205 replies to this topic

[Wieland]

Asmudius Heng, on 25 April 2014 - 03:33 AM, said:

From what Paul was saying on the NGNG podcast a lot of decisions seem to be pushed on PGI from 'Other sources' - whatever that means. However it might mean that they have research to suggest that hardpoint sizes would be hated by new players or something which is what they desperatly prize and why they added 3rd person etc.

I personally think that is bogus but its becoming more clear that PGI have had to force in features or not put in features due to these outside forces so there is some food for thought.

There are only 3 candidates, IGP, Microsoft or an Investor. And none of them usually has real gaming experience.
Oh, very successfull game xyz has feature abc lets put that in our game too.
Trying to copy other games to get more players/money and pissing of current players isnt a good way. SWG anyone?

[Josef Nader]

zagibu, on 25 April 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

You may ask for the point, but sized hardpoints is certainly not ridiculously complex and arbitrary. It's both simple and intuitive.

It is complex and arbitrary if you deviate from giving mechs the same hard points as their stock loadouts. Why should the Dragon be able to mount a PPC in place of a medium laser if a QuickDraw can't? Why can it mount a PPC in its arm and not its shoulder? There's no reason for it, therefore its arbitrary and confusing.

If you -don't- do this, then the Dragon just disappears, because its stock loadout is terrible. Shadow Hawks drop out of existence, as do Quickdraws (even more so), Spiders, Ravens, Blackjacks, and a whole mess of other mechs that are quite workable in the current system.

Wieland, on 25 April 2014 - 03:29 AM, said:

Thats only with a 2 size hardpoint system. The 4 size i favor can make this impossible.

I Iove this post. You're saying that with your system we can make the Dragon Slayer incapable of running its stock loadout.

Edited by Josef Nader, 25 April 2014 - 04:23 AM.

[zagibu]

Why do you keep bringing up the Dragon? The Dragon is hardly a mech that needs further limitations.

[Josef Nader]

zagibu, on 25 April 2014 - 04:25 AM, said:

Why do you keep bringing up the Dragon? The Dragon is hardly a mech that needs further limitations.

. . .

Which is exactly why I keep bringing it up.

For any of these hard point restriction ideas to work they have to be applied across all mechs, not just the good ones and not just the mechs you don't like. You can't ignore mechs and variants that are already bad, and in most cases you're going to make them significantly worse.

Pro-limitation folks are blithely ignoring this in favor of "lol it will make underplayed variants more desireable". No, it freaking won't. It'll make most of them unplayable, and rather than hurting the meta humpers, who are all content to just move on to whatever mech -can- mount the loadout they want, you hurt people like me, who enjoy playing a large variety of mechs, including sub par and underplayed chassis, and who enjoy modifying them into a workable state.

Edited by Josef Nader, 25 April 2014 - 04:54 AM.

[RG Notch]

Wieland, on 25 April 2014 - 03:46 AM, said:

There are only 3 candidates, IGP, Microsoft or an Investor. And none of them usually has real gaming experience.
Oh, very successfull game xyz has feature abc lets put that in our game too.
Trying to copy other games to get more players/money and pissing of current players isnt a good way. SWG anyone?

No one at PGI has any real game making experience either, unless you count making grade ZZZ shovel ware and console hunting and fishing games. I guess the other boogie man in these forums is the evil publisher. PGI is just as responsible for all these stupid changes and just like blaming evil pre mades for stomps, blaming the publisher is just as lame.

[ReguIus]

These limits would really end up hindering mechs on the heavier side. It doesn't really make a difference whether or not you cut out anything around ~60 tons or less. You won't be able to make 4PPC+Gauss builds work on those, or anything "game breaking" really. It's not like Dragons or Quickdraws (let alone 8ML Firestarters/Blackjacks) were asking for Ghost Heat; They weren't the target audience of that system and never will be.

Heavy mechs obviously carrly a greater load of heavy weaponry and that just went over the top a year ago. For example, the fact that LRM damage had to be reduced next to nothing was simply to combat the inevitable 80-tube LRM stalkers from dominating the game. This is why you never see people running small LRM launchers: They just aren't worth the tons because of the insane boats.

Now this is why hardpoint size limits would actually do some good. It would put a reasonable limit to some select weapons that would otherwise render a lot of other weapons (and in many cases entire mechs) completely redundant. Are 3PPC Awesomes a common sight nowadays? Because I don't play that often. What if that mech was the only mech in the game (or one of the VERY few) that could boat the 3 PPC's? I don't think this system would be THAT bad or ruin ALL of your mech builds, honestly. It could genuinely help some mechs become unique and useful in their own way and finally put an end to the dominion of the omnipotent Highlander 733C.

Edited by Kurbutti, 25 April 2014 - 05:22 AM.

[3rdworld]

Josef Nader, on 25 April 2014 - 04:44 AM, said:

. . .

Which is exactly why I keep bringing it up.

For any of these hard point restriction ideas to work they have to be applied across all mechs, not just the good ones and not just the mechs you don't like. You can't ignore mechs and variants that are already bad, and in most cases you're going to make them significantly worse.

Pro-limitation folks are blithely ignoring this in favor of "lol it will make underplayed variants more desireable". No, it freaking won't. It'll make most of them unplayable, and rather than hurting the meta humpers, who are all content to just move on to whatever mech -can- mount the loadout they want, you hurt people like me, who enjoy playing a large variety of mechs, including sub par and underplayed chassis, and who enjoy modifying them into a workable state.

QFT.

[Wieland]

Josef Nader, on 25 April 2014 - 04:22 AM, said:

I Iove this post. You're saying that with your system we can make the Dragon Slayer incapable of running its stock loadout.

I was talking about the PPC 2xAC5 one.

[Roland]

Josef Nader, on 25 April 2014 - 04:44 AM, said:

For any of these hard point restriction ideas to work they have to be applied across all mechs, not just the good ones and not just the mechs you don't like. You can't ignore mechs and variants that are already bad, and in most cases you're going to make them significantly worse.

You could use any hardpoint limitations you want.. you'd only be constrained by making sure that the hardpoint limits could at LEAST support a stock loadout.

Beyond that, there's nothing inherent in the idea that would suggest you would need to impose hardpoint restrictions on mechs which were already weak, like the Dragon.

I'm not sure why you think they would be required to do so.

[3rdworld]

Roland, on 25 April 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

You could use any hardpoint limitations you want.. you'd only be constrained by making sure that the hardpoint limits could at LEAST support a stock loadout.

Beyond that, there's nothing inherent in the idea that would suggest you would need to impose hardpoint restrictions on mechs which were already weak, like the Dragon.

I'm not sure why you think they would be required to do so.

Than it requires PGI to balance mech vs mech...

Good luck with that one.

[Butane9000]

I've always liked my idea for hard point limitations. It's a blend of MW4 and MWO. Where like in MW4 you have a chunk of critical slots colored to represent their weapon type and a total amount to fit certain weapons or mixes of weapons. Here's some examples:

Spoiler

The idea is while you have multiple hard points you have limited critical space. The best example I can make is that the DD can support 6 different ballistic weapons but it's also the only chassis that can support a AC20 in each arm.

The S can support dual 2xAC5 & 2xUAC5 or dual Gauss etc.

With this system it should still give a certain amount of flexibility to the customization system while making certain variants more useful.

Edited by Butane9000, 25 April 2014 - 06:14 AM.

[Magna Canus]

OneEyed Jack, on 25 April 2014 - 03:12 AM, said:

You got me all wrong.

I don't fear meta humpers. I accept them as inevitable, and have no issue with fighting with or against them in any build I run. Rather, the two main driving arguments for limits are either breaking up the meta or increasing diversity. My stance is that further limiting build options doesn't accomplish either.

If I thought for a second that it would actually increase the diversity of reasonably playable mechs, I would support it, even if it had zero impact on the meta. Or, if I thought it would make a wider range of chassis/variants/builds competitive at the same level as the meta, thereby diversifying what the meta humpers ran, I would support it just to see more variety. I like variety.

But I know better, so I don't support removing options that allow myself and others to make non-meta, fun builds that are still reasonably competitive. Or crazy joke builds, competitive or not, like the Noisy Cricket. An AC40 Cicada is not a good build by any stretch of the imagination, but dagnabit, it fun! Is it realistic? Hell no. But little about either this game or the IP is realistic, starting with the giant, bipedal, walking tanks we drive, so I could give a flying **** about the "realism" of mounting giant guns in my giant fighting robot.

Ok, I think I get where you are coming from now. I have a bit more faith that if done properly (OMG, what am I talking about... PGI, properly...nah) it SHOULD make more mechs more interesting. Also noting the fact that IMO the limits need to be paired with well defined quirks to be "good".

What I am annoyed with in the moment is that you have, say, a 35 ton mech that does x. A new 35 ton mech comes out with the same or similar hard-points in different places and the first reaction is "can't be bothered, my blah does that". Joke builds are good for a laugh, but, what other real purpose do they serve than a lark here and there? It really seems like a shame and a waste.

[AlexEss]

@Heng That other source is the investors and major shareholders. These are people who care jack and less about anything you hold dear unless it equals more income. They can not afford them self the luxury of being nostalgic or acton their emotions. They look at this with a very clinical and simple view. What makes more money according to the data we have.

It is how the reality works... That is why the MW games are so far removed from the TT.


@Weiland SWG is not a very good example at all. It was flawed from the start in such as it had several systems that did not merge very well and balancing in that game was always impossible due to the flexible system. It also had a very... VERY high bar of entry. So when they did the NGE it was actually the only logical thing to do, and they only did it because people were leaving... You maybe did not see it on the larger US servers but on the EU server i was on it was plain as day. But i guess you are right in a way. It is a very investor driven thing to do. The only looked at the bottom line and said "this might save the game". In hindsight we know it did not... But the game was not doing particularly well any way.

@the topic at hand: Sized hardpoints hardly solve any problem we have to day and only introduce ANOTHER layer of pointless complexity and user unfriendliness. Worse so then "ghost heat" or the current mech lab. It also sounds to me like it would also kill part of the "proxy" way of playing chassis that are not in-game yet by emulating their setup on other ones.

[Stijnovic]

cdlord, on 22 April 2014 - 01:49 PM, said:

There should be two categories for hardpoints; Small and Large. Keep it simple and base it off the stock loadout of the variant/chassis.

OneEyed Jack, on 22 April 2014 - 02:33 PM, said:

Yes, what we really need is to contract the meta to a truly mind-numbingly limited number of chassis, because there would still be a "best" build, except only now one chassis would have the hardpoints to do it.

I agree to both points:
The current hardpoint/criticals solution is silly. Critical points are not about size because all mechs have the same number. Something must be done about this, a spider with 2 PPC's in one arm is just too weird.

On the other hand, limiting the amount of possible variants/loadouts is also not what we want.

Therefore, I think the solution is to encourage/discourage certain builds by quirks instead of having hard limitations. For instance having a huge weapon in a tiny mech could:

• increase hitbox size of respective section
  
• induce a huge recoil
  
• reduce twist/arm-speed
  
• reduce weapon accuracy
  
• increase chance of critical hit
  
• chance of bypassing armor as the weapon is sticking out

Many more quirks are possible of course!

This could also be combined with per-chassis quirks that the devs want to implement and this in turn could even replace the current ghost-heat system...

[CDLord HHGD]

In my concept, the hardpoint size would be based off the stock loadout of the variant/chassis. This in no way limits stock builds. Also, this is no way forces people to use stock builds. Nowhere am I restricting technology upgrades, engine, etc.... I am just stating that a Spider with a medium laser cannot swap it out for a large or a PPC, but can do pulse or small or TAG. Conversely, the spider with a large laser stock can equip a PPC or pulse or any smaller weapon. Same with the commando...

And to those saying this is complex.... I have no response to that suitable for these forums... If you think having three qualifiers (crit space, tonnage, size) for installing a weapon is complex then you obviously haven't played a serious MMO in a very long time.... We don't have to grind weapon/armor sets for uber synergy.... We don't have to track half a dozen or more currencies (STO anyone?).... We don't have to worry about how our toons look.... Complex? MWO? HA!

Granted we are still waiting on CW which will add a level of complexity, but still it'll be nowhere near other online games.

My fear is this: When private matches come out, people will gravitate to leagues which will polarize this issue. Either for or against, the community will be further segregated along these lines. People are already talking about stock only leagues or tech level leagues. "If you want to participate in CW, you have to deal with it." Who cares? With private matches and leagues, we can do our own version of CW.... The community left in real CW will dwindle either through joining a league or by getting fed up with the meta and leave. The game will be relegated to life support whist the leagues battle it out separately.

The status quo will kill this game. I love this game, I love this genre, and as long as I am permitted to type, I'll keep bringing ideas, old and new to the table.

[1453 R]

Wieland, on 25 April 2014 - 06:00 AM, said:

I was talking about the PPC 2xAC5 one.

And you are the perfect example of the uncomprehending, reactionary "NO MORE META I HATE MEEETTAAAAAAAS!!!" agitator the rest of us have been in this thread railing against for eight pages now.

You 'claim' that you want a system in place which would allow for the removal of things like Ghost heat, Gauss delay, and other weapons nerfs that were implemented to stop boating...but when the point is made that the Dragon Slayer's stock loadout is more dangerous in such a system than than anything it could otherwise run...you're not concerned whatsoever with ensuring that a 'Mech designed from the ground up for pop-sniping can't do that. All you're concerned with is ensuring that the current PPC/AC5 META goes away, and you don't care how many marginal variants of marginal chassis you have to kill to do it.

Because it's the META, and METAS are always bad, and if only we had no meaningful customization in this game and were forced to run nothing but Stock+DHS builds, then we would have a glorious, dazzling Paradise wherein every single variant of every single 'mech saw equal play and we would have finally defeated the evil, nasty META

WRONG.

You know what would happen then? The chassis/variants - like the Dragon Slayer - that still used the more effective armaments would become the new meta. You can't 'beat' the meta, because it's not a fixed thing. it's what players who want to win have to use in order to win, because everything else loses. There will always be Bad and Good - the objective of the developer is to make the gap between Bad and Good as small as possible, such that the META isn't a dominant force in the game so long as players pay the remotest attention to what they're doing in the MechLab.

This whole sized hardpoints thing is one of the best ways I can think of to ensure that the difference between Bad and Good spans entire galaxies, and that only a tiny handful of lucky 'mechs ever see the light of day again outside of the scrubbiest of joke drops or the most blindly obstinate of hardcore fans. Who are already using whatever the hell they like anyways.

You're not going to Kill The META with sized hardpoints - those players will just move onto the next Thing That Is Good. You're not going to improve the lots of folks who already run dirt-poor strictly stock SHS builds because they've got giant nostalgia boners for the old stock-only TT days - those guys will lose as breathtakingly hard as they always do. The people you're going to hurt - badly - are the folks who take bad 'Mechs into the Mechlab, put good guns on them, and make something unique that they can use to have some fun with, without being complete own fodder for the meta.

Why do we deserve to lose our ability to play and enjoy this game. What the hell did we ever do to you?


EDIT:

cdlord, on 25 April 2014 - 07:14 AM, said:

In my concept, the hardpoint size would be based off the stock loadout of the variant/chassis. This in no way limits stock builds. Also, this is no way forces people to use stock builds. Nowhere am I restricting technology upgrades, engine, etc.... I am just stating that a Spider with a medium laser cannot swap it out for a large or a PPC, but can do pulse or small or TAG. Conversely, the spider with a large laser stock can equip a PPC or pulse or any smaller weapon. Same with the commando...

HOW DOES IT NOT FORCE PEOPLE TO USE STOCK BUILDS?! If the stock armaments are all you can bloody fit on the blasted 'Mech, what the hell else are you going to do with it? Do you really, truly, HONESTLY think that being able to switch a medium laser for a medium pulse laser is meaningful and useful 'Mech customization?!

Edited by 1453 R, 25 April 2014 - 07:24 AM.

[Josef Nader]

I'm still completely lost as to why people are railing against heavy weapons light mechs when they existed in canon and they just plain aren't that damn good in MWO. Sure, they're playable and effective in the right hands, but they're hardly some incredibly powerful force on the battlefield.

I would like to once again point out the commando (large laser in an arm) the Urbanmech (AC10/20 in one arm), the Panther (PPC in one arm), the Raven (large laser in one arm) and the Hollander (Gauss rifle in the shoulder) as examples of 3050 IS lights with large weapons in one side or the other. Why is the AC20 Urbanmech okay, but the 2x PPC Spider not?

That doesn't even get in to Clantech, which has a UAC/10 or Gauss rifle on a bit 30 ton light and a pair of ERPPCs or a pair of LRM20s on a 35 ton light.

It just baffles me.

[CDLord HHGD]

1453 R, on 25 April 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

Hyperbole

I honestly quit reading you a while ago. The fact that you seem to feel the need to use caps and underlines and italics means you're overreacting. Calm down... No amount of font editing will make me go away and your efforts are being ignored because they are ignorant and stubborn. I have several posts with other ideas and even a few counterpoints to them. Besides, you're not my supervisor!

[Demuder]

Josef Nader, on 25 April 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

I would like to once again point out the commando (large laser in an arm) the Urbanmech (AC10/20 in one arm), the Panther (PPC in one arm), the Raven (large laser in one arm) and the Hollander (Gauss rifle in the shoulder) as examples of 3050 IS lights with large weapons in one side or the other. Why is the AC20 Urbanmech okay, but the 2x PPC Spider not?

It just baffles me.

I think the main point is that since the Panther, Urbanmech, Raven, etc can do this, there is no point enabling the Spider to do it as well and that a more restricted hardpoint system would enable the Spider to do what the other mechs can't.

It's a slippery slope either way, but I tend to agree more with the restricted system.

[Fut]

Josef Nader, on 25 April 2014 - 07:26 AM, said:

I would like to once again point out the commando (large laser in an arm) the Urbanmech (AC10/20 in one arm), the Panther (PPC in one arm), the Raven (large laser in one arm) and the Hollander (Gauss rifle in the shoulder) as examples of 3050 IS lights with large weapons in one side or the other. Why is the AC20 Urbanmech okay, but the 2x PPC Spider not?

Because the PPCs do not physically fit into the Spider. The Devs have to skew the weapon, by shrinking it drastically so that it can be placed into the Spider.

Fut, on 23 April 2014 - 11:43 AM, said:

The mere fact that the Devs have to literally scale down the physical size of some weapons (in game) to get them to fit onto some smaller Mechs should be indication enough that not all Mechs should be able to field all weapons (Weapon Scale Silliness - Thanks Bishop Steiner)... You might have the # of Crit spaces available, but if the weapon is ~25% of your total weight (arbitrary # guys, no need to get all Maths on me at this point), it probably shouldn't be allowed in some locations.

I mean, the AC20 is such a huge weapon that the Hunchback needs an absurd shoulder to house it properly... yet you can cram 2 AC20s into a Cicada (sort of) with no problems.

How does this make sense to anybody?

Sized hardpoints, or some variation of it, would be a nice addition to the game.