72 replies to this topic

[Ph30nix]

Well the problem is they already have the mechbay set up a certain way, any changes to it (and switching to the MW4 style mechbay would be massive) would cause a massive uproar among the players even if they dont have a huge problem with that system itself.

Now personally the MW4 system wasnt horrible it was alittle more realistic but it was disliked mostly because it wasnt the style of mechbay people were used to. Trying to put it into MWO though would cause alot of problems and require a MASSIVE amount of rework that frankly PGI just doesn't have the time or resources for. Even if they did though all that would happen is the Meta would drift towards the mechs who COULD hold the weapons the meta players wanted. We would actually have less variety of mechs on the field.

My two cents though boils down to i'd rather we wait and see how the quirk system works out, I liked the outcome for the awesome alot so i have some hope.

[Flyby215]

I think Mech quirks need to be rolled out. I really like the quirks that came out on the Awesome; hope to see more of those roll out on other mechs.

[STEF_]

Koniving, on 22 September 2014 - 06:57 AM, said:

Know what really carries that?
The fact that not everyone has maximum armor. I personally love it.

Me too.
Still missing that kind of matches. I think mw3 was nearly perfect in that.
And of course every mech had its own flavor and its own role...

(We all know that there is a very loooooooooooog list of things to do to make mwo a little more BT. Let's still hope it will happen)

[Mawai]

It doesn't have flavour ... ONLY if you firmly believe that the only weapons you should fit are the AC20/Gauss and PPC.

In that case, the game will never have flavour for you.

Introduce limited hard points and the only mechs that folks with that mindset will play are those that CAN fit AC20/Gauss and PPC. So you end up limiting every other mech than the few that can fit these builds (at least for those with that mindset). But you say ... limited hard points will make these impossible ... how will they do that? Are you planning on limiting the ballistic hardpoints on a DireWhale to smaller AC only? How about limiting the energy hardpoints on the same mech to ML? Does that even make sense in a 100 ton assault that has tonnage and crit space for 2x Gauss and 2xPPC? (or 6xC-UAC5?).

Also, one of the reasons folks tend toward PPC/AC combinations is because they find them optimal for delivering damage. Change things up and there will be a new optimal that folks with this particular mindset will use. Limiting hard points will only get them using the exact same mechs with exact same loadouts instead of a variety of mechs with similar loadouts.

Anyway ... my take is that reducing customization with size limited hard points may force specific mechs into more diverse builds ... but it won't affect the competitive group since they will shift to whichever mech lets them build the optimum build from their perspective. This means that to get away from AC/Gauss/PPC ... you would need to nerf hardpoints to the extent that NO mech could fit both AC/Gauss and PPC at the same time.

[carl kerensky]

I agree in spirit of what OP says. PGI has to find ways to make there makes more unique to each other and viable in there rolls. Lets hope the new quirks coming will help this. But maybe more has to be done in this direction.

[RussianWolf]

Kiiyor, on 22 September 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

Thus far, i'm not sold on this, though the idea has merit.

The issue is this: bad mechs. Some mechs are already bad. If you limit customization, you'll make them worse (ESPECIALLY lighter mechs, which have enough trouble competing with heavies and assaults as it is).

I'd hate to be playing a game where the only viable mechs were those that could mount PPC's and Gauss.

And I would say that this could be used to make the "bad mechs" more viable and the "good mechs" less so.

I'll use the Cicada as an example now. The 2A has 6E hardpoints, 2 in the CT. The 2B has 5E, only one in the CT. Why would you take the 2B over the 2A? Most wouldn't. Most consider the 2B to be the worst one in the chassis. Restrict the 6E on the 2A to 1 slot per Hardpoint and guve the 2B CT a 2 slot hardpoint. Now you get to carry a ERLL on the 2B while only having 6ML on the 2A. Both have their functions and are viable without one trumping the other. The 3C would have the PPC, the 3M would have the ECM and a larger ballistic, and the X5 the missiles. All different and all viable in different ways.

[vettie]

I partially agree with the OP, but I also disagree. Wishy washy? not really.

The thing is, being able to custom build any mech to your liking has always been a huge draw to MechWarrior,
Allowing this keeps a lot of mechs on the battlefield that we may not see otherwise.

I know in MW4, altho I liked that system, people would gravitate to the mechs that were the strongest in both hard points and ability to take fire resulting in, for the most part, just a few chassis seen on the battle fields.

What would be really nice is that once you bought a specific chassis, the stock option for it should / would always be available at the click of a tab or button with out affecting your current 'meta' (or non meta) load out.

While i do find it odd that a K2 can replace 2 machine guns with 2 AC20s or 2 Gauss or you fill in the blanks, I also love that fact that you can do that IF you choose to. I ts a matter of balance within the mech. Give up this to squeeze that in, run a little hot to get that extra energy weapon in, or max it with armour and speed to harass the bad guys. Whatever you want to do as long as it fits.

[RussianWolf]

Mawai, on 22 September 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

It doesn't have flavour ... ONLY if you firmly believe that the only weapons you should fit are the AC20/Gauss and PPC.

In that case, the game will never have flavour for you.

Introduce limited hard points and the only mechs that folks with that mindset will play are those that CAN fit AC20/Gauss and PPC. So you end up limiting every other mech than the few that can fit these builds (at least for those with that mindset). But you say ... limited hard points will make these impossible ... how will they do that? Are you planning on limiting the ballistic hardpoints on a DireWhale to smaller AC only? How about limiting the energy hardpoints on the same mech to ML? Does that even make sense in a 100 ton assault that has tonnage and crit space for 2x Gauss and 2xPPC? (or 6xC-UAC5?).

Also, one of the reasons folks tend toward PPC/AC combinations is because they find them optimal for delivering damage. Change things up and there will be a new optimal that folks with this particular mindset will use. Limiting hard points will only get them using the exact same mechs with exact same loadouts instead of a variety of mechs with similar loadouts.

Anyway ... my take is that reducing customization with size limited hard points may force specific mechs into more diverse builds ... but it won't affect the competitive group since they will shift to whichever mech lets them build the optimum build from their perspective. This means that to get away from AC/Gauss/PPC ... you would need to nerf hardpoints to the extent that NO mech could fit both AC/Gauss and PPC at the same time.

And at 53kph? max the Dire has its own handicap. It has its flavor, Big, Powerful, SLOW. a competent Jenner pilot can take one out solo.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

There are several solutions to the sameness of mechs:

1 - Koniving has been pushing an idea that I like whereby max armor for a variant is based on stock armor +3 tons. Personally I'd reevaluate the +3 tons bit (it might be the right number, but my feeling is that it might be a bit high). This allows for freedom to customize under-armored mechs, but it leaves those mechs whose claim to fame in the TT as being their higher armor to retain that edge. Currently many of the best variants are ones that come with far less armor, and thus can cram in far more guns. This solution returns the armored mech to its proper place as distinct from the gunboat.

2 - Module differentiation could go a step further. Split out Sensor and Mobility modules from the generic Mech modules. Things like Advanced Zoom, Advanced Target Decay, Advanced Sensor Range, Advanced Seismic Sensors, etc.,would go under Sensor modules, and things like Enhanced Gyro, Hill Climb, etc., would go under Mobility. This gives PGI 2 more module categories by which to balance variants. Imagine if the JR7-K got 3 Sensor slots, 1 Mobility slot, and 1 Mech slot, while the D only got 1 of each and the F got 2 Mobility and no Sensor slots. Suddenly the three base Jenners are very different from each other, with the under-armed K getting an edge as an information warfare specialist.

3 - Optional Stock gameplay mutator (opt-in only, would restore your mech to the stock configuration for the duration of the match). This pretty much speaks for itself.

4 - More potent and extensive quirks, especially among variants of the same chassis. It's one thing to apply a universal set of quirks to a chassis that is broadly underused, but what about variants of a popular chassis that nobody ever takes? Give them extra quirks that make them better at something than the other variants (which already have some kind of inherent advantage, in hardpoints or agility or what-have-you). Specialize each variant within a chassis into a different kind of battlefield role. Give one Stalker faster missile reload times, another lower energy heat generation, and a third boosted torso performance.

[RG Notch]

The reason that Hardpoint sizes fail to address diversity is due to the weapons not being diverse. If you limit what weapons a mech can carry all you limit it what mechs are fielded. As long as certain weapons are the ones to bring that's all that will be fielded, whether jammed into any mech that they can fit or only on those mechs that can fit them. That's the real issue.

[Prezimonto]

Kiiyor, on 22 September 2014 - 06:35 AM, said:

Thus far, i'm not sold on this, though the idea has merit.

The issue is this: bad mechs. Some mechs are already bad. If you limit customization, you'll make them worse (ESPECIALLY lighter mechs, which have enough trouble competing with heavies and assaults as it is).

I'd hate to be playing a game where the only viable mechs were those that could mount PPC's and Gauss.

I think that puts the issue back into either map or weapon balancing then. It, at least, gives your a direction to look for balance across mechs. Also I'd suggest that obviously dog tier mechs might well end up better off under this kind of system by having the ability to carry unique loadouts.

Example:

Perhaps the Spider 5D has only "small" mounts, and so can never take anything larger than 1 slot energy slot weapons (but gets ECM) while the Spider 5V actually has a small and a large mount (crit slot restricted as well) so it can carry an ER LL or 2 1 slot lasers. This gives the 5V ability to gain long range for scouting and harassing from safety, while the 5D is forced into short range combat or unit support.

Compare a mech like the shadowhawk and hunchback, the Shadowhawk might only get a "large" shoulder hard point, while the hunchie get the "huge" shoulder hardpoint... now the Shadowhawk isn't a 5 ton heavier version of the hunchie with better hit boxes and jump jets.

Small mechs like the locust is always going to have issues in this game while the minimum 10 heat sink rule is present, the two best things that could be done for them is to give them 10 heat sinks internal and/or remove the external heat sink requirements.

It provides some serious love for variants with the ability to mount multiple PPC's... like the Awesome and the K2, making them unique (but relatively balanced as they're both pretty squishy). The Jester might actually pose a balance problem, but perhaps it wouldn't get "huge" energy slots to fit PPC's. Not many mechs natively carry PPC's or AC20's. The ones that do often have sacrifices that makes sense given their BFG configuration, but don't make sense if anyone can equip those weapons.

[RussianWolf]

I like the idea of Stock matches, but that's not exactly what I'm after. I would run a stock mech mode without a doubt though. Since I've been grinding cbills to buy all the cbill mechs, I've been running mostly stock mechs in the public queue as it is. (hint: most of them are actually viable, you just have to change how you play a bit).

I like the idea of the quirks and hope that helps. I'm not dead set on the hardpoint restriction, but it was the one I remembered from MW4.

What I know is that right now, if I see a Jager in game (regardless of variant), 90% of the time its a Dual Gauss/AC20. To me, that's not diverse. If I see a K2 in game, guess what? Ditto. Something needs to be done so that each variant has a place.

I at least try to set up each variant differently and play them that way. I know I'm not the norm around here and that's fine. I just want to see more.

[MeiSooHaityu]

RussianWolf, on 22 September 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

Light mech? 2 PPCs. Everything else is "Lame".


I going to go back to the original argument for this as it is still very valid in my opinion. The Pult K2 should not be able to replace machine guns with AC20s or Gauss. Those slots shouldn't be able to go above AC5s (really AC2s in my opinion), The Jager should be able to carry larger guns. Most lights shouldn't be able to carry a PPC at all, much less 2 of them.

Ok, first of all.

I ran 2 ERLLasers in a Raven 3L for the longest time. True they weren't PPCs, but those IMO are too hot for a light. I just switched to 3MLasers and 2SRM4s and I am having far better results (since the 3L got a very favorable geometry pass). I'm guessing I would be doing far better than if I was running 2PPCs as well. PPCs are too hot and sustained DPS too low.

Secondly, The Cat K2 (if restricted to AC5s) would still run Meta (2PPC, 2A/C5 combo). At least Dual A/C10s isn't meta, and dual A/C20s or dual Gauss isn't even optimal for the chassis (see Jager for that).

I just don't see validity in this argument the more I read it. Sorry OP.

[Alistair Winter]

I think the lack of flavour comes from

• Hundreds of different mech variants in the game
  
• No major differences between mech variants.
  
• No clear philosophy about the function of mech variants, except making people grind harder.
  
• Most mechs have 3+ variants that function equally well with the same build. You could run AC10+PPC on any Shadow Hawk and it'll be virtually the same experience. Same thing with Clan mechs and omnipods.
  
• PGI tries to give the players as much freedom as possible, hoping that role warfare will happen naturally. It doesn't. The freedom to put any set of weapons on virtually half the mechs in the same weight class means that you'll see less variation.

Mech quirks are a good way of adding more flavor. I personally wouldn't mind MW4 hardpoints, because I won't miss Raven 4X with AC20's or CPLT-K2s that swapped tiny machine guns for huge gauss rifles. Or Centurions whose huge weapon arms only carry 2 MG's, because all of the big weapons have been moved to the torso. Suddenly the CN9 becomes a 3xLRM15+Artemis artillery mech. Yay, freedom.

[FupDup]

To clear up a common misconception about hardpoints, we'd only get the situation of "this would make only a handful of mechs viable" if the weapon balance was in a sufficiently bad state for only certain weapons to be viable. We're not perfect right now, but there some viable weapons of every "size" and class (energy/missile/ballistic), so that shouldn't be a big problem.


Back to the topic, why do people keep suggesting arbitrary categories such as "small" and "large" hardpoints? Small and large are concepts that don't exist in Battletech outside of a naming convention for laser weapons. The way you measure the "size" of a weapon is by how many critical slots it uses up.

A Medium Laser is not a "small" weapon, it is a 1 critslot weapon. A Large Laser is twice the size of a Medium Laser (2 slots). An AC/5 (4 slots) is 4 times the size of an AC/2 (1 slot). An SRM2 is equal in size to an SRM4 (1 slot each). Etc.

Critical slots are one of the most integral facets of the battlemech construction system. Using them as the hardpoint limiter makes much more sense than creating imaginary categories of "small" and "large."

[Lefty Lucy]

RussianWolf, on 22 September 2014 - 06:30 AM, said:

Light mech? 2 PPCs. Everything else is "Lame".

I disagree with virtually everything the OP claims, but this statement is the one that cements that he doesn't know what he's talking about for competitive play, or even in the PUG queue really.

PPC lights are virtually non-existent these days, aside from a few spider Ds roaming around, and in competitive play lights are designed as short-ranged brawlers to play cleanup after the main fight or to chase down stragglers.

Of course in competitive play all of the little factors that the OP thinks are inconsequential add a lot to mech variety. If you're in an SRM brawler medium do you take a SHD2D2 because it has higher hard points and better vertical torso tilt, or a Griffon because it has a really wide torso twist? Do you take a Jenner because it can aim up and down really well and has great twist radius, or do you take an Ember for crit-seeking and much better hard points?

When every little edge counts, every little factor like that becomes quite important.

[UnsafePilot]

I don't personally see how limiting weapon selection further would add variety to anything if it isn't also accompanied by taking away the choice of which mech you're dropping in.

If your opponents can pick their mech they can still pick the one's that support the weapons you're trying to stop them from bringing.

[kesmai]

Flavor.
Misty Mountain Dew
for me.#
in other news:
wot tanks have no flavor. all of them have a big gun and tracks. and taste like bacon.

[Joseph Mallan]

kesmai, on 22 September 2014 - 08:08 AM, said:

Flavor.
Misty Mountain Dew
for me.#
in other news:
wot tanks have no flavor. all of them have a big gun and tracks. and taste like bacon.

Never Bacon!

[RussianWolf]

FupDup, on 22 September 2014 - 07:58 AM, said:

To clear up a common misconception about hardpoints, we'd only get the situation of "this would make only a handful of mechs viable" if the weapon balance was in a sufficiently bad state for only certain weapons to be viable. We're not perfect right now, but there some viable weapons of every "size" and class (energy/missile/ballistic), so that shouldn't be a big problem.


Back to the topic, why do people keep suggesting arbitrary categories such as "small" and "large" hardpoints? Small and large are concepts that don't exist in Battletech outside of a naming convention for laser weapons. The way you measure the "size" of a weapon is by how many critical slots it uses up.

A Medium Laser is not a "small" weapon, it is a 1 critslot weapon. A Large Laser is twice the size of a Medium Laser (2 slots). An AC/5 (4 slots) is 4 times the size of an AC/2 (1 slot). An SRM2 is equal in size to an SRM4 (1 slot each). Etc.

Critical slots are one of the most integral facets of the battlemech construction system. Using them as the hardpoint limiter makes much more sense than creating imaginary categories of "small" and "large."

True, and MW4 did it a bit differently (I think the largest items were 4 slots on those), don't know why.

I'll pull the JAger out here. The DD (3B in each arm would be soemthing like a 1 4slotB, and 2 1slotB, the S would have 2 4slotB, and the A maybe 1 9slotB.

So you wind up with one build that runs a AC5 and 2 AC2s or 3 AC2s per arm, one that can run dual AC5 per arm, and one with AC10/Gauss per arm.