205 replies to this topic

[101011]

OneEyed Jack, on 22 April 2014 - 03:38 PM, said:

Edge cases of one-shots don't apply, as it has too little to do with the build, and head shots are part of the game.

I skipped the Clan reference because IS mechs are NOT improved Omnis. IS have always been customize-able. The long lists of field mods and canon custom mechs attests to that, as well as the very rules of the IP. Omni technology was more about being able to do it quickly to fit the mission, and with built-in CASE. The only reason IS mechs beat that in MWO is because there's no time element to the game, forcing the owner to do without the mech for weeks or more while work is done on his mech. If I had a say, they'd allow Omnis to pick from pre-selected load-outs during the pre-match, after they know the map, mode and such, to emulate it, but they didn't ask me.

Ah, yes, the edge cases do apply. You said that one shot kills do not happen, I countered with the statement that they do: 3 Gauss, 2 AC/20, and anything doing over 33 points of damage can do them. And while IS 'Mechs were customizable, it was incredibly expensive, time consuming, and generally a PITA. Omnies were much faster and cheaper to customize, but in MWO, so are the standard 'Mechs, but they do not have the limitations an Omni would have. Thus, MWO 'Mechs are superior to omnies.

[OneEyed Jack]

101011, on 22 April 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

Ah, yes, the edge cases do apply. You said that one shot kills do not happen, I countered with the statement that they do: 3 Gauss, 2 AC/20, and anything doing over 33 points of damage can do them. And while IS 'Mechs were customizable, it was incredibly expensive, time consuming, and generally a PITA. Omnies were much faster and cheaper to customize, but in MWO, so are the standard 'Mechs, but they do not have the limitations an Omni would have. Thus, MWO 'Mechs are superior to omnies.

Head shot don't apply because they are intended to be potential 1-shots, and are not the result of some OP build, though they are a LOT harder than in TT. Yes, they are 1-shots, but have nothing to do with the point at hand. Don't be obtuse.

And sure, customizing a mech could be expensive, but when the techs already work for you, you already have the major parts, it's not going to be so much as you make out. There are numerous references in lore of techs patching up damaged mechs in the field and jury-rigging stuff taken from salvaged mechs to replace destroyed components.... in the field... without even a proper mech bay. Hell, read pretty much anything that takes place on Solaris and people are pulling out weapons and putting in weapons all the time. You think Justin Allard took months, or even weeks, to refit YLW, or had a production facility cranking out parts? He put in the largest available AC and had a set of custom titanium claws made between matches, and without anyone finding out... just to surprise a single opponent in a single arena.

Hellcat420, on 22 April 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

your post is a load of bs, and going by your post you dont have a clue about how battlemechs actually work in the battletech lore.

It's OK if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.

[101011]

Way to gloss over my point there: one shot kills happen. You cannot pretend they do not exist. And we are discussing rule sets, not questionably canon fiction. There are plenty of instances where 'Mechs explode in the lore, yet they do not in the standard rule set.

[OneEyed Jack]

101011, on 22 April 2014 - 07:35 PM, said:

Way to gloss over my point there: one shot kills happen. You cannot pretend they do not exist. And we are discussing rule sets, not questionably canon fiction. There are plenty of instances where 'Mechs explode in the lore, yet they do not in the standard rule set.

And the rules in no way ever said that mechs couldn't be customized. It's only by applying lore and a time factor that the idea of limiting it even comes to light. If you're going to apply lore, then you don't get to just pick and choose to back up your own pathetic argument. And questioning whether the Warrior Trilogy is canon? Really? You sure that's a stand you want to take?

But your ridiculous insistence on harping about on-shot kills is getting tiresome. I didn't gloss over shit. Head shots are a part of the game, the IP, and the lore intentionally, so have no bearing in the conversation about builds. Other one-shots, such as catching someone unawares in the back, also have no bearing as they are dependent on game-play and occasionally luck, not on the specifics of builds. Aberrations such as the 6-PPC Stalker could sometimes one-shot mechs, but I disregard builds that are not reasonably combat viable (they weren't good then and are downright bad, now).

Things with paper-thin armor occasionally getting one-shot by otherwise reasonably-sized alphas does not make one-shots a "thing".

[El Bandito]

I have been supporting sized hard points ever since the arrival of Boomcat and Quad PPC Stalker.

Unrestricted size just takes away the flavor of the mech. Look at the poor Awesome.

Without sized hardpoints or PGI messing with the locations, the upcoming Mauler is going to be mighty popular.

Edited by El Bandito, 22 April 2014 - 08:37 PM.

[Shatterpoint]

If it stops spiders with PPCs I'll back it, what a stupid stupid idea it is letting stuff like that exist.
They should be stuck as a fixed turret with a weapon that size fitted to a light mech.

[Captain Stiffy]

FupDup, on 22 April 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

On the other hand, MW4's system of being able to cram in as many tiny guns as you wished could be quite stupid at times.

Somewhere... there is a stricture for what will be approved as a mech that is included in say, the 3050 book or any supplemental material. I want to know exactly what FASA or whoever's rules for that are! They never seem to spell it out exactly for you and you'd end up on custom mech night against guys with 25 machine guns.

[Agent 0 Fortune]

This an excellent proposal. I am confident that many of the naysayers also posted in topic regarding the "DOA on arrival" mechs because they didn't meet the meta expectations.

The way I see things is MWO releases new mechs EVERY SINGLE MONTH. They really have no way to expand without compromising the integrity of previously released mechs. Adding an additional constraint is a very elegant method to distinguish chassis and bring value to previously released mechs.

Every wonder why you never see non CDA-3M, RVN-3L, CTF-3D, or AS7-D-DDC instead of the multiple variants. It is because they are currently inferior. Of course the simple solution is to continue to power creep and sell better and more powerful mechs each iteration where every new mech is better than the last. However I think PGI (and hopefully you) are smarter and want to bring value to the assets already created, otherwise you litterally have to sundown (expire) mechs that players and developers love and build new chassis that far outstrip the lore.

[Mystere]

Shatterpoint, on 22 April 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

If it stops spiders with PPCs I'll back it, what a stupid stupid idea it is letting stuff like that exist.
They should be stuck as a fixed turret with a weapon that size fitted to a light mech.

Hey! Hey! Hey! I started the ERPPC Spider 5D on zero hour. It's not my fault this player base has a lot of copycats.

[GreyGriffin]

Customizing a 'mech is a great way to raise maintenance costs, increase breakdowns, and develop nasty quirks.

[Ultimax]

I've played too many MMOs to think that this would do anything but limit which builds/chassis are viable even further.

I know why it seems like it would promote "variety" but it really wouldn't, it might promote some people's pet builds/mechs but that's about it.

We'd end up with a lottery of which mechs lucked out having the best combination of X hard points of Y size.

Shatterpoint, on 22 April 2014 - 08:50 PM, said:

If it stops spiders with PPCs I'll back it, what a stupid stupid idea it is letting stuff like that exist.
They should be stuck as a fixed turret with a weapon that size fitted to a light mech.

I don't play Spiders, I don't really play Lights to be honest.

I play around a lot in smurfy's and building a Spider with a PPC is a lot more restrictive than I bet most people realize.

I'm just guessing, but it probably looks something like this. That doesn't seem like an issue to me.

I also see the crits/tonnage requirement as fair, if a Jenner can slot 6x MLAS for 6 tons and 6 slots - is it really such a stretch that it could mount an ER PPC for 1 more ton and 3 less slots?

Edited by Ultimatum X, 22 April 2014 - 09:36 PM.

[Karl Streiger]

ha the Mechlab its really a polarizing item for the game - a restriction of sizes will hardly change the "meta"

But i will die because of a heart stroke -when people complain about the Awesome is OP (when this setting will be placed instead of the Ghost Heat)

Anyhow there are clear rules about modification... and i really ask myself why PGI never used them. Its a so much better money sink.

Endosteel, FerroFibrous, Engine Modification, DHS and CASE are a one way modification. You can install them after you bought your Mech. But you cannot remove them.
(so it should be necessary to have some "test" games - for free (small MC fee?))


After that the weapons mountable depends on the available critical slots.
you can change a ER-PPC of 3 crits and 7 tons for every energy weapon - weapon arrays that don'T exceed the crits or the mass - for doubled costs

you can change any weapon with any kind of weapon that don't exceed the number of crits or tonnage - for quadruppled costs (for example LRM 10 and 1t of ammunition - for ER-PPC....alternative you can swap the MLAS-LRM10 and 1t of ammunition on your STK-3F arm for a PPC....for quadruppled costs of the mounted weapon.

for example swaping the JM6-DD into a JM6-G (2 GaussRifles) (ok the alternative is that PGI simple add this variant into the game)

OmniMechs can make both modifications for no additional costs.

[Hellcat420]

OneEyed Jack, on 22 April 2014 - 07:32 PM, said:

It's OK if you disagree with me. I can't force you to be right.

your ignoring that this game is taking place in 3050. the innersphere still has a few years left in the "darkages" before they start getting there crap together technology wise. this game feels more like 3060 with 3050 equiptment/mechs.

[moneyBURNER]

I see no downsides and enormous upsides if this concept was implemented properly.

My ideal solution for sized hardpoints would include the ability to share slots within each section, for added flexibility in limiting the number and/or size of weapons.

Here are some arbitrary examples:

The JR7-F arm could have 3 one-slot hardpoints, allowing 3 medium lasers or 1 PPC, which practically adds no further restrictions for currently viable loadouts.

The JM6-DD arm could have a combination of three hardpoint sizes totaling ten slots that would also have no effect on current customization, or it could be restricted to a nine-slot total to prevent this specific variant from carrying dual AC20s or quad UAC5s.

The STK-3F could have 1 two-slot energy hardpoint on each side torso, and 1 two-slot and 1 one-slot on each arm to carry either 1 ER/PPC or 2 lasers. No more Stalker PPC boats if it was called for balance-wise, and the mech models would make more sense visually with standardized weapon sizes (with K2-like PPC arms on the stalker if so equipped).

This system could provide reasonable customizability, prevent abusive boating, negate the need for ghost heat, and simplify weapon balancing by adding another level of tuning for problematic variants, instead of wreaking havoc with global adjustments to address "edge cases".

There are also factors of realism not acknowledged in the current construction system that help explain the variety and viablity of stock designs in battletech, which sized hardpoints would represent to make each chassis more meaningful and plausible.

Damnit, MWO could be so good with relatively simple design changes.

Edited by moneyBURNER, 23 April 2014 - 01:22 AM.

[Mycrus]

Unlikely they will do this because they have side stepped this issue by building graphical weapon mounts and Ghost heat

but I do agree this would have helped balanced the game

[1453 R]

All right.

You know what would bring certain 'Mechs back into the fold, or at least pull them in from out of the acid rain? Here's a hint: it's not eliminating 'Mech customization as a thing outside of the inevitable DHS tax on anything that doesn't come without stock DHS.

What it is, is an aggressive rework of the quirks system such that each 'Mech can retain its individual flavor without telling players "NO, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN CUSTOMIZE ON YOUR 'MECH IS WHETHER YOU USE MEDIUM LASERS OR MEDIUM PULSE LASERS IN THAT HARDPOINT YOU'RE EYEING RIGHT THERE."

Playing a Centurion? Incoming fire to the left arm is reduced by 33%, since you've got a big stonkin' shield bolted to it.

In a Catapult? Decreased heat and increased cycle time for launchers as proposed, since those massive missile-boxes had best be designed to put missiles downrange as effectively as possible.

In a Raven-3L? Increase effective area of the electronics package the 'Mech was built to carry, as well as increasing the component health of the devices themselves so that they're harder to shoot out of the 'Mech.

In a Quickdraw? Enjoy PGI fixing their mistake and giving you the Medium hill-climbing profile as well as enhancements to your mobility to account for the fact that you're a gunslingery guerrilla 'Mech with happy feet. Given that apparently making it smaller than an Atlas is a no-go.

Furthermore and such! Seriously - sized hardpoints does screw-all to fix the game or Bring Back Bad 'Mechs. Bad 'Mechs will still be bad 'Mechs, they'll just be bad 'Mechs that are now magically unable to equip anything but bad guns. Even with aggressively rebalanced quirks, bad 'Mechs will still be bad 'Mechs, but you know what? They may wind up being bad 'Mechs with good guns and interesting tricks, which is a whole lot better than being bad 'Mechs forced to used bad guns and without a single trick to their name.

Edited by 1453 R, 23 April 2014 - 06:03 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

1453 R, on 23 April 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

I do think mech quirks could be expanded and diversified to give variants certain advantages over others but you're dismissing the sized harpoints issue without any real evidence or argument other than a stealth defense of metabuilds.

For instance, I think the Awesome should not be subject to PPC ghost heat. That would be a nice quirk since the mech was designed around those three weapons. However, I wills till argue that the Alpha Strike should not be the primary mode of attack. Reference my Ghost Heat post in these same forums.

[3rdworld]

cdlord, on 23 April 2014 - 07:02 AM, said:

I do think mech quirks could be expanded and diversified to give variants certain advantages over others but you're dismissing the sized harpoints issue without any real evidence or argument other than a stealth defense of metabuilds.

For instance, I think the Awesome should not be subject to PPC ghost heat. That would be a nice quirk since the mech was designed around those three weapons. However, I wills till argue that the Alpha Strike should not be the primary mode of attack. Reference my Ghost Heat post in these same forums.

Lot of changes, when nerfing PPCs would have the same result, without shoehorning more mechs into roles that do not work in MWO.

[DONTOR]

You will NEVER take away my free customization NEVER!
FREEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM

[1453 R]

All right. Ye want a reasoned argument as to why sized hardpoints are worthless? Here you go.

Proposition 1.) Sizing hardpoints does not in any way affect the weapons that go into those hardpoints. An AC/10 is an AC/10 is an AC/10, just like a PPC is a PPC is a PPC. Weapons will continue to be ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’, entirely independently of where and/or on what ‘Mech they can or can not be equipped. Limiting PPCs to a relatively tiny handful of ‘Mechs who equip large energy weapons in their stock configurations does not make PPCs less dominating, and limiting the LB-X/10 to the relatively tiny handful of ‘Mechw who equip a large-scale ballistic in their stock configurations does not make the LB-X/10 any better.

Proposition 2.) Limiting ‘Mechs to stock-plus-DHS configurations in an attempt to enforce a specific chassis or variant’s role will not make substandard roles more desirable. It will instead make those few ‘Mech chassis whose role falls into line with the current dominant metagame far more desirable, while those whose role do not fall neatly into the current meta will still be as shunned as they always were. Eliminating a ‘Mech’s ability to adapt to the way the game is played via customization will not change the way the game is played; it will only change which ‘Mechs the game is played with. Be honest with yourself – if your Dragons were suddenly limited to AC/5s and medium lasers instead of being able to take larger cannons or beams and play a striker role, would you play Dragons more, or less?

Proposition 3.) The ‘small’ and ‘large’ split artificially conflates certain weapon systems with each other, much as Ghost Heat currently does. A large laser is not equivalent to a PPC – if you force the two to compete for extremely scarce ‘large’ energy slots, the large laser will effectively disappear from play. Similarly, just as current, ‘Mechs which can equip an AC/20 over an AC/10 will continue to do so, and small ballistic slots will be relegated to the same pile that light-‘Mech ballistic slots are – i.e. the Completely Useless Pile. Single AC/5s and AC/2s will be just as terrible as they always were; forcing them on the vast majority of ballistic ‘Mechs doesn’t make them better, it makes ‘Mechs who used to be able to escape them worse.

Conclusion: Sized hardpoints do nothing to affect what roles are desirable on the battlefield or what configurations are the best ways to fulfill those roles. All a sized hardpoint system would do is shuffle around which chassis could fulfill the roles and configurations already seen as desirable, while severely punishing many chassis and variants that can currently play around their stock weaknesses with clever MechLab customizations. And also severely punishing any player who wants to play his ‘Mech as anything but a stock design.

Everyone uses the Awesome as an example of a ‘Mech who would benefit greatly from sized hardpoints, yes? Well, let’s look at a ‘Mech that already struggles mightily for a place in the game which would be absolutely gutted by sized hardpoints, rendered unable to compete in any reasonable manner even in lower ELO brackets – the Quickdraw.

Currently, Quickdraw pilots employ the ‘Mech’s unique mobility bracket and hefty jump capability to fulfill a role as a mobile striker, utilizing torso-mounted PPCs to fire jump-snipe snapshots or utilizing large lasers to pound enemies with drive-by attacks while they get out of Dodge. However…Quickdraws, in their stock configuration, don’t mount anything larger than a medium laser. According to a sized hardpoints system, Quickraws would be unable to mount any weapons larger than a medium laser or an LRM-10.

Have you played a stock Quickdraw? Have you tried to do anything remotely useful in a match where you’re the size of an Atlas with the armament of a Jenner, and the mobility or armor of neither? LRM flights lower than 30 may as well not exist, SRMs are still deficient, and I can fit four medium lasers on a frogging Locust. By introducing a small/large hardpoint system, you would completely eliminate the Quickdraw from anything save joke drops for anyone but the absolute most diehard of QKD fans, whose performance would absolutely plummet because you’re forcing a fragile, oversized striker into a role it can’t fulfill.

Your sized hardpoints would theoretically give you back Awesome, but it would also destroy the Quickdraw. It would further cripple the Dragon, badly damage the Stalker, and render the Blackjack meaningless. Many completely innocent Cicada builds would die for no reason, and the Trebuchet would lose any reason for its energy hardpoints to exist outside of TAG.

Shall I go on? I’m pretty sure I could come up with some more examples for you, if you can’t figure out some of your own. Matter of fact, give me one single example, outside of the Awesome, where sized hardpoints would potentially bring back a bad variant, instead of wreck a good one. You have one example of a ‘Mech that the system may – may revitalize. I’ve got six examples of chassis that would suffer serious injury or die altogether up there. How many more can you come up with?