131 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 22 March 2014 - 10:21 AM, said:

Ultimately, though... don't fool yourself into thinking that hardpoint sizes would stop min-maxing, or make more chassis viable. It would just change which chassis are viable.

under no illusion it would have removed it, but it would have seriously curtailed it. And many more chassis would be viable than currently. The very openness of the mechlab is what kills most variants. With sized hardpoints, I can promise you I can build many more viable and useful chassis than in the current environment.

And if PGI doesn't want to push role mechs, they need to stop paying lip service to role warfare.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 10:24 AM, said:

under no illusion it would have removed it, but it would have seriously curtailed it. And many more chassis would be viable than currently. The very openness of the mechlab is what kills most variants. With sized hardpoints, I can promise you I can build many more viable and useful chassis than in the current environment.

And if PGI doesn't want to push role mechs, they need to stop paying lip service to role warfare.

PGI stopped paying lip service to role warfare a long time ago.

Why do you think more chassis would be viable than currently, though? That's a pretty bold statement to make. Ultimately, you'd find it will narrow down to a couple chassis per weight class no matter what, because that's the nature of multiplayer games. It always happens.

As to viable... we both know that even now a great many more builds and chassis are viable than people give credit for. There's just better options, and people gravitate to them. There still would be.

It's all talk, though, without actual specifications on which chassis have which sized hardpoints of course.

I've been around the block a lot of times with online games, and I've seen this discussion play out in every one. "If we changed these things, more builds would be viable!" and yet... It never happens. Things change, different builds become viable, and soon enough a very small selection become optimal.

Every. Single. Time.

[ExAstris]

Love or hate the rest of the game, MW4's hardpoint system really was the best iteration MechWarrior has seen.

Frankly, MWO has trouble differentiating mechs already. So while hardpoint sizes would necessarily cut down on customization, it would pile heaps of individuality on each chassis, and make room for a lot more diversification as well.

For example, consider the Catapult. Its 3 main variants really can't have any more diversification than they do now. But hardpoint sizes would mean that additional variants could be added that would be different under a sized-hardpoint system, but would be identical under the current system.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Catapult

The C1 and C5A model both sport 1 missile weapon in each arm, 1 energy in each side torso, and 2 energy in the center torso. Which in current MWO means they are the exact same mech. But in a sized-hardpoint world they could easily be different with the C1 having larger energy hardpoints in its side torsos, but the C5A having larger missile hardpoints (because of Artemis).

Similarly, the C6, K3, and Jester could be differentiated the same way.


The other obvious benefit that the OP suggests is that we can do a complete weapon rebalance. No need to ensure the AC20 and Gauss are balanced in pairs if no mech can mount them in pairs (outside of hypothetical future mech releases, which could then have their tuning/geometry compensate properly). No need to balance PPCs under the presumption of jump-sniping if the mechs that have jump jets never have multiple giant energy slots for them. No need to ghost heat for 6x PPC stalkers if the only mech that can ever mount more than two is the Awesome.

[Koniving]

This is kinda related.

Person:

Quote

For me the scaling of the weapons seems somewhat weird. From how the other slots look like and how weapons are handled on the BLR it seems the weapon models on the TDR-5S left arm are about 15-20% to small. The length might be OK, but especially the diameter looks awefully tinny on all ballistics.

Koniving, on 24 November 2013 - 11:16 PM, said:

This is a common thing on many of the mechs. The worst offenders include the Shadowhawk's PPC (it's smaller than an AC/2 barrel and no bigger than a laser) and the Blackjack, where its UAC/5, AC/20, AC/10, AC/5 and PPC barrels are all just as big as an AC/2 barrel.

Person

Quote

On the Shadowhawk i don't see this happening, and i regulary put PPCs into it.

What is so striking on the 5S is the obvious disparity between the size of all other weapon slots compared to the ballistics on the LA.

Koniving, on 25 November 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Take a Kintaro, put on a PPC. Take a Catapult, put on a PPC. Take an Atlas, put on a PPC. Take a Jenner, put on a PPC.

Now take a Shadowhawk and review what you just said.

Some comparisons. The comments below here are directed towards PGI's art department.
Kintaro


Shadowhawk right arm


Shadowhawk left arm + AC/2


Jagermech, also a bad offender from the front, but...


Jager again. This isn't really true. The barrel just has 2 thicknesses as it should.


Atlas. Kind of a bad offender but mainly the AC/2 barrel is a lot thicker than the actual firing tube, which is coned into.


The Blackjack, the absolute worst offender.










Seriously the UAC/5 bullet is bigger than all 3 of the barrels and the rings combined!




And finally, what I believe a good consistent size should have been in terms of length and width, which makes it a bit larger than an AC/10 barrel. It is, after all, the energy version of a sharp-shooting rifle. We're not using Snub-Nosed PPCs (the shotgun PPCs) so there should NEVER be a tiny barrel barely longer than a person on a Blackjack's side torsos. We're not using Light PPCs which should be about what the Blackjack has in terms of size. We're not using the Heavy PPCs -- which I think could be fair to say the Awesome and original closed beta Catapult PPCs could be used as a good size reference.


These from the Catapult, are perfectly acceptable as a 'standard' for all regular and ER PPC models (as is the Kintaro's).




Same for the actual weapon sizes. Unless we start getting non-single shot ACs, there's absolutely no reason for miniature UAC/5s with barrels smaller than our machine gun's barrels. Seriously.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 22 March 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

PGI stopped paying lip service to role warfare a long time ago.

Why do you think more chassis would be viable than currently, though? That's a pretty bold statement to make. Ultimately, you'd find it will narrow down to a couple chassis per weight class no matter what, because that's the nature of multiplayer games. It always happens.

As to viable... we both know that even now a great many more builds and chassis are viable than people give credit for. There's just better options, and people gravitate to them. There still would be.

It's all talk, though, without actual specifications on which chassis have which sized hardpoints of course.

I've been around the block a lot of times with online games, and I've seen this discussion play out in every one. "If we changed these things, more builds would be viable!" and yet... It never happens. Things change, different builds become viable, and soon enough a very small selection become optimal.

Every. Single. Time.

it's pretty easy to prove that statement. Go to smurfys, Use a self imposed, large/small system. OP Boats disappear, which allow more balanced builds to flourish, since they no longer face pinpoint annihilation every match. Now build all the other lovely variants you want in Smurfys and it is still very easy to find distinct and viable models on all of them, and when you add in the agility quirks and such, it is pretty self explanatory, nothing bold to it.

The Awesome of the previous example would still have less than perfect hit boxes, but be able to pack 3 PPC without ghost heat. A pretty fair tradeoff, now that one is no longer facing a Victor than can carry 3 PPCs just as easily, AND jump and be more agile. A Victor with heavy short range weapons would still out brawl the Awesome, the Awesome would own it at range. Just as one example.

[Wintersdark]

ExAstris, on 22 March 2014 - 10:33 AM, said:

Love or hate the rest of the game, MW4's hardpoint system really was the best iteration MechWarrior has seen.

Frankly, MWO has trouble differentiating mechs already. So while hardpoint sizes would necessarily cut down on customization, it would pile heaps of individuality on each chassis, and make room for a lot more diversification as well.

You can't have it both ways. The more individuality and diversification you have between chassis, the more that weapon balance changes will accentuate which chassis are good and which are not.

Currently, at least (and I understand why many don't like this, and I'm not saying I'm a fan) as weapon balance changes, we have a lot of ability to adapt our chassis to use better weapons. If we could not do that, weapon balance changes would render many more chassis obsolete very quickly.

Quote

For example, consider the Catapult. Its 3 main variants really can't have any more diversification than they do now. But hardpoint sizes would mean that additional variants could be added that would be different under a sized-hardpoint system, but would be identical under the current system.
http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Catapult

The C1 and C5A model both sport 1 missile weapon in each arm, 1 energy in each side torso, and 2 energy in the center torso. Which in current MWO means they are the exact same mech. But in a sized-hardpoint world they could easily be different with the C1 having larger energy hardpoints in its side torsos, but the C5A having larger missile hardpoints (because of Artemis).

Which is great. But that means that instead of those chassis being adaptable to balance changes, if large missile launchers are suddenly bad, the chassis with those large missile launchers and small energy weapons is suddenly garbage because you cannot elect to use smaller launchers and larger energy weapons.

I do understand the concerns with homogenization of chassis, but understand that individuality and diversification will increase how much balance changes will impact the viability of chassis/variants.

[Rebas Kradd]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

BTW, when your tooth decays and abscesses, you might decide that root canal was not such a bad idea after all.

Here is me disagreeing with your assertion that MWO is in a state of decay. Oh wait, I wasn't in Closed Beta, is my opinion invalid? I certainly hope it wasn't your intention to shove me out of the debate with that, because I won't walk away with my head down.

Almost every boat in the game (and it's boating that has generated this thread) has some sort of drawback, some penalty for its usage that makes its selection a gamble. LRM boats are walking ammo bombs without much short-range capability. Ballistics boats often have to resort to an XL engine. Energy boats are hot. ECM mechs have to sacrifice either speed or firepower and now have several natural predators in game. Ghost Heat is hated almost purely on principle without any regard of its actual effects. I realize that you're aware of most of this, but every once in a while we need to pull ourselves out of the niggling details and take a step back to refresh the bigger picture.

There is no consensus that LRMs are overpowered. Every thread contains disagreement. Their prevalence this weekend was due to the usual post-patch curiosity. There is no longer a consensus that pulse lasers are useless. NARCs are for sure useful again. An autocannon review is coming up. People are generally content with the soft nerf of the Highlander and Victor. I see role warfare every match I play, or cowardice. I don't have a lot of confidence in CW, but in the balance department, I see us as being on our way and much further along than we were in January. SRMs getting fixed will be awesome. Even the matchmaking gripes have largely dwindled down in the last couple of months as more educated people on this forum have pointed out why tonnage is not the axis of the planet and why tonnage limits would likely do nothing at all to stop ROFLstomps.

And since debate is alive and well on most weapons now, I don't agree that PGI should implement a root canal. We are right where SWG was prior to the Combat Upgrade. There were balance issues, there were role significance issues, but overall it didn't merit a clean sweep. Instead, people like you successfully advocated blowing it up and starting it over, and SOE did just that. We could debate all day on the merits of their NGE. It wouldn't matter. It undid people's hard work and that's all people would ever see.

The greatest reason by far that people are upset with the game is the uncertainty and hubbub over Community Warfare. I suspect that a pie chart breaking down people's reasons for leaving MWO would have a far bigger slice for that than for any balance issues. The game is not dying. It's just pruning the gripers.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 22 March 2014 - 10:48 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Koniving, on 22 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

This is kinda related.
<snip>

That's 100% a matter of art choices. It's easier to just scale existing graphics to look good than to provide "realism" in appearance. I'd like realism, but that would require a far larger investment in art design. Also, they're choosing their artistic vision over "realism" (quotes due to realism as applied to space magic stompy robots).

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 22 March 2014 - 10:37 AM, said:

This is kinda related.

one of my pet peeves

oh please don't get me started. Want ridiculous, mount a PPC on a Firestarter, then show it next to an Awesome or Jagermech. How they can spend so much time on weapon models, then go do EXTRA time and pooch their scaling (hey PGI here's a thought? Wanna reuse assets? Then make the weapons all one consistent size and find ways to stash thmon the mechs.)

[Wintersdark]

Rebas Kradd, on 22 March 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

And since debate is alive and well on most weapons now, I don't agree that PGI should implement a root canal. We are right where SWG was prior to the Combat Upgrade. There were balance issues, there were role significance issues, but overall it didn't merit a clean sweep. Instead, people like you successfully advocated blowing it up and starting it over, and SOE did just that. We could debate all day on the merits of their NGE. It wouldn't matter. It undid people's hard work and that's all people would ever see.

This is a good way of putting what I was saying earlier with regards to hardpoint sizes being too big a change now.

Hardpoint sizes may well have been a much better way to go from day one, but it's just too big a change to make now, so far after the game went public and started taking peoples $, given how it would fundamentally change things people have already bought with real money/the investment of LOTS of time.

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

oh please don't get me started. Want ridiculous, mount a PPC on a Firestarter, then show it next to an Awesome or Jagermech. How they can spend so much time on weapon models, then go do EXTRA time and pooch their scaling (hey PGI here's a thought? Wanna reuse assets? Then make the weapons all one consistent size and find ways to stash thmon the mechs.)

heh yeah, I'd really prefer that they be the same size and them invest in more art design to make things work. Alas


And: Think a PPC looks silly? Mount a Gauss Rifle on a Firestarter. rofl.

Edited by Wintersdark, 22 March 2014 - 10:48 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Rebas Kradd, on 22 March 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

Here is me disagreeing with your assertion that MWO is in a state of decay. Oh wait, I wasn't in Closed Beta, my opinion must be invalid, eh? Quit with the subtle bullying already.

Oh yes, because I was bullying you for it. Dude, number are down. You might not see it or realize it if you are newer, but they are way down. After the stat reset, Elo brackets are kinda a non issue atm, and so one should be getting matched with all kinds of different people. Yet you don't. You start seeing the same names, over and over.

Because isn't that big a pool to choose from.

Get over yourself, and stop trying to use strawman arguments. Focus on the debate on hand. but stop getting your knickers in a twist over imagined slights.

[Zerberus]

Not opposed to the idea, but just remember: ludicrous thoughts and ludicrous speed generally have similar results and implications....

Edited by Zerberus, 22 March 2014 - 10:49 AM.

[MischiefSC]

Ghost Heat and poor weapon balancing killed customization already.

This is actually a rock solid idea. Hardpoints ranked 1-4, you can fill a rank for with 2x2 or 4x1, or 1x3 and 1x1, etc.

This does what Ghost Heat does without screwing builds.

I like it, I like it a lot.

It won't happen though. We all know that. No point dreaming up excellent solutions to fundamental issues in MW:O. The sort of elegant, comprehensive solutions that get put up here don't happen. May as well ask for world peace.

Elo didn't get reset btw. Just your stats.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

it's pretty easy to prove that statement. Go to smurfys, Use a self imposed, large/small system. OP Boats disappear, which allow more balanced builds to flourish, since they no longer face pinpoint annihilation every match. Now build all the other lovely variants you want in Smurfys and it is still very easy to find distinct and viable models on all of them, and when you add in the agility quirks and such, it is pretty self explanatory, nothing bold to it.

The Awesome of the previous example would still have less than perfect hit boxes, but be able to pack 3 PPC without ghost heat. A pretty fair tradeoff, now that one is no longer facing a Victor than can carry 3 PPCs just as easily, AND jump and be more agile. A Victor with heavy short range weapons would still out brawl the Awesome, the Awesome would own it at range. Just as one example.

Current OP boats disappear. New OP builds would arise. Without knowing what everything has and time to experiment, I can't say what off hand. I can't really even guess at a self-imposed size system, as I'd need to look at it as a whole (every mech and all their sizes)

But in the end, whichever mech can mount the most of whichever weapons are best at a given time will rise to the top, and everything else with their balanced builds becomes crap. It's sad, but inevitable.

[Odins Fist]

The problem with weapons balancing is this.. It just keeps happening, it never seems to end, it may never end.
Regardless of what people think is OP or not OP, Nerfed or Buffed, whatever, the endless cycle of changing of weapons balance has no end in sight..

Hardpoints... Yeah, as soon as they take away everyone's customization that they were used to, you will see an EPIC SH%TSTORM on the level of the Noah's Ark Flood.. I will put money on it.

Finished product please.. LOL
That will be all..

Edited by Odins Fist, 22 March 2014 - 10:54 AM.

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

Oh yes, because I was bullying you for it. Dude, number are down. You might not see it or realize it if you are newer, but they are way down. After the stat reset, Elo brackets are kinda a non issue atm, and so one should be getting matched with all kinds of different people. Yet you don't. You start seeing the same names, over and over.

Because isn't that big a pool to choose from.

Get over yourself, and stop trying to use strawman arguments. Focus on the debate on hand. but stop getting your knickers in a twist over imagined slights.

Of course you see the same people. Stats where reset, Elo was not.

MischiefSC, on 22 March 2014 - 10:51 AM, said:

Ghost Heat and poor weapon balancing killed customization already.

This is actually a rock solid idea. Hardpoints ranked 1-4, you can fill a rank for with 2x2 or 4x1, or 1x3 and 1x1, etc.

Being able to put more small weapons into a larger slot has it's own problems. Suddenly, boating becomes an issue with small weapons - We saw the effects of this first hand in older MW games.

Quote

Elo didn't get reset btw. Just your stats.

This.

[Thorqemada]

I had the Impression PGI wanted to have ELO reset with the Stats Wipe - they did not?

[Wintersdark]

Thorqemada, on 22 March 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

I had the Impression PGI wanted to have ELO reset with the Stats Wipe - they did not?

No.

They've even explicitly said they weren't going to, though I can't link that (I'm lazy, and don't keep such reference info).

The stats wipe was for Achievements, and it totally unrelated to Elo (as your Elo score has no bearing on your stats). They've said from the earliest days whenever they talked about achievements that when they were implemented they'd do a statwipe.

Edited by Wintersdark, 22 March 2014 - 11:04 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 22 March 2014 - 10:45 AM, said:

That's 100% a matter of art choices. It's easier to just scale existing graphics to look good than to provide "realism" in appearance. I'd like realism, but that would require a far larger investment in art design. Also, they're choosing their artistic vision over "realism" (quotes due to realism as applied to space magic stompy robots).

what part of those discrepancies look "Good"?

(Though possibly this should be a topic all it's own?)

[Wintersdark]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 11:11 AM, said:

what part of those discrepancies look "Good"?

(Though possibly this should be a topic all it's own?)

I didn't say it looked good, I said it conformed to their "artistic vision"... well, that and their art budget.

Having properly sized PPC's on said firestarter would have:

A: Looked awesome
B: Cost a lot more artist time building FS-specific PPC models.

Wintersdark, on 22 March 2014 - 10:48 AM, said:

heh yeah, I'd really prefer that they be the same size and them invest in more art design to make things work. Alas

And: Think a PPC looks silly? Mount a Gauss Rifle on a Firestarter. rofl.

Edited by Wintersdark, 22 March 2014 - 11:14 AM.