470 replies to this topic

[Dauphni]

Remember when the site background was this glorious beast?



Yeah.

Edited by Uite Dauphni, 18 April 2014 - 03:47 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Uite Dauphni, on 18 April 2014 - 03:45 AM, said:

Remember when the site background was this glorious beast?



Yeah.

sheer beauty.

[FireSlade]

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.

You hit the nail on the head; it is easier just to adjust heat values, hence why we have ghost heat. But ghost heat only works with weapons that have high heat values and because of this, and a few other factors, ballistics reign supreme. That is another conversation though. Bishop basically explained why limiting hardpoint sizes would have helped MWO. Allowing more mech chassis to be viable rather than 1 being at the top. You want more than 2 PPCs? Use an Awesome. With the current anything can fit as long as you have the hardpoints, slots, and tons you can fit 4 PPCs to just about any mech that is bigger than a heavy. Take your pick (just some builds that I slapped together):

• TDR-5SS
  
• ON1-K
  
• AWS-8Q
  
• BLR-1G

Ever notice how you see more Battlemasters than Stalkers now? Ballistics, XL friendly, and other reasons make it a better platform. So because of PGI not having enough forward thinking and then being too far in to do anything about it we end up with these issues. Also to tie into the OP, PGI's lack of forethought is why we have tiny PPCs and why the Catapults have messed up weapon models that everyone hates.

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.

Good luck getting the 5 Wins but you should have no problem doing it by the deadline. Been having some major issues with Comcast internet here and have been seeing pings of 5000. Still can play but every so often mechs start to run in place and rubber band. I have been telling them for months now something is wrong since it sometimes takes 3-5min to load a web pages and that I think that the modem is junk (last one worked perfectly but the wireless shit the bed), but they keep saying that I am imagining things. What really pisses me off is that I went to school for some networking classes but the tech that comes to check things out does not know the term "ping" and I have to explain it to them when it is their job to know. That and supposedly my issue is that 15mb (I have the 30/5 package) a sec is too slow and I needed to upgrade to the $80 a month package.

[CDLord HHGD]

Bishop Steiner, on 17 April 2014 - 06:27 PM, said:

this. +1000. Excelsior!

Support Sized Hardpoints now! Link in my signature (Change the Meta)!

[Prezimonto]

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.

Again, deal with it through quirks. The Atlas is a 100ton mech and gets a special quirk that allows it to pretend it has 3 hard points for the AC/Missile packs in the side torsos.. .it's just really room in there.

The AWS would need a few more hardpoint maybe... but really is that going to make the AWS a WORSE mech than it already is?

I really think PGI under estimates the utility that mech quirks could have for balancing the variants.

Edited by Prezimonto, 18 April 2014 - 06:39 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Prezimonto, on 18 April 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

Again, deal with it through quirks. The Atlas is a 100ton mech and gets a special quirk that allows it to pretend it has 3 hard points for the AC/Missile packs in the side torsos.. .it's just really room in there.

The AWS would need a few more hardpoint maybe... but really is that going to make the AWS a WORSE mech than it already is?

I really think PGI under estimates the utility that mech quirks could have for balancing the variants.

Agreed

[Cimarb]

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

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.

I don't like the gyro thing, as it sounds too much like ghost heat, even if the theory itself is technologically common sense.

How about this?

Instead of just having hardpoint sizes, why not make hardpoints a portion of the crit space available in that section. This may be the same thing as hardpoint sizes, technically, but I like the definition better.

For instance, say you have a K2 (to keep this at least a little on topic, lol): http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ab#i=19&l=stock

You have a PPC in each arm, so the Energy hardpoint can fit anything up to 3 crit slots. You also have a ballistic and energy hardpoint in each torso, but since they only have a MG and ML respectively, these hardpoints can only fit 1 crit slot each. That means you can't swap out the MG for a Gauss Rifle or anything larger than an AC2, and can only equip a MPL or less in the MLs spot (1 crit slot).

Now, say you are looking at a Misery (since Stalker was another example): http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ab#i=75&l=stock

You have two energy in each arm, but each is 1 crit slot, for a total of 2 crit slots. That means you can equip up to a single ERLL (2 crit) or 2 MPLs (2x1 crit). You could equip up to a single ERLL in the CT, but only one MPL since there is only one hardpoint. The RT could have any 1 missile weapon up to 2 crit slots. The LT could have any 1 ballistic up to 7 crit slots (so anything except the AC20).

This would limit based upon the total size allocated to weapons in the chassis (total crit slots) as well as mounting joints (hardpoints).

As a disclaimer, I like this as a compromise to the sized hardpoint suggestion, but I would actually prefer to balance weapons by making ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam durations. My second choice would be some sort of tube-count for ballistics (just like missiles), as it does allow any ballistic to be mounted, but that doesn't fix PPCs at all. This limited hardpoint idea would then be my third choice.

[Praehotec8]

Please fix this, and also remove the awful add-ons to the catapult missile boxes!

[Mavairo]

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 need a wingman shoot me a PM sometime. I got my free bolt earier today. All thanks to my Fugly A1.

[Grey Ghost]

Keep fighting the good fight!

[Prezimonto]

Cimarb, on 18 April 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

I don't like the gyro thing, as it sounds too much like ghost heat, even if the theory itself is technologically common sense.

How about this?

Instead of just having hardpoint sizes, why not make hardpoints a portion of the crit space available in that section. This may be the same thing as hardpoint sizes, technically, but I like the definition better.

For instance, say you have a K2 (to keep this at least a little on topic, lol): http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ab#i=19&l=stock

You have a PPC in each arm, so the Energy hardpoint can fit anything up to 3 crit slots. You also have a ballistic and energy hardpoint in each torso, but since they only have a MG and ML respectively, these hardpoints can only fit 1 crit slot each. That means you can't swap out the MG for a Gauss Rifle or anything larger than an AC2, and can only equip a MPL or less in the MLs spot (1 crit slot).

Now, say you are looking at a Misery (since Stalker was another example): http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ab#i=75&l=stock

You have two energy in each arm, but each is 1 crit slot, for a total of 2 crit slots. That means you can equip up to a single ERLL (2 crit) or 2 MPLs (2x1 crit). You could equip up to a single ERLL in the CT, but only one MPL since there is only one hardpoint. The RT could have any 1 missile weapon up to 2 crit slots. The LT could have any 1 ballistic up to 7 crit slots (so anything except the AC20).

This would limit based upon the total size allocated to weapons in the chassis (total crit slots) as well as mounting joints (hardpoints).

As a disclaimer, I like this as a compromise to the sized hardpoint suggestion, but I would actually prefer to balance weapons by making ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam durations. My second choice would be some sort of tube-count for ballistics (just like missiles), as it does allow any ballistic to be mounted, but that doesn't fix PPCs at all. This limited hardpoint idea would then be my third choice.

That's essentially the third idea I suggested with a twist. In the spirit of compromise I approve wholeheartedly!

[Bishop Steiner]

Cimarb, on 18 April 2014 - 11:54 AM, said:

As a disclaimer, I like this as a compromise to the sized hardpoint suggestion, but I would actually prefer to balance weapons by making ACs burst-fire and PPCs beam durations. My second choice would be some sort of tube-count for ballistics (just like missiles), as it does allow any ballistic to be mounted, but that doesn't fix PPCs at all. This limited hardpoint idea would then be my third choice.

the stuff above this seemed like a slightly overly complicated way to achieve essentially the same idea as sized hard points.

that said, turning every weapon into DoT weapons is one of the worst, most boring balance methods out there. One of the few things PGI actually has gotten right is the need for differing damage delivery mechanisms. FLD does not HAVE to be OP.
That is why Ballistics and PPCs are so heavy, and the PPC is heat crippled. If they would ditch the tripled weapon ranges and such, and not put lasers in such a bad place due to heat, in comparison (and if srms worked, etc) they would be close to fine. Why would I remotely invest 12 tons into an ac10 if I can deliver the same essential damage with Large Laser or PPC, save a ton of tonnage (yes you need heat sinks, but most people run overheat specials already without that much consequence) and not have to carry ammo....or run the risk if running out?

[Bishop Steiner]

Mavairo, on 18 April 2014 - 01:24 PM, said:

If you need a wingman shoot me a PM sometime. I got my free bolt earier today. All thanks to my Fugly A1.

appreciate the offer. WILL HAVE TO SEE IF i EVEN GOT THE BANDWIDTH TO GET ON. And bloody capslock.....I use this laptop so rarely because the keyboard is so bloody cramped......

[SweetJackal]

Prezimonto, on 18 April 2014 - 06:38 AM, said:

Again, deal with it through quirks. The Atlas is a 100ton mech and gets a special quirk that allows it to pretend it has 3 hard points for the AC/Missile packs in the side torsos.. .it's just really room in there.

The AWS would need a few more hardpoint maybe... but really is that going to make the AWS a WORSE mech than it already is?

I really think PGI under estimates the utility that mech quirks could have for balancing the variants.

Using quirks to distinguish loadouts and effectiveness of the mech, to change their strengths and weaknesses, to have quirks have a positive gameplay impact for mechs is something that I will promote.

Again though, I doubt it would ever happen as it work require a pass on every single mech already in the game as well as changes to the coding and design of the mechlab. We are still sitting on the DHS Tax.

[Degalus]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 April 2014 - 03:05 AM, said:

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.

Only wanted to show that the old thread had 33 pages ^^

[Iqfish]

Signed. Give me back my K2's ears and not these stubby little...

[The Uberlot]

The PPCs look even more ridiculous on the Blackjack.

[Bishop Steiner]

The Uberlot, on 18 April 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

The PPCs look even more ridiculous on the Blackjack.

naw, nothing tops how ridiculous they look on the Firestarter. Nothing.

[Prezimonto]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 April 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

naw, nothing tops how ridiculous they look on the Firestarter. Nothing.

Yet. Give them time.

[SweetJackal]

Bishop Steiner, on 18 April 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

naw, nothing tops how ridiculous they look on the Firestarter. Nothing.

PPC Locust?