131 replies to this topic

[Khobai]

Quote

THE HARDPOINT SYSTEM IS WHAT IS BROKEN.

we need ghost hardpoints

[Eddrick]

Wintersdark, on 22 March 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Except this is a game, and one in which people have bought combat vehicles that they could adapt to them - that's been a key feature of the game since going public. I say going public, as opposed to Launch, as they've been taking people's real money for these products the whole time... and while game balance may change, making such fundamental changes to what people have purchased is a really major deal.

This is the controler for Steel Battalion for the Origenal X-Box. Everything on it has a use in the game. This game is more of a Mech Simulation, then any MechWarrior game has been. You have to be ready to hit the Eject Button, when your Mech is almost destroyed. Because, if your character dies, your save file is erased to simulate the death of the character and you have to start over from scratch. If your Mech is destroyed, you have to buy a replacment. If you can't afford a replacement, your save file is erased to simulate that your character is removed from the military and the character is no longer relevent to the game. Also, in this case you have to start over from scratch.

MechWarrior isn't that hard. Especialy, by comparison. The game is also, the best example of what Hardcore can be.

[Wintersdark]

Khobai, on 22 March 2014 - 03:08 PM, said:

we need ghost hardpoints

This post wins +5 internets.

[Wintersdark]

Eddrick, on 22 March 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

This is the controler for Steel Battalion for the Origenal X-Box. Everything on it has a use in the game. This game is more of a Mech Simulation, then any MechWarrior game has been. You have to be ready to hit the Eject Button, when your Mech is almost destroyed. Because, if your character dies, your save file is erased to simulate the death of the character and you have to start over from scratch. If your Mech is destroyed, you have to buy a replacment. If you can't afford a replacement, your save file is erased to simulate that your character is removed from the military and the character is no longer relevent to the game. Also, in this case you have to start over from scratch.

MechWarrior isn't that hard. Especialy, by comparison. The game is also, the best example of what Hardcore can be.

I'm sorry, perhaps I'm slow, but I don't understand how your post in any way relates to mine? Other than showing a ridiculously awesome controller, mind you? Did I make some comment as to the game's difficulty?

Yes, MWO is not a particularly hard game, outside of the inherent challenge in playing with and against real people. But people have still put a lot of real money into in-game products, and while they expect balance changes they do not expect sweeping, major changes which would invalidate loadouts they may well have purchased that mech for.

Even Ghost Heat didn't do that. You can still run a 4PPC Stalker, after all. Sure, you need to fire the PPC's in pairs, but you still can do it.

But to totally change the hardpoint system? It's a core element of how the game has worked from the get go. It's a really big change, and one that I don't think PGI would even contemplate doing at this point. (Note: I'm not saying the should or shouldn't just that they simply won't.)

[Bishop Steiner]

Wintersdark, on 22 March 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

But to totally change the hardpoint system? It's a core element of how the game has worked from the get go. It's a really big change, and one that I don't think PGI would even contemplate doing at this point. (Note: I'm not saying the should or shouldn't just that they simply won't.)

they certainly won't as long as people keep conceding the difficulty and giving them an easy out because people will agree "it's just too hard".

They want to sell 500 dollar mechs, time to make them frikking wear the big girl panties and deliver a game WORTH 500 dollar mechs.

[Errinovar]

Quote

*sighs*

I should just step out of this discussion. I'm old, tired, and cynical, and while I understand the value of such ideas - and agree with many, to some degree or other - I just don't think anything so "core" to the game as it stands is going to change.

I'd rather you didn't because what you have said so far has been a very good counter argument, particularly because it bears out under observation of other game systems. Any game that allows customization will always find a min/max meta, changes to the system to limit the behavior almost always only change how one maximizes as opposed to eliminating the desire or ability to maximize.

[FupDup]

I'm going to add in my $0.02 here...

If we did have a sized HP system, I think a natural way to do it would be based on the critical slot size of the original weapon in that spot, with 1-3 extra slots added on to that for flexibility (number of extra slots depends on weapon type and the mech in question). Energy weapons tend to not take up much space, so they would usually only gain +1 slot (all rules have exceptions). Conversely, bulky ballistics should probably gain at least 2 slots (maybe 3 in some cases) because their sizes tend to increase at a faster rate than other weapon types. Missiles would probably be just 1-2 extra slots.

Qualitative sizes like "large" or "small" don't actually exist in the Battletech universe except for classifying laser weapons. Critical slots, however, are an integral balancing mechanism and a core foundation of the mech construction system. They make perfect sense as a weapon size limiter.


Ex: The Shadow Hawk 2H comes stock with a Medium Laser, which is 1 slot. Having only 1 slot though, for only a single little hardpoint, seems a bit overkill so I'd give it a slot limit of 2. That way he can still have various options for his arm laser, while preventing the bigger stuff from being placed there. In the Shad's left torso is an AC/5 stock. The AC/5 is 4 slots. So, I'd give the left torso something around 6-7 slots to use on ballistics.



Also, in addition to this, I would also like to have a maximum number of weapons that can fit into a specific hardpoint of whatever size (in addition to the size limit). In MW4, you could fit as many weapons as you had space for, i.e. a Heavy Gauss could be replaced by 4 Machine Guns -- you could boat up on too many tiny weapons. And in MWO, a PPC can only be replaced by a single dinky little Small Laser -- you are encouraged to boat up on the biggest possible guns you can cram in there. I don't like either extreme. I'm aiming to allow for a decent number of small-ish weapons to be carried, without having it go overboard like an MW4 Awesome carrying 13 Medium Lasers.

To revisit the Shadow Hawk 2H from above, his right arm would have a quantity limit of just 1. This means it could be a single 1-slot weapon, or a single 2-slot weapon. Note that some hardpoints, however, would be able to hold more than just 1 weapon in them. That AC/5 left shoulder would probably be able to hold at least 2 ballistics (their combined crit slot size would have to be less than or equal to 6-7 slots) or as many as 3 (they would have to be fairly small like MGs to fit, due to the crit slot size limit).

Edited by FupDup, 22 March 2014 - 05:16 PM.

[Davers]

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

I'd disagree. It doesn't kill customization but it limits it.

Split energy hard points into:
Large - PPC, ERPPC, LL, ERLL, LPL
Small - ML, SL, SPL, MPL, FT
Omni Energy - any energy weapon

A Stalker could then be given - one omni, 2 large, 3 small or 2 omni and 4 small ... or some other combination.

Similarly missile launchers could be split the same way
Large - LRM20, LRM15, SRM6, SRM4
Small - LRM10 LRM5, SRM4, SRM2, SSRM2
Omni Missile - any missile launcher

(yes I repeated SRM4 ... there is no reason certain weapons could not be accommodated in multiple hard point sizes ).
And ballistics:

Large - AC20, AC10, Gauss Rifle
Small - AC5, AC2, MG
Omni - any ballistic

Then you could go over the mechs and categorize the hard points with an eye to limiting the opportunities for large scale boating while still allowing for some boating. This sort of system would allow AC5 and AC10 to be combined for example ... but you probably would not have 4xAC5 builds.

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.

[No Guts No Glory]

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!

Ideally, hardpoints would be limited by size and quantity. The Hunch on the 4P for example could be a 6 critical slot size, with a quantity of six. One could mount, 2 ppc, 3 large lasers or 6 medium/small lasers within it.

Mechs like the 8Q awesome would be able to use large energy/ missile weapons, while Stalkers would use smaller weapons but in larger quantities. One chassis is no longer completely outperformed by another.

Arguably gives less customization, but allows more chassis to see use and thus more mech/variant variety.

[Bishop Steiner]

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

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

Actually, yes. That is exactly the point. The 4P was never designed around heavy energy. You want a Medium with heavy Energy, you choose a Vindicator, CN9-AH, BJ-3, Enforcer, Griffin, WVR-6K, etc.

Yes, the Jenner is also limited to mediums and smalls. And now Panthers and Wolfhounds have a role and are viable, as Lights that can mount Heavy Energy.

because Right now, there is no point in Panthers or Wolfhounds or Vindicators, as examples, because anything they can do is done better by faster chassis. It's called trade offs, and no, not every chassis will be able to fill every role.

and no, your BJ would not have an AC20, and yes the Jager could mount 4 ac5, as long as it wants to be slow with light ammo for it's weaponry. You want a Medium that packs an AC20, you grab a HBK-4G or 4H, both of which are obsoleted ATM by Shadowhawks and Bjs, both of which can do anything the HBK can, AND jump to boot.

So yes, not every chassis is ideal for every role is EXACTLY what I am saying. Yet those chassis ARE still very viable. You wan't a Medium with papercut lasers, the HBK -4P is still your boy. You want a PPC machine, it is not. So yeah, it DOES make more mechs viable, which is preferable to having a few "uber mechs".

[Asmudius Heng]

They will never do it ... I don't know how much hardpoint sizes would help balance but it would certainly kill ghost heat.

Mainly it will give mechs differentiation which they sorely lack.

Mechs lack personality in this game and hardpoint sizes should have been in from the very beginning.

People who say it kills customisation but want to be able to have any mech do pretty much anything but that is really not a valid excuse ... If you want a mech that does something vastly different then buy a different mech!!

[Mister Blastman]

Sybreed, on 22 March 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

okay, but, you know, the title says:

LRMS ARE FINE, AS HAS BEEN THE CASE SINCE INCEPTION, THE HARDPOINT SYSTEM IS WHAT IS BROKEN.


just sayin'

Exactly, smartass.

And my reply to hardpoints being broken is: NO.

Convergence is what is and has broken Mechwarrior since the third iteration. And guess what? Every single time they tweak weapon values and it never works!

Why?

Because it isn't weapon values! It is the mechanics of firing!

[Sybreed]

Mister Blastman, on 22 March 2014 - 06:02 PM, said:

Exactly, smartass.

And my reply to hardpoints being broken is: NO.

Convergence is what is and has broken Mechwarrior since the third iteration. And guess what? Every single time they tweak weapon values and it never works!

Why?

Because it isn't weapon values! It is the mechanics of firing!

okay, idiotass (?)

The title explicitly says that we're talking about how hardpoints are messing up LRM balance, yet you come here and tell everyone that convergence is at fault for messing up direct fire weapons (aka, everything but missiles).

My question is: Why are you even trying to bring up this point?

Because a) Bishop already mentionned it in his OP
b ) CONVERGENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LRMS HENCE YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID

[Davers]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

Actually, yes. That is exactly the point. The 4P was never designed around heavy energy. You want a Medium with heavy Energy, you choose a Vindicator, CN9-AH, BJ-3, Enforcer, Griffin, WVR-6K, etc.

Yes, the Jenner is also limited to mediums and smalls. And now Panthers and Wolfhounds have a role and are viable, as Lights that can mount Heavy Energy.

because Right now, there is no point in Panthers or Wolfhounds or Vindicators, as examples, because anything they can do is done better by faster chassis. It's called trade offs, and no, not every chassis will be able to fill every role.

and no, your BJ would not have an AC20, and yes the Jager could mount 4 ac5, as long as it wants to be slow with light ammo for it's weaponry. You want a Medium that packs an AC20, you grab a HBK-4G or 4H, both of which are obsoleted ATM by Shadowhawks and Bjs, both of which can do anything the HBK can, AND jump to boot.

So yes, not every chassis is ideal for every role is EXACTLY what I am saying. Yet those chassis ARE still very viable. You wan't a Medium with papercut lasers, the HBK -4P is still your boy. You want a PPC machine, it is not. So yeah, it DOES make more mechs viable, which is preferable to having a few "uber mechs".

You have a lot of good points.

But even with HP restrictions, there will be 'winners' and 'losers' and people will play the 'winners'.

[Sybreed]

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.

my 4P only uses Medium lasers and is a lot of fun, I fail to see your logic here.

And if you want a medium mech that can use an AC/20, the Hunchback Prime is for you.

Blackjacks were made for long range support.

[El Bandito]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 March 2014 - 08:28 AM, said:

I also had been crying about hardpoint restrictions since 2012--especially on those PPC spamming Stalkers--but I think PGI has already reached the point of no return. Paul thinks Ghost Heat is the second coming of Jesus and nothing can wake him up from that delusion.

Even with hardpoint restriction though, there is still the A1. So whiners will still whine about LRMs.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 March 2014 - 07:45 PM.

[xXBagheeraXx]

Why I think mechwarrior IV had the best hardpoint system...Omni mechs were special because only certain mounts could carry ANY weapon you wanted, but even then, the size of the weapons you could place there were limited...would really eliminate a lot of potential heavy mech cheese builds by making it to where they cant carry dual ac20s etc.

[Mister Blastman]

Sybreed, on 22 March 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

okay, idiotass (?)

The title explicitly says that we're talking about how hardpoints are messing up LRM balance, yet you come here and tell everyone that convergence is at fault for messing up direct fire weapons (aka, everything but missiles).

My question is: Why are you even trying to bring up this point?

Because a) Bishop already mentionned it in his OP
b ) CONVERGENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LRMS HENCE YOUR ARGUMENT IS INVALID

Hooked on reading failed for you?

I know clearly what he was talking about. He and I are in disagreement. He argues that it is BOTH hardpoints AND convergence that is breaking the game. I state that it isn't hardpoints but instead convergence.

I don't think hardpoints are the issue. His first post was multi-faceted. Or is that too complicated for you to comprehend?

Just go away. Thanks.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mister Blastman, on 22 March 2014 - 10:27 PM, said:

Hooked on reading failed for you?

I know clearly what he was talking about. He and I are in disagreement. He argues that it is BOTH hardpoints AND convergence that is breaking the game. I state that it isn't hardpoints but instead convergence.

I don't think hardpoints are the issue. His first post was multi-faceted. Or is that too complicated for you to comprehend?

Just go away. Thanks.

convergence does not balance boating. It is sadly not as black and white as just being convergence. Convergence would not make certain chassis viable again. Sized hard points would, hence I state that it is a two fold disease.

[Rex Budman]

This is where I have to disagree because I enjoy symmetry. I won't mount 3 - I'll only mount 2/4/6. I think I'm OCD though.