131 replies to this topic

[BlackDeathLegion]

Bishop Steiner, on 24 March 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

I like it, with some reservations. But I also like that C3 uses tonange and crits. To get that indirect "accurate" feed, you need a 5 ton system, and your spotters, 1 ton each. If you want it from all 12, you need the extra C3 master, for 10 tons, and each lance needs a 5 ton, plus the other nine mechs with C3 Slaves for 1 ton. The weight and crits is what balances, as getting that many people to sacrifice is not going to be easy, unless your unit doctrine is entirely around that, which leaves you open to other exploits.

Yep... Time PGI goes "Back to Basics" aka Battletech Lore.... to give us Balance in MWO.

I understand making Battletech TableTop, into a real-time game (MWO) is Tricky. You CANT follow everything exactly from TT too MWO, but in this case.... YES PLEASE!!!!

[Omi_]

First-time poster here.

Mawai, on 22 March 2014 - 12:12 PM, said:

...
Split energy hard points into:
Large - PPC, ERPPC, LL, ERLL, LPL
Small - ML, SL, SPL, MPL, FT
Omni Energy - any energy weapon
...
Large - LRM20, LRM15, SRM6, SRM4
Small - LRM10 LRM5, SRM4, SRM2, SSRM2
Omni Missile - any missile launcher
...
Large - AC20, AC10, Gauss Rifle
Small - AC5, AC2, MG
Omni - any ballistic
...

My vote goes to support this sort of idea on the grounds that it fixes issues with the artwork and adds new contrast between different 'Mechs and their variants. It adds a layer of simple complexity in place of convolution a la ghost heat.

Davers, on 22 March 2014 - 05:17 PM, said:

So the 3 UAC/5 Muromets and 4 AC/5 Jags are fine, but I can't put an AC/20 on my BJ?

Hunchback 4P gets to choose from medium and small lasers only? Now that's customization!

The more you limit customization the more you will see that there are only a few 'good mechs'. Some mechs are terrible, yet become fun with tinkering in the mechlab.

Yes, but imagine that HBK-4P in a world without ghost heat - it'd be an absolute scalpel, and everyone would expect it to have massive short-range burst damage when they see it. As I understand, this variant is slightly undesirable due to it's massive heat buildup. Not sure what to say about the Blackjack, since I'm less familiar with that one.

In summary:

Pros:
- More diversity between 'Mechs and variants - will become more important as more 'Mechs are added.
- Easier profiling regarding the role of each 'Mech on the battlefield.
- Many mechs can remain highly customizable due to Omni hardpoints - hardpoint changes can potentially target particularly OP builds and not touch on others at all.
- Some 'Mechs will be more specialized while others can be quite customizable - adds to character / appeals to different players.
- More consistent artwork.
- Can succeed ghost heat as the cleaner fix. Players could learn this mechanic from the UI without having to visit a website and search for "ghost heat" tables.

Cons:
- Reduction in customization options for many variations.
- Will pigeonhole existing players into playing certain roles until they can adapt their arsenal with hard-earned C-Bills (or worse).
- Players can't field their favourite-looking 'Mech in any role they want and instead have to play within the lines a bit more.

Either way, I guarantee that a change like this would be best implemented as early as possible.

Edited by Hornsby, 25 March 2014 - 11:50 PM.

[BoldricKent]

With increasing number of chassis, i think 2 per month was said on podcast, it will become more and more difficult
to differentiate between them, since every tonnage slot will be filled more then once.
Introducing hardpoint size would allow chassis to get more Battletech feel and be different one to another, it also
lefts more options for future mechs, building specialist mech like Hollander. With introduction of community warfare,
where force composition will be more company base as opose to solo PUG builds, such specilized mech would find its role,
which brings up variety of chassis used. And thats in hand makes game stand up from others giant robot shooters.

[Scyther]

Nimdabew (and possibly others) mentioned what I (and possibly others) suggested strongly and repeatedly back in beta:

That MW4: Mercs (at least the MekTek version, I don't know about original) had an excellent 'slot' system that gave a ton of control over what went where.

So far as I know, nothing in that model of mech building is totally against BT canon, and the 'Omni' slots give flexibility to Clan mechs without making them inherently OP.

I never felt 'limited' building custom mechs in MW4, but I did have to make careful and strategic choices (one of the elements of an actually fun game).

It allows fully for stock mechs as well as custom builds, and allows certain mechs to be 'tuned' for desirability without giving blanket min-max ability to all mechs.

It's a heck of a lot better IMO than slapping in 7 kinds of patches intended to 'fix' balance.

But as people pointed out, the min-maxers have screamed against this from day 1. So PGI keeps paying programmers to invent patches and then patch those patches and then remove some of those patches... rather than make a bold move.

Of course, the first thing that disappears if you use this model is your heavy-ballistic K2s and some other dual-AC20 / dual Gauss etc builds.

Is the tradeoff for a better, more balanced, less patched game worth it?

[Relic1701]

@ Bishop Steiner.....

Thankyou, I can't like these posts enough.

As an aside, and as this post seems to have more traction than ours, I'll link this discussion here, where we've come to much the same conclusion

http://mwomercs.com/...he-meta-please/

For those that don't want to read another entire thread, here is what I posted (yes I know I'm quoting myself, but I really don't want to type it again )

Relic1701, on 17 March 2014 - 11:40 AM, said:

We've been discussing something along these lines in the group I drop with, and we all think they will go a long way to bring back the 'flavour' of various mechs. But we were more along the lines of 'Small, Medium, Large, Huge'

• Small - Tag, Flamer, SL, SPL, MG, AC2, SRM2, SSRM2, LRM5, Narc
  
• Medium - ML, MPL, AC5, UAC5, SRM4, LRM10
  
• Large - LL, ERLL, LPL, AC10, LB10X, SRM6, LRM15
  
• Huge - PPC, ERPPC, Gauss Rifle, AC20, LRM20

If you want to be really picky you could add a 'Small Arms' hardpoint that can only mount SL, SPL, MG's & Flamers, you know the ones meant for anti infantry weapons.


All of a sudden the Awesome becomes, well awesome, being able to mount 3 PPC's, same with the K2. Having a look at some of the current chassis' and there hardpoints, adding sizes would do little to the majority of builds, but would stop a lot of the 'cheese' builds, and could even create more diversity, people would have to start thinking about their builds, even more so if there was a static heat cap.

Edited by Relic1701, 26 March 2014 - 02:13 PM.

[Dymlos2003]

No, sized hardpoints isnt going to fix anything and just limit customization and chassis usage.

[Augustus Martelus II]

I totally agree with you. They shouldnt put a number of weapon system but a maximum hardpoint size ex:
Catapult C4 have 2 missiles hardpoints....so it should have 6 empty slots for missiles so you could combine 1 med and a small lrm launcher, a lrm20 (5 slots) or 1 Lrm 20 + artemis (6 slots). At 6 slots the arm weapon empty slots would be full.
right now i could built a C4 with 2 lrms 20 and 2 lrm 15....if i reduce on the armor and have an extremely small engine....but would bring hell with one good mech pilot.
I do beleive the the catapult (specially the C4) is a lrm or srm fire support mech....but it shouldnt be able to bring that much.
And it should be the same for every other mech and every other weapons hardpoints

Edited by Augustus Martelus II, 26 March 2014 - 02:35 PM.

[Wintersdark]

Augustus Martelus II, on 26 March 2014 - 02:34 PM, said:

I totally agree with you. They shouldnt put a number of weapon system but a maximum hardpoint size ex:
Catapult C4 have 2 missiles hardpoints....so it should have 6 empty slots for missiles so you could combine 1 med and a small lrm launcher, a lrm20 (5 slots) or 1 Lrm 20 + artemis (6 slots). At 6 slots the arm weapon empty slots would be full.
right now i could built a C4 with 2 lrms 20 and 2 lrm 15....if i reduce on the armor and have an extremely small engine....but would bring hell with one good mech pilot.
I do beleive the the catapult (specially the C4) is a lrm or srm fire support mech....but it shouldnt be able to bring that much.
And it should be the same for every other mech and every other weapons hardpoints

This is a dangerously seductive idea but it's very bad.

What happens - and we've seen this in the past - is that people find good small weapons and boat the hell out of them.

Being able to mount more smaller weapons just pushes boating issues to small weapons instead of large ones. This is not an improvement.

Also, it undoes the primary advantage of sized hardpoints: Chassis differentiation.

[Relic1701]

You can still size hardpoints, and have each one a separate one. Just because it is, say a Large Energy Hardpoint, you can still only fit 1 weapon system in there, it's up to you if you want to waste it on a small laser instead of a large laser.

[Wintersdark]

Relic1701, on 26 March 2014 - 03:13 PM, said:

You can still size hardpoints, and have each one a separate one. Just because it is, say a Large Energy Hardpoint, you can still only fit 1 weapon system in there, it's up to you if you want to waste it on a small laser instead of a large laser.

Yeah, my response had nothing to do with sized hardpoints overall, just that sized hardpoints with "more smaller weapons/fewer larger weapons" was a really bad idea. My apologies is that wasn't so clear.

[DeadlyNerd]

Interesting, I've made the very same point as OP, a dozen times in the past, yet I've been met with troll flames every single time, no matter how constructive the thread was. I guess that founders badge really means something, other than being all shiny.

[Relic1701]

Not to knock this guy, he did a fantastic job in the recent tournament, I know, he blew me to pieces on several occasions , but this just goes to highlight what we mean by the lack of sized hardpoints....all mechs become the same!

Quote

HGN-733C - STD300, 2xPPC 2xUAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo. 1.49 Heat Efficiency


VTR-9B - XL325, 2xPPC 2xUAC5, 1JJ, 5 tons of Ammo. 1.45 Heat Efficiency


VTR-DS - XL350, 2xPPC 2xAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo, 1.49 Heat Efficiency


CTF-3D - XL280, 2xPPC 2xAC5, 1JJ, 4 tons of Ammo, 1.42 Heat Efficiency

Edited by Relic1701, 27 March 2014 - 10:26 AM.