22 replies to this topic

[Harrels Badgerton]

With all the concern and effort that's gone toward fixing boating I wanted to toss out an idea I had for differentiating mechs. My point when I came up with it wasn't really to stop AC boating or PPC boating - I think there will always be a FOTM/Min-max to some degree - but to make the actual chassis stand out and be more specialized.

Basically you'd take the variant of whatever chassis and then tighten the hardpoints up even more - maybe trimming some if necessary but definitely limiting what goes in that slot. As they are it seems like everything is a soft-omnimech. If you take that HBK-4G and make it almost the ONLY medium that can mount an AC/20 then it's more special, that's it's thing. Hardpoints could have a Small, Medium, or Large rating along with the actual hardware that goes into it.

K2s come with 2 ballistic slots and they wouldn't go anywhere, but maybe they can't mount anything more than an AC2. Shadowhawks have the same shoulder gun as a hunchback but it doesn't have an enormous hunch to go with it, so maybe only AC/10? Assaults would mostly get a free pass since they're so huge anyway, but you get the idea.
All the examples were ballistics because that's everyone's favorite rage lately (honestly just add a full second CD to each of them) but energy would be the same deal.

I know a huge draw to BT is the customization of your own build but creativity is more and more impressive when the point is working around a set of limitations.

[Mudhutwarrior]

I would miss screwing with builds. Half the fun is messing with screwy builds out there.

[Lyoto Machida]

Harrels Badgerton, on 14 November 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

With all the concern and effort that's gone toward fixing boating I wanted to toss out an idea I had for differentiating mechs. My point when I came up with it wasn't really to stop AC boating or PPC boating - I think there will always be a FOTM/Min-max to some degree - but to make the actual chassis stand out and be more specialized.

Basically you'd take the variant of whatever chassis and then tighten the hardpoints up even more - maybe trimming some if necessary but definitely limiting what goes in that slot. As they are it seems like everything is a soft-omnimech. If you take that HBK-4G and make it almost the ONLY medium that can mount an AC/20 then it's more special, that's it's thing. Hardpoints could have a Small, Medium, or Large rating along with the actual hardware that goes into it.

K2s come with 2 ballistic slots and they wouldn't go anywhere, but maybe they can't mount anything more than an AC2. Shadowhawks have the same shoulder gun as a hunchback but it doesn't have an enormous hunch to go with it, so maybe only AC/10? Assaults would mostly get a free pass since they're so huge anyway, but you get the idea.
All the examples were ballistics because that's everyone's favorite rage lately (honestly just add a full second CD to each of them) but energy would be the same deal.

I know a huge draw to BT is the customization of your own build but creativity is more and more impressive when the point is working around a set of limitations.

Let's just say that you're not the first person to think of this and leave it at that. Any more thought about the subject will just lead to frustration.

[Lykaon]

Harrels Badgerton, on 14 November 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

With all the concern and effort that's gone toward fixing boating I wanted to toss out an idea I had for differentiating mechs. My point when I came up with it wasn't really to stop AC boating or PPC boating - I think there will always be a FOTM/Min-max to some degree - but to make the actual chassis stand out and be more specialized.

Basically you'd take the variant of whatever chassis and then tighten the hardpoints up even more - maybe trimming some if necessary but definitely limiting what goes in that slot. As they are it seems like everything is a soft-omnimech. If you take that HBK-4G and make it almost the ONLY medium that can mount an AC/20 then it's more special, that's it's thing. Hardpoints could have a Small, Medium, or Large rating along with the actual hardware that goes into it.

K2s come with 2 ballistic slots and they wouldn't go anywhere, but maybe they can't mount anything more than an AC2. Shadowhawks have the same shoulder gun as a hunchback but it doesn't have an enormous hunch to go with it, so maybe only AC/10? Assaults would mostly get a free pass since they're so huge anyway, but you get the idea.
All the examples were ballistics because that's everyone's favorite rage lately (honestly just add a full second CD to each of them) but energy would be the same deal.

I know a huge draw to BT is the customization of your own build but creativity is more and more impressive when the point is working around a set of limitations.

Small medium and large hardpoints are not flexable enough to either be a useful tool for the developers or allow for much customization.

Now if instead of smal medium and large you actually manipulated the critical slot allotment per hardpoint you would be getting somewhere.By using critical slots as a characteristic for a hardpoint you have smaller incriments to tinker with.

By limiting hardpoints to small medium or large you are locked into 3 sizes or 2 inciments past the lowest value needed to exist (small hardpoint)

There is also the issue of when does a hardpoint get it's small medium or large status.I would assume for an example that an Awesome 8Q would by default have 3 large energy hardpoints (for the PPCs) and 1 small energy hardpoint (for the small laser) but what are the other 3 energy hardpoints? those are unused in the default configuration.

Does a mech like a Hunchback 4P have any hardpoints over small catagory? If it does not then how much customization is there available to the 4P?

What qualifies a ballistic to be of a size catagory?

When does large become large? An AC10 and a Gauss rifle are the same crit size yet a gauss rifle is heavyer is the AC 10 large ? is an LB10X also large?

What about missiles? LRM 5 small LRM 10 medium? LRM 15 medium or is it large? LRM 20s must be large.SRM2 is small SRM4 is Medium dispite also being 1 crit slot like the SRM2? SRM6 is large does artemis alter the catagory?

Why reinvent the wheel we already have critical slots in use just use the crit slots and not add yet another disjoined mechanic like small medium and large.

Edited by Lykaon, 14 November 2013 - 04:32 PM.

[Sandpit]

Not something I would like personally

[Deathlike]

The idea as the OP has described sounds good in theory (on paper), but is bad from a balance/FOTM perspective.

There will always be a chassis that is superior to other variants in its class, and that's OK, but having a chassis to be superior that other mechs in its weight class, that's a not so good. Yes, you might have something "unique" for certain chassis, but it would actually make balance worse as the FOTM would just lean towards that variant (if it wasn't the case already) where everything else that lacked the same attributes would seem inferior.

[Victor Morson]

"Leveled" slots is something we wanted from the start. There was no reason MW4 slot systems couldn't simply overlay onto the CBT TT rules.

i.e. instead of 3 Energy Hardpoints, you could have a level 2 and level 1 energy hardpoint, that could take up to three level 1 weapons, or a level 2 & level 1. It would have allowed for far, far greater diversity in 'mechs, which means more sales for PGI.

A lot of people accuse PGI of greed but when I see stuff like that, I can't possibly believe it's true. They've got a million ways to make us throw money at them and they simply don't do any of them.

[Fenris Krinkovich]

PGI has said in several ATD's that they don't want to do this. And they never change their minds.

[AC]

Deathlike, on 14 November 2013 - 04:38 PM, said:

The idea as the OP has described sounds good in theory (on paper), but is bad from a balance/FOTM perspective.

There will always be a chassis that is superior to other variants in its class, and that's OK, but having a chassis to be superior that other mechs in its weight class, that's a not so good. Yes, you might have something "unique" for certain chassis, but it would actually make balance worse as the FOTM would just lean towards that variant (if it wasn't the case already) where everything else that lacked the same attributes would seem inferior.

So how is that different from what we have now? We have chassis that are better than others and some that no one drives. By adding a critical slot limit to weapons slots gives the devs another tool to balance with. One that does not mega nerf the chassis. It will also TREMEDOUSLY help weapons balance because the devs can tweak the chassis that are breaking the weapons balance rather than dropping the nerf hammer on everyone. (ie.... Ghost Heat and Gauss Delay)

[Deathlike]

AC, on 14 November 2013 - 07:23 PM, said:

So how is that different from what we have now? We have chassis that are better than others and some that no one drives. By adding a critical slot limit to weapons slots gives the devs another tool to balance with. One that does not mega nerf the chassis. It will also TREMEDOUSLY help weapons balance because the devs can tweak the chassis that are breaking the weapons balance rather than dropping the nerf hammer on everyone. (ie.... Ghost Heat and Gauss Delay)

So, this is going to magically fix the Raven-2X over the Jenner-K? I think not.

I know it's kinda already problematic for certain chassis, but this isn't magically make other lesser chassis better.

For instance, even if we made the Awesome the foremost PPC boat, it's still bad, due to hitboxes and scale. Even if we restrict the Stalker to LL, it's still better than the Awesome, no matter how you try to justify it with "balance"

It's only going to limit many of the already great mechs to be primarily desired, whereas some of the other variants to be "slightly better". If we limit the HBK-4G to be the only AC20 50ton medium, I can still make decent builds for the HBK-4H that don't involve an AC20. It doesn't make the 4G better, but you've nerfed the potential of the 4H further. That's not exactly going to make stuff better. I mean, how are you going to properly balance that against the TBT-7K? The 7K doesn't have the "obvious hunch problem", so we should just cripple its limited options altogether?

You gotta think this through further.

[AC]

That's the point. The 7K should never run with an AC20 in the torso. It makes a better hunchback than the hunchback. Limiting weapons slots eliminates the need for Ghost Heat and Gauss Delay. It would also help limit "meta of the week" and high alpha pin point builds that people tend to complain about.

[Deathlike]

AC, on 14 November 2013 - 07:55 PM, said:

That's the point. The 7K should never run with an AC20 in the torso. It makes a better hunchback than the hunchback. Limiting weapons slots eliminates the need for Ghost Heat and Gauss Delay. It would also help limit "meta of the week" and high alpha pin point builds that people tend to complain about.

You're actually missing the point further.

There actually ISN'T many options for the 7K. I didn't bother building an AC20 version of it because it seemed silly (for various reasons), but let's say the AC20 isn't in play. So, what about 2 PPCs? Should we currently just limit 2 PPCs to the BJ-3 and eliminate any other medium to wield 2 PPCs outside of the BJ? It's actually pretty nice on the 7K, but under the kind of system proposed, we can keep playing this really lame game of "how do we restrict non-OP builds further", until the point where there's nothing of worth to build on it except "less cookie cutter builds" which are even further limited (because, there's no variety or options).

There's a reason why Frakenmechs are undesirable, but suggesting that we make them "optimal" goes further backwards needlessly.

Edited by Deathlike, 14 November 2013 - 08:05 PM.

[GalaxyBluestar]

well the problem is tighten mech customisation up too much you may as well run stock only

leave it as is and what's the point making new mechs? already we have a great redundancy of mechs because a few chassis do a whole lot of jobs too well and many mechs are hardly used because they're just not in that league.

i've said it before but it's not favoured, introduce critslots and add and subtract hardpoints to give chassis a more roleplay speciallised use. clans have omni racks so they didn't have to produce nearly as many mechs chassis as the IS. IS on the other hand relied on chosing a chassis to suit the role. at the moment there's many lights that can carry a ppc. goodbye panther. rav 4x can carry big ac's bye bye urbie, sentinal etc. the list of mechs that wouldn't be as good as say a spider or jenner because they can mimic loadouts but could perform better speeds and have better hitboxes etc means there's no point to new mechs.

and that's the problem the game faces, pgi are surviving on mech sales alone and have done for a year now. if they leave things loose then few people will be interested in buying new mechs because most people buy stuff to win not to pilot any particular chassis. not everyone is a hardcore BT fan who wants to always pilot something for nostalgia's sake. the money's in the most mechs possible, it's what pgi have developed more than anything else in this game this year.

all you need now is the best manurverability and armour coupled with hardpoint location and you got the uber mech, any other matching those hardpoints but doesn't offer equal armour, manurverability and especially hardpoint location doesn't sell as well. so if hardpoints had crit limits to say one has this advantage but the other has a different advantage then both mechs can keep selling. unless pgi wants to run out of mechs that can attract a buck and find everyone already has brought the uber mech, so sales depreciate, then the customisation has to change.

btw this won't stop metas help balance or get rid of GH but perhaps the awesome can be an energy plateform of raw power and stop being bettered by the stalker or battlemaster which should be support weapons for those chassis hardpoints. why should a buy a devistator or a cyclopse if stalkers and highlanders still have the best in so many areas thanks partly to being able to put near anything i want on them?

Edited by GalaxyBluestar, 14 November 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Sephlock]

Mudhutwarrior, on 14 November 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

I would miss screwing with builds. Half the fun is messing with screwy builds out there.

More than half.

What I hate is being forced into them (I'm looking a you, ghost heat and trial mechs).

[Diego Angelus]

I do believe that current system is flawed because it allows crazy builds that shouldn't be possible, I like MW4 system because it limits chassis enough and gives enough room to play around and if something is too strong it can be change without affecting all other chassis, It also gave it mechs unique flavour.

[MustrumRidcully]

I think the only real purpose of hard point limitations is to retain chassis personality.

But now that PGI is building mechs that change their looks depending on the weapon loadout, I find this goal a lot less important. Sure, you change the personality of the chassis, but the chassis also looks different, so it's fine.

I would try to work towards balancing the weapons, the firing mechanics with convergence/group fire and all to ensure that more varied mechs remain highly competitive instead. SO people can build their mechs with a look in mind without being punished with a poorly performing mech.

[Victor Morson]

Fenris Krinkovich, on 14 November 2013 - 06:16 PM, said:

PGI has said in several ATD's that they don't want to do this. And they never change their minds.

And this is the biggest problem with PGI hands down. If every single person screams something is a bad idea they keep on going, full steam ahead, pretty much.

[mouser42]

Half the fun is coming up with fun or crazy builds, a lot of us like to tinker and mess with stuff so I vote no on this. I see so many posts by armchair game designers offering a better nerf world I've decided throw out an idea of my own and I hope this never happens. Here's the plan, make two game clients, 1st game client or mwo as is well MWO sounds good so far cool I like it too. Now this will blow your mind 2nd game client we will call NERF world! It will have all the offending stuff taken out by forward thinking plays all the restriction implemented by those who know whats best for the rest! Hows that sound a game with no game content fun? Well my work is done here C-ya on the battle field of 1st game client, you can't miss me I'll be the one jockeying the big foot, hit box broken, ecm SDR-5D

Edited by mouser42, 15 November 2013 - 04:26 AM.

[AC]

Deathlike, on 14 November 2013 - 08:05 PM, said:

You're actually missing the point further.

There actually ISN'T many options for the 7K. I didn't bother building an AC20 version of it because it seemed silly (for various reasons), but let's say the AC20 isn't in play. So, what about 2 PPCs? Should we currently just limit 2 PPCs to the BJ-3 and eliminate any other medium to wield 2 PPCs outside of the BJ? It's actually pretty nice on the 7K, but under the kind of system proposed, we can keep playing this really lame game of "how do we restrict non-OP builds further", until the point where there's nothing of worth to build on it except "less cookie cutter builds" which are even further limited (because, there's no variety or options).

There's a reason why Frakenmechs are undesirable, but suggesting that we make them "optimal" goes further backwards needlessly.

No YOUR missing the point. Your looking with a microscope when you need to back out and consider the system as a whole. Who cares about the 7k. Maybe you let it take an AC20, maybe not.... the point is that right now the slots are generic. You can't balance the individual chassis. So the mechs that seem OP can't be balanced with slot limitations. Once you add in the limitations and create some chassis to chassis balance, then maybe the underperforming mechs like the Trebs will seem more desirable compared to the OP mechs we field now.

Not to mention that you can give the mechs a unique flavor. Maybe the Hunchie is the only medium with an AC20, maybe trebs are the only mediums with LRM's and JJ's, maybe Awesomes are the only mechs that can take 4PPC or 3ERPPC.... the point is that the chassis have no uniqueness. I was looking at an Orion last night, and decided not to buy it because it didn't do anything that any of my other mechs could already do. This is ultimately going to impact PGI's bottom line and the longevity of the game.

Edited by AC, 15 November 2013 - 12:41 PM.

[AC]

Mudhutwarrior, on 14 November 2013 - 02:08 PM, said:

I would miss screwing with builds. Half the fun is messing with screwy builds out there.

And why would a limitation system keep you from playing with builds????

I think the common misconception here is that people assume the limited slot system would be so extremely limited they would be left choosing between a small or medium laser. That doesn't have to be the case. Just because the game gets another balancing feature doesn't mean that PGI will use it to beat mechs with the nerf bat.

Take the Jagger for example. I see complaints on the twin AC20 builds. If the slot system limitation was in place, PGI could limit the jagger to a single AC20. Or they could decide that twin AC20 jagger is just fine and do nothing. The point that I think people are not considering is that right now PGI can't do ANYTHING about the twin AC20 Jagger. They have no way to balance weapons on a per chassis basis. Their only option is to nerf the AC20, and that hurts all chassis.

A perfect example of this is the Gauss Rifle. Only the mechs with twin ERPPC +Gauss were an issue. But PGI had no way to balance those offending chassis, so they nerfed the Gauss Rifle and ALL chassis suffered. Where is the Victor with the single ballistic slot in the arm now? No one uses it because its main weapon (gauss) was nerfed and it can't fit an AC20 in that arm, so that chassis was mostly abandoned by the playing community.