40 replies to this topic

[terrycloth]

Overall, I hate the idea. It's bad enough that we have hardpoints.

It sort of makes sense in some cases, but I wouldn't relate it to stock except as a limiting factor (you have to at least be able to use the stock weapons).

The catapult K2, for example, has these machine gun ballistic hardpoints, but they're on the very edge of the mech so there's nothing (other than crit space) stopping you from putting whatever you want there. As opposed to the raven's torso missile hardpoint which is squeezed into a tiny area and really doesn't have room for more than 10 tubes.

Honestly, I can't really think of a non-missile example where limiting the size of the weapon would make sense. Frontal surface area on the model is the big limiting factor and only missile arrays stress that.

[RedDragon]

Xtrekker, on 02 October 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

Maybe I misread it, but I didn't think he was talking about going full stock. I think he was talking about mechs fulfilling their intended purposes and discouraging meta play, yet still providing full customization options. If anything this min/max stuff is boring as hell, and encouraging variety on the field would be an improvement.

Yes, you read it correctly, not like some other people here who only read "sized hard points" and scream "against"! *sigh* It's hard to communicate a point when no one's actually reading the whole post.

About that thing why incentives are better than punishments: That, IMHO, is a pretty short sighted mindset. You achieve the same thing with both, i.e. bringing all mechs to a near equal level. But, and this is a huge but, everyone complains about how time to kill is already much too low, yet apparently we don't want mechs to live longer (by penalizing builds that are too good) but instead shorten time to kill even further by buffing all mechs to the best level.

[Khobai]

Quote

Overall, I hate the idea. It's bad enough that we have hardpoints.

Why?

Right now theres zero reason to use a mech like the Hunchback. But if you had sized hardpoints that prevented Jagermechs and other heavies/assaults that dont normally have AC20s from using them, suddenly the Hunchback becomes a lot more appealing, because its one of the few mechs that can use an AC20.

Sized hardpoints in conjunction with quirks would help give every mech a niche in the game. Instead of everyone gravitating towards the same 6-8 mechs. I dont see how thats a bad thing.

And at the very least, even if sized hardpoints arnt added, you should get some type of bonus for using the stock weapons of a mech. A set bonus would be cool. Each stock weapon on the mech could give a small bonus. And then having all the mech's stock weapons would give an additional bonus.

Edited by Khobai, 02 October 2014 - 11:53 AM.

[stjobe]

Blakkstar, on 02 October 2014 - 09:24 AM, said:

1. The Battletech lore has no drawbacks to modifying mechs, nor do standard TT rules. In fact, some of the most famous and successful mechs were modifications (Yen Lo Wang).

The BattleTech lore and TT rules do indeed have some rather severe potential drawbacks to modifying 'mechs. Most people seem to forget (or never knew) that we are using the BattleMech Construction Rules as our customization rules.

The actual customization rules are the Field Modification Rules, and when you look at them, you understand just why the vast majority of 'mechs in the lore are stock; it costs a mountain of C-Bills and takes an army of extremely skilled MechTeks an awfully long time to make just about any modifications above replacing armour and restocking ammo.

Not to mention that there's always the potential that the modification flat out fails, leaving the 'mech a useless piece of junk, or with some severe drawbacks like lasers doubling in heat generation, or autocannons jamming on every third shot, or reduced walking speed, or targeting issues, or... the list goes on.

What we are doing with our customization is basically sitting at a 'Mech factory design table, designing completely new 'mechs - a CPLT-K2 with Gauss Rifles isn't a CPLT-K2 at all, it's something else.

[Wolfways]

While i like the idea of stock mechs and if it was only applied to weapon loadouts it could work, if it included things like Endo or DHS then IS mechs would get screwed over as currently the game is made for upgraded IS mechs. The Clan mechs I've played so far seem okay, if a little hot.

But I'm biased as i currently only play "stock" mechs in the solo queue. IS upgraded but keep the stock weapons, clan full stock.

Edited by Wolfways, 02 October 2014 - 11:51 AM.

[terrycloth]

Given that the mechbay exists unstuck in time and space, I think using the factory redesign rules is perfectly appropriate.

And I can see why the hardpoints help variety by making different mechs act differently... clan mechs get to effectively ignore hardpoints, so instead of seeing 'oh, its a jager, it'll have ballistics' you see 'oh, it's a timberwolf, it'll have whatever the heck it wants'. Or at best, 'oh, it's a kit fox, most of the weapons will be in the arms'.

Also, it simplifies the model design to only have to visually represent certain weapons in certain locations.

Which is why I can tolerate hardpoints, even if they're annoying when I'm trying to design a mech. I don't want any further restrictions, though (and heavy penalties for deviating from stock qualify).

Edited by terrycloth, 02 October 2014 - 12:06 PM.

[UnsafePilot]

What we have now is certainly more fun.

[Khobai]

Quote

What we have now is certainly more fun.

Yeah pinpoint damage and LRMspam is so much fun.

[UnsafePilot]

Khobai, on 02 October 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

Yeah pinpoint damage and LRMspam is so much fun.

I prefer pinpoint aiming to dice roles, feels more skillful to me to hit or miss based on my own aim than randomness. LRMspam hasn't been an issue at my ELO.

If you're not enjoying a build play something else; These suggestions here sound like a long round about way to tell other people what to play though and I'm squarely against that.

[1453 R]

Stock builds are never going to be viable.

A 'Mech with standard structure, a bad engine, single heat sinks, and scattered weapons selection would need so many positive quirks to balance it out against a sensibly reconfigured design that you'd need three spreadsheets and a trained accountant to keep track of them all. The stock configurations are not, and never were, intended to be used in the sorts of situations MWO puts them into, and as I recall most of the TT folks believe TT stock fits to be primarily total garbage, as well.

Also STAAAAAAAAAAAAHP with sized-hardpoints ideas already! For the same reason that the stock configuration is junki on most 'Mechs, telling players they can't ever use anything but the stock armament (which is what sized hardpoints amounts to AND NO YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE) will simply cut down severely on the number of 'Mechs that are currently useful but only with loadouts wildly divergent from their stock fits!

I can guarantee, for instance, that you would never see a Blackjack ever again if you reduced it to 1-slot hardpoints for all of its ballistics and were all "It's supposed to be an AC/2 fire support 'Mech! It's good if you play it as an AC/2 fire support 'Mech!" First of all, no, it's supposerd to be a guerrilla/anti-insurrection 'Mech and was generally considered a failure in that role as it is, and secondly, nothing is good when played as an AC/2 fire support 'Mech.

Removing a 'Mech's ability to alter its armament to adapt to the needs of the game simply means that only those tiny handful of 'Mechs with 'correct' stock armaments will see use. AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT INNUMERABLE TIMES BEFORE. Can we please, pretty please, pretty pretty super-please with cherries and chocolate sprinkes on top, stop stop stop STOP with the sized hardpoints crap already?

Edited by 1453 R, 02 October 2014 - 12:21 PM.

[RedDragon]

1453 R, on 02 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Stock builds are never going to be viable.

A 'Mech with standard structure, a bad engine, single heat sinks, and scattered weapons selection would need so many positive quirks to balance it out against a sensibly reconfigured design that you'd need three spreadsheets and a trained accountant to keep track of them all. The stock configurations are not, and never were, intended to be used in the sorts of situations MWO puts them into, and as I recall most of the TT folks believe TT stock fits to be primarily total garbage, as well.

Also STAAAAAAAAAAAAHP with sized-hardpoints ideas already! For the same reason that the stock configuration is junki on most 'Mechs, telling players they can't ever use anything but the stock armament (which is what sized hardpoints amounts to AND NO YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE) will simply cut down severely on the number of 'Mechs that are currently useful but only with loadouts wildly divergent from their stock fits!

I can guarantee, for instance, that you would never see a Blackjack ever again if you reduced it to 1-slot hardpoints for all of its ballistics and were all "It's supposed to be an AC/2 fire support 'Mech! It's good if you play it as an AC/2 fire support 'Mech!" First of all, no, it's supposerd to be a guerrilla/anti-insurrection 'Mech and was generally considered a failure in that role as it is, and secondly, nothing is good when played as an AC/2 fire support 'Mech.

Removing a 'Mech's ability to alter its armament to adapt to the needs of the game simply means that only those tiny handful of 'Mechs with 'correct' stock armaments will see use. AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT INNUMERABLE TIMES BEFORE. Can we please, pretty please, pretty pretty super-please with cherries and chocolate sprinkes on top, stop stop stop STOP with the sized hardpoints crap already?

*sigh* Did you even read the OP? You are the one who was addressed in the "torches and pitchforks" part.

[Khobai]

Quote

Removing a 'Mech's ability to alter its armament to adapt to the needs of the game simply means that only those tiny handful of 'Mechs with 'correct' stock armaments will see use

What youre describing is game imbalance. Of course if a tiny handful of mechs are "better" theyll be used more often.

But if all mechs are roughly equal, and imbalance was kept to a minimum, that would simply not be the case at all.

[DocBach]

Khobai, on 02 October 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

Yeah pinpoint damage and LRMspam is so much fun.

Stock 'Mech Mondays is the most fun I've had in this game since the launch of closed beta.

[FupDup]

1453 R, on 02 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Also STAAAAAAAAAAAAHP with sized-hardpoints ideas already! For the same reason that the stock configuration is junki on most 'Mechs, telling players they can't ever use anything but the stock armament (which is what sized hardpoints amounts to AND NO YOU DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE) will simply cut down severely on the number of 'Mechs that are currently useful but only with loadouts wildly divergent from their stock fits!

I think that would depend more on who you ask. I would personally inflate hardpoints to at least slightly larger than stock size to allow for some actual flexibility without total flexibility. I would give at least 1 extra critical slot to each weapon hardpoint (i.e. a stock Large Laser can be replaced with a PPC, AC/5 can be upgraded to UAC/5, etc.) at the bare minimum, and some variants/chassis might get inflated to as high as 3 slots greater than stock. Ballistics in particular might get more inflation than energy or missiles due to their natural bulk. Energy weapons are quite compact so they would usually only get +1 critical slot, but some dedicated laser boat mechs might get more to designate their specialty.

1453 R, on 02 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

I can guarantee, for instance, that you would never see a Blackjack ever again if you reduced it to 1-slot hardpoints for all of its ballistics and were all "It's supposed to be an AC/2 fire support 'Mech! It's good if you play it as an AC/2 fire support 'Mech!" First of all, no, it's supposerd to be a guerrilla/anti-insurrection 'Mech and was generally considered a failure in that role as it is, and secondly, nothing is good when played as an AC/2 fire support 'Mech.

Removing a 'Mech's ability to alter its armament to adapt to the needs of the game simply means that only those tiny handful of 'Mechs with 'correct' stock armaments will see use. AS HAS BEEN POINTED OUT INNUMERABLE TIMES BEFORE. Can we please, pretty please, pretty pretty super-please with cherries and chocolate sprinkes on top, stop stop stop STOP with the sized hardpoints crap already?

Note that this would be an issue with weapons balancing, rather than the hardpoints themselves. As an example, that Blackjack's AC/2s wouldn't seem like such a curse if the AC/2 wasn't so bad (also, as said above, I'd allow for weapons slightly larger than stock, so a BJ could go up to an AC/5 if it wanted to. In the later timeline, we also could use Light AC/2 or Light AC/5 in those slots).

Even with the current sizeless system, we still see mechs which clearly win the hardpoint loterry over others. The Suckoner and Badder both lose the hardpoint lottery pretty badly. The Spider 5V (2 Medium Lasers max armament, lulz) is arguably the worst mech in the game or at least a runner up. Mechs like the Oxide and Cat A1, having no backup energy whatsoever, tend to have a bad time due to relying on highly situational/easily countered missiles. And we have bad hardpoint mechs like Thunderbutts, Wutverines, etc...

...I don't think we should use bad weapon balancing as an excuse for our current hardpoint system. If each weapon was at least somewhat functional, having a little less weapon capacity wouldn't be such a gamebreaking disadvantage.

Edited by FupDup, 02 October 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[1453 R]

FupDup, on 02 October 2014 - 12:34 PM, said:

Note that this would be an issue with weapons balancing, rather than the hardpoints themselves. As an example, that Blackjack's AC/2s wouldn't seem like such a curse if the AC/2 wasn't so bad (also, as said above, I'd allow for weapons slightly larger than stock, so a BJ could go up to an AC/5 if it wanted to. In the later timeline, we also could use Light AC/2 or Light AC/5 in those slots).

Even with the current sizeless system, we still see mechs which clearly win the hardpoint loterry over others. The Suckoner and Badder both lose the hardpoint lottery pretty badly. The Spider 5V (2 Medium Lasers max armament, lulz) is arguably the worst mech in the game or at least a runner up. Mechs like the Oxide and Cat A1, having no backup energy whatsoever, tend to have a bad time due to relying on highly situational/easily countered missiles. And we have bad hardpoint mechs like Thunderbutts, Wutverines, etc...

...I don't think we should use bad weapon balancing as an excuse for our current hardpoint system. If each weapon was at least somewhat functional, having a little less weapon capacity wouldn't be such a gamebreaking disadvantage.

The real issue is that sized hardpoints does jack-all zippo to alleviate problems of weapon balancing, whilst simultaneously causing the number of 'Mechs who've 'lost the hardpoint lottery' to skyrocket. Well over two-thirds, if not three-quarters, of the available chassis in the game would suddenly become complete and utter pants if they were restricted to their stock loadouts or very near derivatives thereof. Blackjacks, Quickdraws, and Dragons, right off the top of my head, are already chassis that're basically only just barely hanging on as it is, and which would all be absolutely, positively ravaged by a sized hardpoint system. I'm sure there's quite a few others that'd turn up with only a moment's thought, as well as some interesting alternative fits that never did nothing wrong to nobody which would also be blown off the face of Creation by a sized hardpoints system because they would be forced to adhere to their stock armament or different-tech-versions-thereof (why do sized hardpoints people believe that being able to swap in medium pulse lasers over medium lasers, or vice-versa, constitutes exciting and meaningful customization? o_O).

In a sized hardpoints world, bad weapons would still be bad - but the 'Mechs that can carry good weapons would be few and far between, and the Evil Baby-Eating Meta these changes are looking to force into diversification would in actuality be far narrower and much more restrictive than it already is.

[FupDup]

1453 R, on 02 October 2014 - 01:14 PM, said:

The real issue is that sized hardpoints does jack-all zippo to alleviate problems of weapon balancing, whilst simultaneously causing the number of 'Mechs who've 'lost the hardpoint lottery' to skyrocket. Well over two-thirds, if not three-quarters, of the available chassis in the game would suddenly become complete and utter pants if they were restricted to their stock loadouts or very near derivatives thereof. Blackjacks, Quickdraws, and Dragons, right off the top of my head, are already chassis that're basically only just barely hanging on as it is, and which would all be absolutely, positively ravaged by a sized hardpoint system. I'm sure there's quite a few others that'd turn up with only a moment's thought, as well as some interesting alternative fits that never did nothing wrong to nobody which would also be blown off the face of Creation by a sized hardpoints system because they would be forced to adhere to their stock armament or different-tech-versions-thereof (why do sized hardpoints people believe that being able to swap in medium pulse lasers over medium lasers, or vice-versa, constitutes exciting and meaningful customization? o_O).

In a sized hardpoints world, bad weapons would still be bad - but the 'Mechs that can carry good weapons would be few and far between, and the Evil Baby-Eating Meta these changes are looking to force into diversification would in actuality be far narrower and much more restrictive than it already is.

Which is why we need to make bad weapons stop being bad. Don't treat the symptoms, treat the problems (symptom = very few people using bad guns, problem = the fact that some guns are so bad in the first place).

You're also exaggerating a bit about stock loadouts there. Most sensible suggestions for a changed hardpoint system (including my own) would allow for at least somewhat larger than stock weapons (with a margin of like +1 to +3 critical slots in size, depending on the chassis/variant). So no, that stock Medium Laser is not going to be forced to be a Medium Laser or Medium Pulse Laser forevermore (well, some hardpoints might be stock sized in places like the head, but each and every single mech would be allowed to upsize at least a few of their weapons).

[Ultimax]

Khobai, on 02 October 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

But if all mechs are roughly equal, and imbalance was kept to a minimum, that would simply not be the case at all.

All mechs will never be roughly equal.

Even with sized hardpoints a handful of best mechs will rise to the top, the rest will not be as good because they are limited by bad stock sized hardpoints.

There will always be a meta, there will always be a best handful of builds and a best handful of mechs for it and there will always be people who come to the forums to be upset about it.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 02 October 2014 - 02:41 PM.

[Sam Slade]

UnsafePilot, on 02 October 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

I prefer pinpoint aiming to dice roles, feels more skillful to me to hit or miss based on my own aim than randomness.

This is the real issue, if people are going to be honest about it. Sadly, that stopped being fun after headshotting catapults one after the other in closed beta.

So, the best option I've seen out of this is to give IS mechs a burst fire feature(rounding up for number of slugs) if they mount an above size AC in a smaller mount(AC20 in an AC2 slot is a ten round burst, AC10 in an AC5 is a two round burst, AC5 in AC2 is 3 rounds - heat divided over the duration of the burst so you effectively stretch the heat curve instead of spiking it - and bringing back the dakka with real damage). This would, for example, make a 4x AC5 Jäger a dakka machine AND expand its heat curve while scaling back the FLD a little, also making the Shadowhawk NOT a bouncy Hunchie. It just seems more fun.

If your aim skills are all that and a bag of potato chips then a little extra time on target will not hurt you at all right?

Edited by Sam Slade, 05 October 2014 - 01:00 PM.

[Zyllos]

1453 R, on 02 October 2014 - 12:21 PM, said:

Stock builds are never going to be viable.

I disagree with this.

If you modify just for Double Heatsinks and add at least Endo-Steel, but leave the engine, weapons, equipment the same, they still work. You just have to have Double Heatsinks to compete and Endo-Steel gives you enough extra tonnage for some more heatsinks, ammo, and if you need it, armor.

Sure, it won't be T1, but they are pretty viable.

[Marcel Bekker]

I fully agree with the OPs concept. Thanks, you put my thoughts into words.

Sam Slade, on 05 October 2014 - 12:28 PM, said:

This is the real issue, if people are going to be honest about it. Sadly, that stopped being fun after headshotting catapults one after the other in closed beta.

So, the best option I've seen out of this is to give IS mechs a burst fire feature(rounding up for number of slugs) if they mount an above size AC in a smaller mount(AC20 in an AC2 slot is a ten round burst, AC10 in an AC5 is a two round burst, AC5 in AC2 is 3 rounds - heat divided over the duration of the burst so you effectively stretch the heat curve instead of spiking it - and bringing back the dakka with real damage). This would, for example, make a 4x AC5 Jäger a dakka machine AND expand its heat curve while scaling back the FLD a little, also making the Shadowhawk NOT a bouncy Hunchie. It just seems more fun.

If your aim skills are all that and a bag of potato chips then a little extra time on target will not hurt you at all right?

Or PGI could just implement the various actually different models of AC2/5/10/20 ... a Chemjet 185mm AC20 would fire a 2 shot burst with 10 damage each, a Crusher SH Cannon 150mm AC20 would fire a 10 round burst with 2 damage each.

Edited by Marcel Bekker, 05 October 2014 - 01:28 PM.