418 replies to this topic

[HlynkaCG]

Koniving, on 06 October 2014 - 09:40 PM, said:

Now when I went to this one...

Still don't like it but that a better solution than most that I've heard.

The ability to swap a large weapon for multiple smaller ones helps it a great deal, Understand though that we would likely need ti do a drastic hard-point reallocation on all variants crack down on inflation though.

[Koniving]

HlynkaCG, on 06 October 2014 - 10:08 PM, said:

Still don't like it but that a better solution than most that I've heard.

The ability to swap a large weapon for multiple smaller ones helps it a great deal, Understand though that we would likely need ti do a drastic hard-point reallocation on all variants crack down on inflation though.

I fully agree and thank you.

Just to give an example of how this would work... And at the moment this allocation is preserving the inflation the mechs already have.
For example the Jager S might have 2 medium ballistic hardpoints with 2 medium energy hardpoints.
(allowing the 2 AC/5s and 2 AC/2s or even a maximum of 8 MGs). (Allowing up to 6 [or 8 depending] small lasers, 4 ML or 2 LL)

The Jager DD might have 2 medium and 2 small ballistic hardpoints with 2 small energy hardpoints.
(Allowing up to 2 UAC/5s / AC/10s / LBX-10s + 2 AC/2s / 2 AC/5s / 4 MGs.) (Allowing up to 2 mediums lasers or 4 small lasers).

Then the Jager A would have 2 small ballistic hardpoints and 2 large missile hardpoints.
(Allowing 4 MGs or 2 AC/2s or 2 AC/5s or mixture AC/2 and/or AC/5 and/or MGs.) (Allowing for 2 LRM-15s or LRM-20s. Or up to 4 LRM-10s / SRM-6s. Up to 8 LRM-5s / SRM-4s, etc. Or a mixture).

Firebrand would have 1 ballistic hardpoint (small) + 1 energy (large) per arm and then 1 energy per ST (medium). (2 ballistic small. 2 energy large. 2 energy medium.)
Allowing: up to 2 AC/5s. 2 PPCs / 4 LL / 6 ML / 8 SL for the arms. 2 LL / 4 ML / 6 SL for the STs.

Now of course you could boat the living heck out of SLs with that, but let's be realistic you'd have to get within 100 meters...in a Jagermech.

For another example, the Catapults (just doing the missile ones).

With a focus on exclusively missiles for the moment:
C1 comes with 2 LRM-15s. 2 large missile hardpoints (allowing up to 2 LRM-10s per arm or 4 LRM-5s per arm, SRMs in accordance with what was stated).

C4 comes with 2 LRM-20s and originally 4 hardpoints. 2 large + 2 small. Allows it to do up to 8 small missiles or 6 medium missiles or 2 larges + 2 smalls. (For its lasers I'd like to provide it with 1 medium; so you'd have a choice between a large laser or 2 medium lasers or 2 small lasers [due to lack of slots]. I'd reposition the large laser so that it's centered directly under the catapult rather than embedded into the frame like the others would be.)

A1 comes with 2 LRM-15s and originally 6 hardpoints. 2 larges and 4 small, allowing up to 10 small missiles or 4 medium missiles and 4 small or 2 larges and 4 smalls. Though alternatively 2 larges and 2 mediums.

For the A1 I'd like to provide simple examples:
2 larges consumed with an LRM-20 each + 4 smalls consumed with 4 SRM-4s.
2 larges consumed with an 4 SRM-6s + 4 smalls consumed with 4 LRM-5s.
(I'd like to see you find the weight to carry these + ammo, but having the option there is always nice).

If 2 larges and 2 mediums, some examples:
2 larges consumed with an Arrow IV each [just to mention it] and 2 mediums consumed with LRM-10s.
2 larges consumed with 4 LRM-10s + 2 mediums consumed with 2 SRM-6s or 4 SRM-4s.

But again just random stuff.

[Appogee]

Nice work by everyone in this thread.

On the Jagers...

Personally I feel the dual-Gauss Jager is more of a concern than the dual-AC20, because of its ability to do significant pinpoint damage at extreme range, while exposing almost nothing to return fire.

[Vassago Rain]

I don't believe this is something worth changing. The game's been officially out for over a year now. You don't mess with already established mechanics on such a deep level for old games.

[ollo]

Well, there goes my dual UAC5 4ML CAT-K2. Don't really like it that way, maybe i would like it better if per default there is used at least stock class + 1 as a rule of thumb.

[Lordred]

Vassago Rain, on 06 October 2014 - 11:13 PM, said:

I don't believe this is something worth changing. The game's been officially out for over a year now. You don't mess with already established mechanics on such a deep level for old games.

I disagree, if you can create a better gameplay in the end, then yes.

Take a look at WoW, they have DEEPLY changed their combat system over the years.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lordred, on 06 October 2014 - 11:28 PM, said:

I disagree, if you can create a better gameplay in the end, then yes.

Take a look at WoW, they have DEEPLY changed their combat system over the years.

Yeah but they didnt take it apart and redo it entirely all at once, which is what youre describing.

They did it over a DECADE with small tweaks here and there

a DECADE

One tenth the time this has been out, and Ill bet they had more devs on that project than this company has employees

Cant really compare a company the size of Blizzard with PGI

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 06 October 2014 - 11:43 PM.

[Risen]

First of all:
I really like the ideas of the OP, hard point size restrictions (combined with removal of ghost heat and weapon balance changes) should help in terms of role warfare.

There are enough chassis by now to create certain niches for each of them and creating diversity with the variants.

Yes it would be a great change and we all know that great changes are not liked a lot...

Depending on the work load for a simple "test run on 4-5 chassis" could this be added on the test servers?

Btw. @ OP: why do the Stalkers get Class 4 Energy in the side torsos?
No PPCs on any stock stalker = no PPCs on them in MWO I would suggest.
Make PPCs a really good weapon again (bump up the velocity by 400-500 but create a higher damage drop-off after optimal range lessen sniping capabilities) but rare at least in large numbers per chassis.

[Lordred]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 06 October 2014 - 11:42 PM, said:

Yeah but they didnt take it apart and redo it entirely all at once, which is what youre describing.

They did it over a DECADE with small tweaks here and there

Cant really compare a company the size of Blizzard with PGI

They did it several times over a decade, they made sweeping changes almost every expansion.

Anyways, back on topic.

Edited by Lordred, 06 October 2014 - 11:51 PM.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Lordred, on 06 October 2014 - 11:49 PM, said:

They did it several times over a decade, they made sweeping changes almost every expansion.

Anyways, back on topic.

expansions of which this game has had none in the whole year (vs a decade the other game has been out) that this has been launched.

cant change the facts, sorry

[Lordred]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 06 October 2014 - 11:57 PM, said:

cant change the facts, sorry

I really do not want to get into this with you, so I will deflect us back to the topic on hand, about hardpoint sizing/limitations.

What do you feel is the correct action to take on the matter, I have already brought up my thoughts on the subject.

[Night Fury76]

Before you get too carried away... oops to late for that.
If you post your hardpoints in XML Json format so they can cut/paste/run script to get all your hard work into the game files. and here is a link to the whole hunchback json converted to xml http://www.utilities...f1348-xmltojson so change the Json as below, run it through the convertor.

So use the API to grab every mech, change it, convert to xml, post back to pgi, who run a compare script to see that you only added a <'weaponname'size> tag and not stuffed anything else, write the mech lab code and it's all apples.

brb with a format after i read the 12 pages of posts

This is from the Hunchback RT Json from the API
"Hardpoints": {
"Ballistic": 3,
"Energy": 0,
"Missile": 0,
"AMS": 0,
"ECM": 0
},
So it looks like you'll need to add a max Size per point to each hard point like so

"Hardpoints": {
"Ballistic": 3,
"BallisticSize" : 4(or 5 is using victors version),
"Energy": 0,
"Missile": 0,
"AMS": 0,
"ECM": 0
},
Its added this way to not to break the current setup and if hardpoint is 0 don't phase the size, but you may need to do this instead

"Hardpoints": {
"Ballistic": 3,
"BallisticSize" : 4(or 5 is using victors version),
"Energy": 0,
"EnergySize" : 0,
"Missile": 0,
"MissileSize" : 0,
"AMS": 0,
"AMSSize" : 0,
"ECM": 0
"ECMSize" : 0,
},

Oh course I want ghost heat gone for this.
Matter fact i'm all for Static methods to solve problems over the ones that tax the server making all those calc's for ghost heat every cycle. (very foolish pgi, very foolish)

Cheers

Edited by Night Fury76, 07 October 2014 - 01:20 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

OK - while i would like such a system - simple because of style -

it will kill hundreds of non meta builds:

Take for example the Beamer.
Battlemaster 1D - considering the OT:

• RA 1 E-Class 4
  
• RT 2 E-Class 2
  
• LT 2 E-Class 2
  
• LA 3 B-Class 1

Great - you may modify weapons - for 2 AC 2 and a Pep with MPLAS - or 3 AC 2 and a Large Laser - but thats it.

To make this Mech work with HPs you need quirks that support its Stock weapons - >

so a stock weapon ONLY Mode would be simpler do make - simpler, faster with the same effect.
(Weapons and location is fixed, but you can change - engine, heatsinks, armor and structure)

Edited by Karl Streiger, 07 October 2014 - 01:03 AM.

[HlynkaCG]

Koniving, on 06 October 2014 - 10:41 PM, said:

I fully agree and thank you.

Just to give an example of how this would work...

To me that seems needlessly complicated, and even more prone to abuse than what we have. If we are going to have sized hard-points, especially ones that carry multiple smaller weapons as yours do we NEED to eliminate the current hard-point inflation, full stop.

This is actually why I prefer the sized weapons to the sized hard-point solution, I've been over this many times before but seeing as we're busting out all the old 2012 arguments lets do this.

Like you I'll use the Jagers as an example...

The JM-6A has 2 Balistic, 4 Missile, and 2 Energy
It's stock load out is 2 AC2s 2 LRM15s and 2 ML

In my system the AC2s being a standard sized weapon, occupy one hard point each. ditto the MLs. That's the's the Ballistic and Energy points accounted for. the LRM15 however is a large weapon and therefor each one occupies 2 missile hard-points each. The JM-6A's hard-points now match it's stock load out.

The JM-6S has 4 Balistic, 4 Energy

It's 4 ballistic points are occupied by 2 AC2s and by 2 AC5s, which like the AC2s are standard sized and occupy one hard point each. The JM-6S also has two MLs in the torso leaving two hard-points unused. these two additional points give the JM6-S the option mount a large energy weapon like a LPL or PPC in it's left and right torsos. Something no other Jager can do. VARIANT DINSTINCTIVENESS!


Finally we have the JM-6DD with 6 ballistic and 2 Energy

the 3 ballistic points in each arm allow the DD to carry either a very large ballistic weapon or some mix of smaller ones. If a Gauss Rifle or AC20 occupies three slots vice two the DD would be the only Jager variant capable of carrying them. Thus giving the DD something unique to further differentiate it from the 6S.

We see similar things happen with other chassis, the HBK-4H can rock it's AC10 but only 4G the can carry an AC20, alternately the 4G pilot can swap his AC20 for 3 smaller guns so long as he can find the tonnage to do so.


Thoughts?

Appogee, on 06 October 2014 - 10:50 PM, said:

On the Jagers...

Personally I feel the dual-Gauss Jager is more of a concern
than the dual-AC20, because of its ability to do significant pinpoint damage at extreme range, while exposing almost nothing to return fire.

it's still a glass cannon.

Heck. the Dual Gauss Jagers are actually a canon build. the JM-6DG (introduced in 3054) mounts a pair of Gauss rifles in place of the usual 4 auto-cannons but is otherwise identical to JM-6DD.

[Fishbulb333]

I really don't understand why so many people are focusing on the dual ac20 Jager as a problem... Sure, getting hit by it hurts, but 300m range, relatively slow and very fragile side torsos + XL engine...really not that hard to deal with.

*IF* there's a problem with this build it's that the rate of fire is maybe a little fast once you add in the ac20 cooldown 5 module. I still run this build occasionally, it's fun and sure, sometimes I can rack up a bunch of kills if people aren't paying attention, but for every game in it that I put up a decent score, theres another 2-3 where my opponents are competent enough to aim for arms + side torso and I die with every other component pretty much intact.

Maybe it's just that ac40 builds are a lot less common these days and people have forgotten how to deal with them, or simply aren't expecting to face them. Use cover, get some situational awareness and quit coming to the forums to demand that builds you don't like facing be nerfed or removed from the game entirely.

Here's a picture of the jager's hit boxes. Notice how large the side torso hit box is? Also that those big fins on shoulders are side torso too? Remember, dual gauss or ac20 will most likely be running XL engines. Shoot. The. Side. Torsos.

[NextGame]

lets just not, regarding sized hardpoints.

it only serves to widen the gap between weight classes, along with making for a far more restrictive game.

We already lost a heap of customisation thanks to ghost heat. lets not take things further.

Edited by NextGame, 07 October 2014 - 02:11 AM.

[Vassago Rain]

I fail to see the point of messing with an already established and mature game's core mechanics. Find a better way to affect the change you feel it lacks.

[razor31]

The one thing that everyone keeps forgetting is pilot skill. It doesn't matter what they do with hard point restrictions, pod space, customization, or ghost heat. There is always going to be better pilots on the battle field, and those pilots will excel no matter the weapons. All that this would accomplish is another bad pilot making another bad post about how the current system doesn't work.

[Victor Morson]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 06 October 2014 - 11:42 PM, said:

Yeah but they didnt take it apart and redo it entirely all at once, which is what youre describing.

Counter-point: WoW wasn't left in a totally screwed up state after Blizzard ignored 93% of their playerbase on issues while claiming they were just a minority. So they didn't have to.

MW:O needs some radical, radical redesigns. I don't care if it's "been out for years." It's never made it past beta stage, really, and it's time to fix that.

[Tastian]

Risen, on 06 October 2014 - 11:46 PM, said:

First of all:
I really like the ideas of the OP, hard point size restrictions (combined with removal of ghost heat and weapon balance changes) should help in terms of role warfare.

There are enough chassis by now to create certain niches for each of them and creating diversity with the variants.

Yes it would be a great change and we all know that great changes are not liked a lot...

Depending on the work load for a simple "test run on 4-5 chassis" could this be added on the test servers?

Btw. @ OP: why do the Stalkers get Class 4 Energy in the side torsos?
No PPCs on any stock stalker = no PPCs on them in MWO I would suggest.
Make PPCs a really good weapon again (bump up the velocity by 400-500 but create a higher damage drop-off after optimal range lessen sniping capabilities) but rare at least in large numbers per chassis.

Ok.