418 replies to this topic

[Alistair Winter]

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

So you only run 2 LLAS and 2 MLAS?
That's your awesome build?

I would recommend, even on the internet, even in the MWO forums, that you try to interpret what people say in a positive light, rather than a negative. In short, it's better to overestimate people's intelligence, rather than underestimate it. Because it tends to lead to more productive conversation when you assume the other person is as smart as you are, and it opens up your eyes to good points you might have otherwise missed.

I meant 4 large lasers.

[Lightfoot]

It's too late for this unless PGI removes DHS 1.4 for full 2.0's, the Gauss Rifle de-sync from 3rd person shooters, Ghost Heat. They won't of course, but we got these nerfs instead of sized hard points. So, it's just too late unless PGI does a complete revamp of MWO.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Havent previous games (like MW4) already DONE all the work FOR this?

[terrycloth]

I like ghost heat. I think it makes sense from an in-world perspective (sudden large power draw is inefficient! Imagine that!), it's not *incompatible* with TT rules (really, forced chain-fire would be closer to TT rules), and it makes people not just fire everything at once always.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lightfoot, on 06 October 2014 - 03:33 PM, said:

It's too late for this unless PGI removes DHS 1.4 for full 2.0's, the Gauss Rifle de-sync from 3rd person shooters, Ghost Heat. They won't of course, but we got these nerfs instead of sized hard points. So, it's just too late unless PGI does a complete revamp of MWO.

Well its too late because the only thing theyre focussed on right now is CW (as I think theyve finally realized HOW important that is to the game)

[XX Sulla XX]

I know a lot of us do not want this new limitation idea.

[IceSerpent]

Scratx, on 06 October 2014 - 02:27 PM, said:

Are you serious? Stock Warhawk Prime comes with 2 ERPPCs per arm, plus LRM10 on left arm, if I recall correctly.

Correct. I never said that it comes with anything else.

Quote

If you're going to "correct" people, at least correct them with truthful facts.

Meaning? I corrected Ulimatum X's statement that size limited hardpoints can't prevent Warhawk from mounting quad PPCs - it can be done very easily with this scheme. Which part of that do you find "untruthful"?

Nathan Foxbane, on 06 October 2014 - 02:59 PM, said:

But can it be done without killing my Gauss Cents? Not exceptional or OP by any standard, but lots of fun and the bane of many when I still did group drops regularly.

Sure. Can be done with either crit-based scheme or "large/smal" scheme - just leave ballistic hardpoint at max. size. If you go crit-based and want to exclude AC20, but keep gauss (for example), you just limit ballistic hardpoint size to 9 (AC20 is 10 crits, so it won't fit).

[Lyoto Machida]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 03:19 PM, said:

So now you're cherry-picking and mincing your way through the list of mechs. How does that NOT strike you as just as arbitrary and direct as Ghost Heat? And who's doing the deciding? Who decides whether Build A shouldn't be in the game? What about Build B?

And how do you handle the suddenly angry players who really liked Build B, found a synergy with it, got attached to it, built up years of stats with it, found a way to excel with it that most players never would have, maybe didn't even do really well with it but don't mind at all, and don't really give a flying f*** about YOUR standards for battlefield roles? Are you suddenly going to decide "Well, you can't play your favorite mech anymore" for them? What about all those little niches that DO exist in the game?

It's shades of Star Wars Galaxies' NGE all over again.

Never played Star Wars Galaxies...were people using Tie Fighters to drop bombs or something?

Nicholas Carlyle, on 06 October 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

This is really one of the best examples.

What is the point of the Hunchback with the Shadow Hawk being able to mount an AC/20?

It's stupid.

Without general weight class limitations (and not tonnage limits), what is the point of a jumping AC20 Quickdraw when the SHD supercedes it in everyway? Which, I'm not sure an AC20 Quickdraw would even exist with the proposed limitations, but I digress...

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 03:12 PM, said:

You turn all of the lasers into mediums and all of the missle hardpoints into SRMs or you leave the LLAS alone and still have a laser boat full of lasers and quad SRM or ASRM 6s.


Unless you tell me you're also going to nerf missile bays and a 6 tube, 2 slot, 3 ton SRM 6 somehow can't fit where a 10 tube, 2 slot, 5 ton LRM launcher is.

Or how about this build?

It works right off the SCR-Prime chassis, moves the 1 crit slot CERLLAS to the torsos, fills up the rest with CERMLAS which fit anywhere on any Stormcrow (every stock SCR variant comes with min CERMLAS).

And there you go, you have a current laser vomit build that is being played right now.

The best part though is that you remove it's competition, mechs that could compete but had their hardpoints restricted.

Umm...I've driven that ML/ASRM6 build quite a bit. It's not that scary outside of 270/300m...and it's slow as hell. Hell, I don't even have a problem with AC40 Jagers, even with no ghost heat. It's an ambush type mech or second line one and deadly in close quarters but if you get caught at range or focused in that thing (and it usually gets focused), you're going down quick.

I don't think people have an issue with short range boats for the most part...it's when long(er) range weapons get boated that people get their feathers ruffled.

Having said that, that ML/SRM build would be fine, based on the hardpoints presented as "stock" by PGI.

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

I would recommend, even on the internet, even in the MWO forums, that you try to interpret what people say in a positive light, rather than a negative. In short, it's better to overestimate people's intelligence, rather than underestimate it. Because it tends to lead to more productive conversation when you assume the other person is as smart as you are, and it opens up your eyes to good points you might have otherwise missed.

I meant 4 large lasers.

4 Large Lasers wouldn't be possible anymore. Could be wrong but didn't the K2 have additional hardpoints that were taken away a long time ago? Or was that a module slot?

[Kassatsu]

People still think dual gauss or AC40 jagers or K2s are a problem?

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:31 PM, said:

I would recommend, even on the internet, even in the MWO forums, that you try to interpret what people say in a positive light, rather than a negative. In short, it's better to overestimate people's intelligence, rather than underestimate it. Because it tends to lead to more productive conversation when you assume the other person is as smart as you are, and it opens up your eyes to good points you might have otherwise missed.

I meant 4 large lasers.

To be honest, I knew you meant 4 LLAS.


I just baited you to make a point, I'm sorry.

My point however is, the stock loadout is 2 MLAS in the torsos.


What makes you think the hardpoint fascists in this thread will give you 2 large energy hardpoints there?

If they do, why does this mech get special treatment?


What good is an arbitrary system, that creates new winners and losers?

[Zyllos]

Sized hardpoints are not used to limit the boating capability. Some mechs were built with that in mind. And a boating mech is absolutely fine (in terms of allowed weapon systems, the balance of placing all weapons damage onto a single hit location at the same time is a completely different issue that requires a completely different mechanic/solution).

Sized hardpoints are meant to give mechs credence for existing. Current examples are the RVN-4X, AWS-8Q, and possible futures of BZK-F3 (Hollander) and the like. It's for those types of mechs and variants that are different from it's base chassis, like the HBK-4G with an AC/20 and the HBK-4H with more lasers but only up to an AC/10.

Edited by Zyllos, 06 October 2014 - 03:49 PM.

[Alistair Winter]

Lyoto Machida, on 06 October 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

4 Large Lasers wouldn't be possible anymore. Could be wrong but didn't the K2 have additional hardpoints that were taken away a long time ago? Or was that a module slot?

I thought the idea was to come up with a system that would require re-evaluating how much crit space each mech would have, in order to contribute to a larger number of viable and unique builds. In other words, for the K2 to be viable, I would say that it needs to have more than
2 x PPC / LL / LPL
2 x ML / MPL / SL / SPL
2 x MG

The original stock loadout shouldn't be a limiting factor if a crit space system is employed, so I would say a 4xLL build should still be possible. Especially if you want to maintain the Jester as a CPLT energy boat specialist, capable of carrying 6 ML or 2 LL + 4 ML.

[Big Tin Man]

What about this: Add in a gyro unit and capacitor unit.

Your mech cannot fire AC's or Missles in any combination that would do over 25-30 damage without an improved gyro unit. Reason being you'd fall on your ass from recoil. Gyros add 5 damage per ton per alpha, 1 crit slot.

Your mech cannot fire more energy weapons in any combination that would do over 19 damage without an improved capacitor. Reason: you can't surge that much power from the engine at one instant. Capacitor adds 9 damage per ton per alpha, 1 crit slot per ton.

Balance the numbers as you will. Basic point is to punish boat builds by adding items that take slots/tonnage.

edit: mech's could have quirks as well, i.e. Awesome and Hunchie could have a higher base, or a built in capacitor.

Edited by Big Tin Man, 06 October 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Lyoto Machida, on 06 October 2014 - 03:42 PM, said:

Never played Star Wars Galaxies...were people using Tie Fighters to drop bombs or something?

No, the game responded to fixable balance problems with a brand-new system that completely reset everyone's hard work. Worst overreaction a game can commit.

[Kassatsu]

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

The original stock loadout shouldn't be a limiting factor if a crit space system is employed, so I would say a 4xLL build should still be possible. Especially if you want to maintain the Jester as a CPLT energy boat specialist, capable of carrying 6 ML or 2 LL + 4 ML.

XL355 2xLPL 4xML thank you very much.

[Rebas Kradd]

Big Tin Man, on 06 October 2014 - 03:49 PM, said:

Balance the numbers as you will. Basic point is to punish boat builds by adding items that take slots/tonnage.

Like Artemis? We've got that. Missile boating is pretty tedious without it, actually.

AC recoil is an interesting idea and not one that I'm opposed to.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 October 2014 - 03:51 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

But seriously; didnt MW4 already do all the work on sized hardpoints (or maybe mw3 its been too long)?

[Ultimax]

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:47 PM, said:

I thought the idea was to come up with a system that would require re-evaluating how much crit space each mech would have, in order to contribute to a larger number of viable and unique builds. In other words, for the K2 to be viable, I would say that it needs to have more than
2 x PPC / LL / LPL
2 x ML / MPL / SL / SPL
2 x MG

The original stock loadout shouldn't be a limiting factor if a crit space system is employed, so I would say a 4xLL build should still be possible. Especially if you want to maintain the Jester as a CPLT energy boat specialist, capable of carrying 6 ML or 2 LL + 4 ML.

That's not how this works bud.

Your build needs to die, so that other mechs have a reason to exist.

Maybe now you see why I dislike this system.

[WM Jeri]

Alwrath, on 06 October 2014 - 11:41 AM, said:

People have suggested this before, and its still a terrible idea. Alot of players including myself will leave this game if it ever came to fruition, because half the reason we still play the game is because of the mech customization you can do. Very bad idea for the game as a whole.

Yea I would be gone this is horribad!

[Alek Ituin]

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 03:50 PM, said:

Like Artemis? We've got that. Missile boating is pretty tedious without it, actually.

AC recoil is an interesting idea and not one that I'm opposed to.

Adding recoil to AC's would just be a further nerf to an already tonnage inefficient weapon system.

Do that and I'd say you need to reduce tonnage on AC's across the board.