470 replies to this topic

[Deathlike]

This thread reminds me of...

[Jin Ma]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 April 2014 - 04:32 PM, said:

check THIS compàrison. Mech lab, Model to Model.


GG, PGI, Close!

Sigilum Sanctum, on 17 April 2014 - 04:42 PM, said:

Wow the K2 got gimped....those original barrels look intimidating as hell. What happened D:

right? this is coming from a new player

[GalaxyBluestar]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 April 2014 - 10:08 AM, said:

look long and hard at that Firestarter. That thin ghas 14 tons hanging off it's left elbow. 14 tons out of 35, or over 1/3 it's mass. Yes, technically fitting 2 full sized models on one arm would be impractical (or course...1/3 the mass off on swinging appendage is impractical ) but blame that on PGIs lousy decision not use Sized Hardpoints, which would have obviated the issue before it began.

that's the thing many argued right from the get go, when i arrived 2 things really perplexed me, the lack of radar and it's options, relying on others for lokcs and the omni style customisation. I hated gauss cats because such mechs shouldn't had been capable of fitting guasses in the ST's jagers are fine but of course they weren't available then and derps got their knickers in a twist "muh customisations" "mech warrior is nothing wih out them" then we got stupid pencils shoved on the side and the hex stalker was born, technically ppc stalkers 6er or 4ppcs shouldn't had been possible. but PGI chased the derp money and further more planed from dec 2012 onwards to make many a mess a muddle build possible.

but now look what what we have, pointless to introduce a panther, a revenue maker new mech, into the game because firestarter does it's job better. however if each hardpoint was sized so fitting a ppc was exclusive to the panther then there would be a purpose for both mechs. at the moment the only thing defining mirrior builds is the slight geometry and movement quirks, the rest are outclassed by meta chassis doing other chassis jobs better. the awesome should be the only assault capable of carrying 3+ ppcs but hey who cares about giving all the mechs an equal job oppotunity when we can spoil the art along with "so many customisation choices"

but "must have it all" money derps wins over art and logic every time.

[Bishop Steiner]

GalaxyBluestar, on 17 April 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

that's the thing many argued right from the get go, when i arrived 2 things really perplexed me, the lack of radar and it's options, relying on others for lokcs and the omni style customisation. I hated gauss cats because such mechs shouldn't had been capable of fitting guasses in the ST's jagers are fine but of course they weren't available then and derps got their knickers in a twist "muh customisations" "mech warrior is nothing wih out them" then we got stupid pencils shoved on the side and the hex stalker was born, technically ppc stalkers 6er or 4ppcs shouldn't had been possible. but PGI chased the derp money and further more planed from dec 2012 onwards to make many a mess a muddle build possible.

but now look what what we have, pointless to introduce a panther, a revenue maker new mech, into the game because firestarter does it's job better. however if each hardpoint was sized so fitting a ppc was exclusive to the panther then there would be a purpose for both mechs. at the moment the only thing defining mirrior builds is the slight geometry and movement quirks, the rest are outclassed by meta chassis doing other chassis jobs better. the awesome should be the only assault capable of carrying 3+ ppcs but hey who cares about giving all the mechs an equal job oppotunity when we can spoil the art along with "so many customisation choices"

but "must have it all" money derps wins over art and logic every time.

this. +1000.

Excelsior!

[Steven Dixon]

I also prefer the larger PPCs on the K2, so you have my vote.

[Bishop Steiner]

Steven Dixon, on 17 April 2014 - 06:41 PM, said:

I also prefer the larger PPCs on the K2, so you have my vote.

thankee my fine constituent..... I will certainly do my utmost to represent your interests in the Marble Halls!

[FireSlade]

GalaxyBluestar, on 17 April 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

that's the thing many argued right from the get go, when i arrived 2 things really perplexed me, the lack of radar and it's options, relying on others for lokcs and the omni style customisation. I hated gauss cats because such mechs shouldn't had been capable of fitting guasses in the ST's jagers are fine but of course they weren't available then and derps got their knickers in a twist "muh customisations" "mech warrior is nothing wih out them" then we got stupid pencils shoved on the side and the hex stalker was born, technically ppc stalkers 6er or 4ppcs shouldn't had been possible. but PGI chased the derp money and further more planed from dec 2012 onwards to make many a mess a muddle build possible.

but now look what what we have, pointless to introduce a panther, a revenue maker new mech, into the game because firestarter does it's job better. however if each hardpoint was sized so fitting a ppc was exclusive to the panther then there would be a purpose for both mechs. at the moment the only thing defining mirrior builds is the slight geometry and movement quirks, the rest are outclassed by meta chassis doing other chassis jobs better. the awesome should be the only assault capable of carrying 3+ ppcs but hey who cares about giving all the mechs an equal job oppotunity when we can spoil the art along with "so many customisation choices"

but "must have it all" money derps wins over art and logic every time.

Any way that I can like this a few thousand more times? There is a few things that I feel that have been hurting MWO and the lack of sized hardpoints is one of them. I really wonder how min maxing would looked without the ability to run 4-6 PPCs and how ghost heat would never have been needed. PGI claims to want to make the game easier for the new player but my understanding says that sized hardpoints is easier to grasp than if I use more than x number of weapons i get extra heat.

[Bishop Steiner]

FireSlade, on 17 April 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Any way that I can like this a few thousand more times? There is a few things that I feel that have been hurting MWO and the lack of sized hardpoints is one of them. I really wonder how min maxing would looked without the ability to run 4-6 PPCs and how ghost heat would never have been needed. PGI claims to want to make the game easier for the new player but my understanding says that sized hardpoints is easier to grasp than if I use more than x number of weapons i get extra heat.

Very true. Sadly, looks like Forum work is all I will be good for the next few days, as the sheer amount of internet traffic here in Mexico had jumped 10x for the Holy week revelers. It seems the local servers can't handle the heavy load, and anything heavy load wise is getting dumped. A lot. Gonna be annoyed if I can't play, let alone winn 5 matches this weekend because of it.

also,, for those who have not seen it, on a related topic....
http://mwomercs.com/...ometry-awesome/

Cheers. Time to watch the latest episode of Arrow, then hit the sack.

[Cimarb]

FireSlade, on 17 April 2014 - 07:31 PM, said:

Any way that I can like this a few thousand more times? There is a few things that I feel that have been hurting MWO and the lack of sized hardpoints is one of them. I really wonder how min maxing would looked without the ability to run 4-6 PPCs and how ghost heat would never have been needed. PGI claims to want to make the game easier for the new player but my understanding says that sized hardpoints is easier to grasp than if I use more than x number of weapons i get extra heat.

I'm not quite sure you understand what you are talking about. By stating "the ability to run 4-6 PPCs", I assume you mean a Stalker, as that is pretty much the only chassis that can do that. Are you then saying that one of the heaviest energy boats in the game should not be able to equip PPCs in its loadout? You could limit it to only have 2-3 PPCs, but you could then just supplement it with 2-3 ERLLs instead. Regardless, it would be much easier to just adjust heat values, like they have been doing (and no, I am not a fan of ghost heat).

I think it is a great idea to have tubes for ballistics (or barrels in this case), like we currently have for missiles, but the "sized hardpoints" are not a very good choice, imo.

[Bishop Steiner]

Cimarb, on 17 April 2014 - 08:57 PM, said:

I'm not quite sure you understand what you are talking about. By stating "the ability to run 4-6 PPCs", I assume you mean a Stalker, as that is pretty much the only chassis that can do that. Are you then saying that one of the heaviest energy boats in the game should not be able to equip PPCs in its loadout? You could limit it to only have 2-3 PPCs, but you could then just supplement it with 2-3 ERLLs instead. Regardless, it would be much easier to just adjust heat values, like they have been doing (and no, I am not a fan of ghost heat).

I think it is a great idea to have tubes for ballistics (or barrels in this case), like we currently have for missiles, but the "sized hardpoints" are not a very good choice, imo.

argument for another thread, but I can't agree with ya less. The reasons for sized hardpoints are myriad. The reasons against essentially boil down to "I wanna have my custom mech". On the surface not totally unreasonable, but that androgyny is one of the focal drives of the unbalanced meta. Sized hard points actually allows customization, but reopens ROLE concepts, and thus allows for greater tailoring of chassis to have quirks to offset advantages and vice versa. It also make other mechs VIABLE, which atm, are not. Why run a Panther when literally anything it can do, the Firestarter does better? (Doubly so for the wolfhound). MW3 proved, beyond a doubt the inherent flaws of totally open customization, which is one reason MW4 skipped it. Why drive an Awesome,with wonky hitboxes, when I can drive a jump capable Victor, with dreamboat hitboxes, and able to pack just as many PPC? Sized hardpoints solves that.

[Prezimonto]

GalaxyBluestar, on 17 April 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

that's the thing many argued right from the get go, when i arrived 2 things really perplexed me, the lack of radar and it's options, relying on others for lokcs and the omni style customisation. I hated gauss cats because such mechs shouldn't had been capable of fitting guasses in the ST's jagers are fine but of course they weren't available then and derps got their knickers in a twist "muh customisations" "mech warrior is nothing wih out them" then we got stupid pencils shoved on the side and the hex stalker was born, technically ppc stalkers 6er or 4ppcs shouldn't had been possible. but PGI chased the derp money and further more planed from dec 2012 onwards to make many a mess a muddle build possible.

but now look what what we have, pointless to introduce a panther, a revenue maker new mech, into the game because firestarter does it's job better. however if each hardpoint was sized so fitting a ppc was exclusive to the panther then there would be a purpose for both mechs. at the moment the only thing defining mirrior builds is the slight geometry and movement quirks, the rest are outclassed by meta chassis doing other chassis jobs better. the awesome should be the only assault capable of carrying 3+ ppcs but hey who cares about giving all the mechs an equal job oppotunity when we can spoil the art along with "so many customisation choices"

but "must have it all" money derps wins over art and logic every time.

I will even point out again, as I did on the previous page. They wouldn't have to put in hard point sizes to fix this. They could add a layer to mech behavior based on total %tonnage available in each area of the mech, and just call it a gyro problem. They could then rank mechs as various types with different profiles for how much tonnage is available in different locations. Any mech that had a standout location like the Hunchback could get a quirk to help make large weapons fit spots they normally wouldn't.

They've already done this with the hill climb profiles of mechs, they could do it with how much total tonnage you can stuff in a mech location as well. It would mean tiny mechs might be restricted to 2 tons of equipment on the arms, while large mechs get a lot more tonnage like 7tons per-arm. Torso slots on stocky small mechs might fit 7 tons, and on big mechs more, but it would curb some of the silliest of designs.

I agree, though, that hardpoint sizes is an elegant solution and one that should be in the game. I like it more than this idea, but just don't think they'll ever actually give us hardpoint sizes even though it would heavily help fix many of the problems in the game.

A third solution is to have LARGE weapons eat multiple hardpoints as well as slots. So AC20's can only fit in locations where you have 3 hardpoints as well as the slot space. Same with PPC's.. they might require 2 or even 3 Energy slots. This might mean hardpoint totals on certain mechs need to be revisited, but it would curb the silliness as well.

[aniviron]

Prezimonto, on 17 April 2014 - 09:41 PM, said:

I agree, though, that hardpoint sizes is an elegant solution and one that should be in the game. I like it more than this idea, but just don't think they'll ever actually give us hardpoint sizes even though it would heavily help fix many of the problems in the game.

A third solution is to have LARGE weapons eat multiple hardpoints as well as slots. So AC20's can only fit in locations where you have 3 hardpoints as well as the slot space. Same with PPC's.. they might require 2 or even 3 Energy slots. This might mean hardpoint totals on certain mechs need to be revisited, but it would curb the silliness as well.

I actually think that's the best compromise for hardpoint solutions I've ever heard. I really like the idea of weapons that take up 2-3 hardpoints for the bigger guns. It means you really do need to have the raw hardpoints to run some weapons. There are definitely problems though, especially with mechs like the Firestarter that wouldn't really be impacted, and would thus just be better than their counterparts with fewer weapons.

Bishop Steiner, on 17 April 2014 - 08:22 PM, said:

Very true. Sadly, looks like Forum work is all I will be good for the next few days, as the sheer amount of internet traffic here in Mexico had jumped 10x for the Holy week revelers. It seems the local servers can't handle the heavy load, and anything heavy load wise is getting dumped. A lot. Gonna be annoyed if I can't play, let alone winn 5 matches this weekend because of it.

also,, for those who have not seen it, on a related topic....
http://mwomercs.com/...ometry-awesome/

Cheers. Time to watch the latest episode of Arrow, then hit the sack.

If you're having issues with ping over the weekend and don't want to go it alone, PM me. I'll see if I can run escort duty, be your honor guard. :] I was quite successful in this role on some NGNG streams a while back!

[sC4r]

thread like this was around when weapon visualization came for cat
there were not only for k2 but for missile too (especially a1)

and nothing was done about any sadly as the former ears looked much better

[SweetJackal]

Problem with having large weapons like the AC20 or the PPC take multiple hardpoints is that it causes hardpoint inflation to a massive degree. A good example for this is how it would force every Atlas to have 3 Ballistic Hardpoints at a minimum. So this does two things, promotes boating of smaller weapons since hardpoints are forced to be more lax for stock builds to work and punishes mechs that are already underperforming due to poor hardpoints by robbing them of some of the effective builds for them.

In the end that compromise would likely leave the game in a worse state than it is now in terms of harping and blaming mech customization. The view that getting our hands on something very close to the Scratch Build rules is a bad thing isn't one I share though, I will freely admit that.

Yet one of the best ideas that I heard that I would like to see in the game was proposed by someone that I cannot remember their name now, I cannot take credit for this idea though. A proposed solution to the "weapons too large to be mounted" problem that uses already existing mechanics in MWO: Missile Tubes.

The reason why we don't have LRM 120 volleys is because each Missile Hardpoint is assigned a number of tubes. Often the number of tubes is much higher than the stock weapon that is mounted in it to allow for more customization options, like the TDR-9S having 10 tubes for it's one missile slot when the mech comes with an SRM6 in it stock. You can still mount an LRM20 in that hardpoint if you desire but it will be less optimal as it will fire 2 volleys of 10, needing to fire all of it's shots before it's reload cycle can start.

Doing the same with ACs would be interesting to see, so long as they get given the same treatment. Crit Spaces are far and again a huge limiter as to what can be mounted where for the few larger weapons, sometimes meaning you'd have to leave hardpoints empty. But squeezing an AC20 or a Gauss Rifle into a ballistic point with a 'Max Caliber' of an AC10 would mean those weapons would have to fire twice in quick succession to deal their damage.

After all, the TT was never ruled for symmetry. You can have only two JJs in the left torso only and the mech stays balanced, mostly due to their fluff that the thrust was rerouted but the rules sit there still. Making an AC20 fit into a structure point not designed for the larger caliber means getting the damage from some other means, such as firing more shells down range.

Though It would be cool to give this treatment to ACs, Energy Weapons as a whole should be left untouched. Might be a point of complaint on that but the PPC and LL are comparable in effectiveness to the AC10 and LRM10 as being a main weapon, it is the Gauss, AC20, LRM15/20 that are more specialized in terms of their design and use while the PPC and LL are comparable to the AC/2 and AC/5 in weight and crit usage.

Not that I think it is reasonable to see any change in this direction at all as it completely changes the balance scales between mechs and variants, is more work for coding and requires more effort in design when we are supposedly "not in beta" anymore.

[Degalus]

Old Visual Catapult Patch Thread

Just saying

ps.:
German Thread

Edited by Degalus, 18 April 2014 - 02:24 AM.

[Dauphni]

That "old" thread is specifically about the A1 though, and the K2 has entirely different issues. Of course they both got uglified, but I think it is worth it to have separate threads for either one.

[Bishop Steiner]

sC4r, on 17 April 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

thread like this was around when weapon visualization came for cat
there were not only for k2 but for missile too (especially a1)

and nothing was done about any sadly as the former ears looked much better

All that is required for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.

Even though large tracts of MechWarrior and many old and famous Battlemechs have fallen or may fall into the grip of the Devs and all the odious apparatus of PGI rule, we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in the Forums, we shall fight on Twitter and the Intrawebz, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our K2, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender!

SuckyJack, on 18 April 2014 - 12:05 AM, said:

Problem with having large weapons like the AC20 or the PPC take multiple hardpoints is that it causes hardpoint inflation to a massive degree. A good example for this is how it would force every Atlas to have 3 Ballistic Hardpoints at a minimum. So this does two things, promotes boating of smaller weapons since hardpoints are forced to be more lax for stock builds to work and punishes mechs that are already underperforming due to poor hardpoints by robbing them of some of the effective builds for them.

In the end that compromise would likely leave the game in a worse state than it is now in terms of harping and blaming mech customization. The view that getting our hands on something very close to the Scratch Build rules is a bad thing isn't one I share though, I will freely admit that.

Yet one of the best ideas that I heard that I would like to see in the game was proposed by someone that I cannot remember their name now, I cannot take credit for this idea though. A proposed solution to the "weapons too large to be mounted" problem that uses already existing mechanics in MWO: Missile Tubes.

The reason why we don't have LRM 120 volleys is because each Missile Hardpoint is assigned a number of tubes. Often the number of tubes is much higher than the stock weapon that is mounted in it to allow for more customization options, like the TDR-9S having 10 tubes for it's one missile slot when the mech comes with an SRM6 in it stock. You can still mount an LRM20 in that hardpoint if you desire but it will be less optimal as it will fire 2 volleys of 10, needing to fire all of it's shots before it's reload cycle can start.

Doing the same with ACs would be interesting to see, so long as they get given the same treatment. Crit Spaces are far and again a huge limiter as to what can be mounted where for the few larger weapons, sometimes meaning you'd have to leave hardpoints empty. But squeezing an AC20 or a Gauss Rifle into a ballistic point with a 'Max Caliber' of an AC10 would mean those weapons would have to fire twice in quick succession to deal their damage.

After all, the TT was never ruled for symmetry. You can have only two JJs in the left torso only and the mech stays balanced, mostly due to their fluff that the thrust was rerouted but the rules sit there still. Making an AC20 fit into a structure point not designed for the larger caliber means getting the damage from some other means, such as firing more shells down range.

Though It would be cool to give this treatment to ACs, Energy Weapons as a whole should be left untouched. Might be a point of complaint on that but the PPC and LL are comparable in effectiveness to the AC10 and LRM10 as being a main weapon, it is the Gauss, AC20, LRM15/20 that are more specialized in terms of their design and use while the PPC and LL are comparable to the AC/2 and AC/5 in weight and crit usage.

Not that I think it is reasonable to see any change in this direction at all as it completely changes the balance scales between mechs and variants, is more work for coding and requires more effort in design when we are supposedly "not in beta" anymore.

Not entirely true, and would depend on the loadout. Most mechs with AC20s stock do not have a huge proliferation of other weapons BECAUSE the AC20 eats up so much tonnage and real estate.

Also the RS and BoarsHeads with ac10s, and the K, with a Gauss, woul dbe 2 hardpoint mechs, because of the critical size of both weapons.

[Degalus]

Uite Dauphni, on 18 April 2014 - 02:38 AM, said:

That "old" thread is specifically about the A1 though, and the K2 has entirely different issues. Of course they both got uglified, but I think it is worth it to have separate threads for either one.

The Title say A1 but it was also talked about all other Catapults. The German Thread is a summary of the old one and just say Catapult.

[Bishop Steiner]

Degalus, on 18 April 2014 - 03:01 AM, said:

The Title say A1 but it was also talked about all other Catapults. The German Thread is a summary of the old one and just say Catapult.

Yup. And it usually takes multiple threadnaughts to get their attention.

Pisses me off, because it was a pointless change, and because the assets for the original are almost certainly still there, and it's pretty much a plug n play fix, one that would actually be a solid community goodwill gesture (along with things, like, IDK; re-releasing the CN9-AH the community has clamored for since it was stolen from us).

Is it maybe pointless? Possibly, but it definitely won't happen if we don't rattle sabers.

[MeiSooHaityu]

I think the only reason they did what they did for both the K2 Barrels and A1 Missile racks is for easier visual transistions when switching weapons in the mechlab.

The K2 PPC barrels share the same weapon base as the Lasers. I bet when you equip the PPCs, the laser lense is still there and gets hidden in the PPC barrel out of sight. This way they aren't changing the entire arm or face of the arm for a weapon change.

Same thing with the A1. They don't feel like changing the missile graphic inside the pod for different loadouts, it is just easier to tack on crappy VCR missile pods. With the A1, it might even have something to do with the missile tubes as well (Easier to add and take away tube points than re-arranging them per weapon purchase).

It's all speculation, but I think it might be the case. Doesn't mean I agree with PGI's decision on this (I don't like what they are doing), but I think I might understand why.

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 18 April 2014 - 03:13 AM.