every match into a mirror match with mechs with identical optimized load out.

Edited by xengk, 08 November 2013 - 01:49 AM.

[Shadey99]

RedDragon, on 08 November 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

*sigh* Can you actually provide anything close to constructive critique or is your sole goal to tell everyone here their ideas suck? If you perfectly know why things won't work, please provide us some insight what would work. Or are you satisfied with the current system, a.k.a. no system to balance drops and mechs/weapons?

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.

RedDragon, on 08 November 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Naturally the BV numbers come out of thin air. There is no physical law that states "a large laser must have X BV". The point is to put those numbers into perspective towards each other so that you get a system that approximately can show how much better some equipment is than something else. Sure, it can't be perfect, you'd only need to change one outside variable (choosing a map with many hills that benefit jump jets for example) to have a heavy impact on balance. But it's a good system nevertheless (in regard to the task at hand) and it did work if you put some common sense into it. At least it was the best system for TT, which had the same equipment as MWO, so it would at least be a good starting point.
And the best about this system is that it could be tuned on the fly. Everybody takes dual AC20? Just add an algorithm that punishes boating. Just like Ghost Heat but without messing with the actual game play.

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.

RedDragon, on 08 November 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Regarding the matching: Naturally you'd have to change the way the matchmaker works as a whole. Giving a range for "needed" BV before you choose your mech for example. It wouldn't be much different than now with ELO. Either you have a good match on the fly or you wait a little longer and/or the matching range becomes wider. If people want to have their mech lab and still play fair games, they have to endure longer waiting times if there are not enough players only.
It's not a perfect system, but it's miles better than what we have now or what you'd get by matching weight. The system doesn't have to be perfect, it only has to be one of the better alternatives, that's the point you don't seem to realize.

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.

RedDragon, on 08 November 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

If you put in R&R into the game now, that may happen. So you'd have to combine it with something like BV or a drop limit by C-Bill-value of your team or something like that. Again, it's not a perfect system, but you could make it a better one than the one we have now where everyone can take the heaviest and best mechs and weapons without being penalized in any way (or without being rewarded for not doing it).

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.

[Karl Streiger]

BV and tonnage limits or even szenario bound mechs are really good for lobbys
You know that the enemy drops with for example 24.000 BV you know that it means 12 assaults. You can simple deny to play against them.

Another idea is that BV is a measurement what do you bring to the table. For example Team 1 has 24.000 BV - team 2 only drops with 12.000

Team 2 is able of killing two mechs worth 4000 - while loosing a single Mech for 1000 BV - but team 1 wins.
So the gain for team 1 is:
12/24 * 1/4 = 0.125 * cbills and xp for winning, damage, assits, kills......
So the gain for team 2 is
24/12 * 4/1 = 8 * cbills and xp for loosing, damage, assits, kills....

You can also make this indivdual on the player - when you bring high BV mechs the gain is lower