418 replies to this topic

[Tastian]

Xtrekker, on 06 October 2014 - 11:33 AM, said:

Personally I would avoid size limitations and just give weapons a class. Just spitballing...a "class 3" ballistics hardpoint might include AC10, LBX10, AC20, Gauss. Not that that is what it should be, just a meaningless example. We already have a size limitation with our current slot spaces.

I would probably limit the lower end too. Just because you can hang a PPC doesn't mean it would be compatible with small laser mounts.

Class sizes would also work as well. I was just thinking that possibly you could use the already existing critical slots as the class sizes. Clan weapons have much smaller critical slots (ie, an ERLarge Lasers is 1 crit slot). Assigned class sizes could fix.

[Ronstar]

I'm all for the hard point limits.. If they put this in the game they could get rid of the lame ghost heat penalties. You will still have options to customize your mech without the game becoming an alpha strike meta online, or ASMO, instead of it being what its supposed to be which is MWO.

[Ultimax]

Tastian, on 06 October 2014 - 12:03 PM, said:

I'd like to know why you'd resist an idea that brings mechs back closer to their original stock loadouts and purposes?

Bringing the game "closer to stock" doesn't solve anything. It will divide the community, and anger a lot of players.

You seem to think it will add value, I think it will remove many builds and mechs.

Players will simply gravitate to whatever mechs "win" the hardpoint lotto.

New power builds will be discovered and exploited.


I prefer Ghost Heat to what you propose.


You want to play stock? Stock mech Monday is waiting for you - or you're free to organize your own events based on hardpoint sizes.


Let's wait for the quirk system overhaul before instituting something so drastic it would see many players leave the game.

[nitra]

The mechs are already limited enough as they are .

no need for further restrictions .

so tired of class based game play . look at me i pilot a light there fore i am a scout and scout only only whooopie !!!!

or look at me im a heavy regulated to only 4 large energy lasers because boating mediums is frowned upon ..

what makes this game for me is the customization .. sure i may not be effective or a "team Asset" sporting triple ac5 cicada or ac 20 raven or a 8 smpl black jack or whatever crazy combo i can come up with . But you know what .

its fun damnt.

the game has taken to many steps backwards already and this further restriction on customization will set it back even further.

already the game is to dependent of having to stick to the freaking team all the time . have to build meta builds so i can participate in the current duck an shoot game play that has evolved.

no longer is it practical to run out and take out lurmers . actually its more like park mech make some cocoa check the news comeback and see if any engagement has happened if so go participate .

the main problem with this game has always been pinpoint damage will always be pin point damage. this is the underlying problem .

and until that is fixed you will always be trying to nerf builds that maximize pinpoint damage .

Pinpoint damage is the enabler for creating builds that maximize pinpoint damage. thus in turn promoting the creation of boats.

either focused on damage over time or maximizing damage.

the only thing that hardpoint limitations do is relegate a few mechs to having superior damage capabilities over the others.
this is already true with the current limitation system we have.

If pinpoint damage cannot be removed then the only other solution is to remove customization entirely.

i love customization but realized along time ago that the pinpoint damage system and customization is what is really wrong with this game. one or the other has to go.


P.S. i really miss speed as a balancing factor though .. wish it was not broken by the game engine.

[Mawai]

Your Jager hardpoints remove not only the AC40 but also any PPC options since the energy hard points were reduced to 2 slot instead of 3. Are 2 PPC Jagers REALLY that dangerous? Not only that but the Jager S can't fit anything except medium lasers ... period. No 2x UAC5 + 2 LL builds for example ... one that I have tried and liked more or less.

That is the problem with your redesign of hard point sizes ... you have gone far beyond trying to eliminate "problem" builds ... the AC40 for example ... which I don't even agree is a problem ... and tried to fit the mechs into some arbitrary mold based on your entirely arbitrary decisions of what YOU seem to think are acceptable builds.

The same is true for the stalker redesigns ... you have eliminated all of the 3 or 4 LL options. The best they can do now is 2 LL and 2 or 4 ML. You listed PPC and Missiles as the issue but you have nerfed most of the energy builds as well.

In fact, the sized hard points appear to be intentionally scaled to try to limit anything except size 1 weapons (i.e. one slot to no more than two ... though for some reason you left 3 PPC on the Awesome ... maybe because it comes that way stock and so breaks your paradigm).

So ... Russ wanted you to go through all the possible builds showing how you stop the problem ones without limiting the rest ... when in fact your hard point system significantly eliminates a wide range of builds that are in no way overpowered.

[Tastian]

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

Players will simply gravitate to whatever mechs "win" the hardpoint lotto.

Let's wait for the quirk system overhaul before instituting something so drastic it would see many players leave the game.

Players already gravitate to whatever mechs win the hardpoint lotto.

I am anxiously awaiting the quirk system myself with high hopes it will breath some life into my dusty mech shed. I only started this thread because of Russ's challenge.

[Roland]

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

You seem to think it will add value, I think it will remove many builds and mechs.

Have you considered that in some cases, removing a single build can actually enable multiple builds?

In such cases, the result is an increase in variety on the field, not a reduction.

[Harrison Kelly]

I'd rather have more customization than stick to stock builds or stock 'Mechs. I hate stock everything and reject anything that forces the game more towards stock.

Given a choice between ghost heat and hardpoint sizing, I'd rather have ghost heat even if it's not my favorite mechanic. Quirks would work better for making more variants viable rather than hardpoint sizing.

[EgoSlayer]

Remove ghost heat and apply the hardpoint sizing to these builds and explain how it fixes anything:
in no particular order

Hunchback 4P
Firestarter 9A
Warhawk Prime
Nova Prime
Dire Wolf Prime
Mad Dog A

And I am sure there are several others. Cherry picking a few chassis and showing how they are "fixed" doesn't mean anything when you avoid the really problematic ones. Sized hard points doen't fix anything except removing a few builds that some people don't like, the still working builds without ghost heat are much, much worse.

[Tastian]

Mawai, on 06 October 2014 - 12:13 PM, said:

Your Jager hardpoints remove not only the AC40 but also any PPC options since the energy hard points were reduced to 2 slot instead of 3. Are 2 PPC Jagers REALLY that dangerous? Not only that but the Jager S can't fit anything except medium lasers ... period. No 2x UAC5 + 2 LL builds for example ... one that I have tried and liked more or less.

That is the problem with your redesign of hard point sizes ... you have gone far beyond trying to eliminate "problem" builds ... the AC40 for example ... which I don't even agree is a problem ... and tried to fit the mechs into some arbitrary mold based on your entirely arbitrary decisions of what YOU seem to think are acceptable builds.

The same is true for the stalker redesigns ... you have eliminated all of the 3 or 4 LL options. The best they can do now is 2 LL and 2 or 4 ML. You listed PPC and Missiles as the issue but you have nerfed most of the energy builds as well.

In fact, the sized hard points appear to be intentionally scaled to try to limit anything except size 1 weapons (i.e. one slot to no more than two ... though for some reason you left 3 PPC on the Awesome ... maybe because it comes that way stock and so breaks your paradigm).

So ... Russ wanted you to go through all the possible builds showing how you stop the problem ones without limiting the rest ... when in fact your hard point system significantly eliminates a wide range of builds that are in no way overpowered.

If you notice the Jager, the A and the DD both have 2 [2 crit] energy slots in the torsos, meaning you could put 2 Large Lasers in them. The Jager S, however has 4 [1 crit] energy slots. But, yes, I did remove the PPCs. Was this a problem build? Not currently; but it does break the concept of the mech frame. I'm trying to keep mechs closer to their intended purpose while also eliminating problems.

The Awesome SHOULD be able to hold 3 PPCs. But please also note that a 3 crit energy slot does not HAVE to hold a PPC. It can hold a PPC, a Large Laser, or a Medium Laser - any of them.

[Revis Volek]

Darwins Dog, on 06 October 2014 - 12:00 PM, said:

I think that your proposal could use a few more details as to which specific builds you are trying to eliminate. You mention the AC/20 Jagers, but clearly not everyone agrees that they are problematic. What stalker builds do you see as a problem? LRM and PPC boating isn't very descriptive. If the weapon combination is the problem, then we need to know what you are eliminating in order to know if it is possible on another chassis. If it's about what a mech is "supposed" to carry, then I have to disagree with you. I enjoy seeing the variety that people use, and I think it's one of the strengths of the game.

It seems that a lot of the complaints I'm reading are more in regards to the geometry than the weapons themselves. This is something I fully agree with. AC/20s should be comparable in size no matter what mech they are on. A SHD should have the same size hunch as a HBK for the same weapon. That's a reason to see more geometry tweaks, not to restrict builds.

I agree on that note, Geometry would be the real life factor that says "A FS9 cannot mount a AC20 or a SDR cant mount a PPC, its to damn big!"

But he never said he wanted to remove any specific builds outside BOATING of any kind which isn't really a bad thing but i'm pretty sure this is why they made PRIVATE LOBBIES and why Carl Avery and those guys do STOCK MECH MONDAYS. If you dont want to face the endless variety and often exact opposite of that then make your own matches and put down some restrictions.

Because people want customization, variety, to meta and to make mechs that work for them, not mechs that make the game bland for everyone. This will do nothing put pigeon hole loadouts even more. Yes it will stop boating but it will also stop certain variants from being viable. Sure you will get a few more added to the playable list but how many do we lose with these changes?

Edited by DarthRevis, 06 October 2014 - 12:27 PM.

[LORD ORION]

Tastian, on 06 October 2014 - 11:14 AM, said:

I'll bite.

So, I've gone through several mechs and fixed this. The idea is to limit hardpoint sizes. For example, the Catapult K2 has a ballistic slot in its side torsos. Instead of just being ANY ballistic, it has a ballistic slot of size 1. Meaning it can ONLY carry an AC2 or MG in the side torso. With this in mind, I'm studying several mechs with every variant for variation and removing problem builds.

Using this method, here is an energy slot chart

[SLOT SIZE 1] - Small Laser, Med Laser, Med Pulse Laser
[SLOT SIZE 2] - Slot size 1 plus Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser
[SLOT SIZE 3] - Slot size 1, Slot size 2, PPC, ERPPC


First case study:

Stalker.

Problem builds: LRM and PPC boating


**Stalker 3F**
RA/LA
2x [1 crit] energy
1x [3 crit] missile

RT/LT
1x [3 crit] energy
1x [2 crit] missile


**Stalker 3H**
RA/LA
2x [1 crit] energy
1x [6 crit] missile

RT/LT
1x [2 crit] missile


**Stalker 4N**
RA
2x [1 crit] energy
1x [6 crit] missile

LA
2x [1 crit] energy

RT/LT
1x [3 crit] energy
1x [2 crit] missile


**Stalker 5M**
RA/LA
2x [1 crit] energy
1x [3 crit] missile

RT
1x [2 crit] missile

LT
1x [1 crit] missile
1x [2 crit] missile

CT
1x [2 crit] energy


**Stalker 5S**
RA/LA
2x [1 crit] energy
1x [3 crit] missile

RT/LT
1x [3 crit] energy
1x [2 crit] missile



If you notice, ALL stalker stock builds are maintained but there is greater diversity among the stalker variants. Also, LRM boats and energy boats are removed.

More to come.

1) Doesn't make sense to me that you can downgrade a PPC slot to a medium laser or upgrade a medium/small laser mount to a PPC.

I'd say only 1 slot of variation is allowed.

That is Small Laser Family, Medium Laser Family or Large Laser Family. (1 or 2 slot energy weapons)
or
Large Laser Family or PPC Family (2 or 3 slot energy weapons)

eg: AWS-8Q should be able to mount Large Laser, ER-Large Laser, PPC or ER-PPC in the primary slots it comes with (PPCs by default). It should not be able to put a medium laser or small laser in its primary giant *** nipple blasters.

2) Missile slots should be constrained to LRM or SRM.
eg: AS-7-DDC would have one LRM mount and one SRM mount. (third non-stock mount would need to be decided on)

3) All AC's are high caliber guns. It shouldn't matter what size they are, they are interchangable. (unless constrained by space, like AC20 in arms)
Machine Guns are NOT high caliber guns.
You should not be able to mount a machine Gun in an AC mount, nor an AC in a machine gun mount.

4) Another biggie would be limiting the ammo bins on a mech to stock locations or same location as weapon.

eg: AS7-K could put ammo in the Right Arm or Right Torso, (comes in right arm by default for right torso gauss) but nowhere else.

These 4 kinds of constraints would give a large diversity of mech loadouts.

Edited by LORD ORION, 06 October 2014 - 12:37 PM.

[Tastian]

While I personally would like to see Lord Orion's system, it is even more restrictive then my proposal. Those resisting my proposal will hate yours even more.

[terrycloth]

Okay, after looking at your examples, instead of being mildly against this idea I'm totally, 100% against this idea. It invalidates all my builds, none of which are the problem builds you named.

[Ultimax]

Roland, on 06 October 2014 - 12:16 PM, said:

Have you considered that in some cases, removing a single build can actually enable multiple builds?

There will always be a handful of best builds, and a handful of best mechs that will outshine all the others.

What's even more laughable about the whole idea is how badly this will nerf hammer the IS vs. the many clan mechs that come gift wrapped stock as full boats, who get around the crit size system entirely with 1 crit slot CERLLAS and 1 crit slot SRM 6s.


Yeah enjoy having all those ANY crit slot E hardpoints dropped to 1 crit slot for a 270m range medium laser vs. clan CERLLAS in 1 crit slot.

[Zyllos]

Old thread back from January 2014 talking about Omnimech customization being poor before Clan release due to how Battlemechs have complete open customization. Had ideas on hardpoint sizes: http://mwomercs.com/...-customization/

Quote

Customization between omnimechs and battlemechs (which is just basically Inner Sphere vs Clan in the current timeline) is going to lead to some interesting customization differences.

But the current idea of omnimechs by PGI is extremely hindered when compared with battlemechs:

• Armor customization
  
  • Omnimechs can not change the amount or type (standard vs FF).
    
  • Battlemechs can change both.
• Engine customization
  
  • Omnimechs can not change engine rating or type (standard vs XL).
    
  • Battlemechs can change both.
• Component customization
  
  • Omnimechs can not change any components (jump jets, ECM, ect).
    
  • Battlemechs can add or remove components that are allowed on that mech.
• Weapon customization
  
  • Omnimechs contain pods, which are a set of hardpoints, between sections.
    
  • Battlemechs have hardpoints already set for sections.

With this as the current idea for battlemechs and omnimechs, we can easily see that omnimechs are the worst of the two in terms of customization. Omnimechs can change absolutely nothing except for the number and type of hardpoints on locations.

But, hardpoint customization sounds like a huge bonus right? Far from the truth. Hardpoints have no other limitations except for the type of weapon, meaning that hardpoints are already extremely open in what they allow. Plus, battlemechs usually contain so many hardpoints of all kinds that there is only a small need to modify them.

But, working on this idea that omnimechs can have huge weapon customization at the expense of having a chassis limited customization while battlemechs can customize it's chassis but their hardpoints are locked, we need to have some new rules for hardpoints.

This is where hardpoint sizes should come into play. Think about this, if battlemechs can only equip a subset of weapons for it's hardpoints, meaning not only the type of weapon but also it's size, then for all the restrictions for customizing armor, engines, and components, omnimechs can heavily modify what available weapons can be equipped.

These hardpoint sizes would be the available critical slots allowed to be equipped on the mech. Basically, hardpoints should have three limiters, type, size per hardpoint, and number. The size value is a maximum number of critical slots available in a given location.

Take an AWS-8Q for example, each of it's locations would have 2x Energy (4) hardpoints. This means each location can equip up to 2 energy weapons, totaling up to 4 critical slots in each location. This would limit the Awesome to being one of the few mechs that can equip multiple PPCs.

Another example is the HBK-4G, it's hunch containing 3x Ballistic (12). The HBK-4H would have 1x Ballistic (7) / 2x Energy (2). This limits the HBK-4G to being one of the few mediums to be allowed to equip an AC/20.

Omnimechs, on the other hand, have no critical slot limits, just a number and type. This would allow any omnimech with a ballistic hardpoint to equip anything from a UAC/2 to LBX/20, on any type of mech. Omnimechs also should be allowed to swap pods out in the pre-drop lobby. This is easily done by knowing how much tonnage the mech has available, thus the player can develop multiple pods and equip them after seeing the drop environment.

This is a two fold solving fix. The first problem it fixes is the customization issues between what is expected of omnimechs and what is already known for battlemechs. The second problem it fixes is giving back the uniqueness of certain battlemechs that are completely overlooked due to the open ended customization of weapon hardpoints.

One drawback to this change, though, is that all the champion mechs would have to be refunded and removed because they are built on the old system (unless they already fit with the design of the mech). But this is a small price to pay to fix a huge problem between omnimechs, battlemechs, and poor chassis/variants.

[Roland]

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

There will always be a handful of best builds, and a handful of best mechs that will outshine all the others.

What's even more laughable about the whole idea is how badly this will nerf hammer the IS vs. the many clan mechs that come gift wrapped stock as full boats, who get around the crit size system entirely with 1 crit slot CERLLAS and 1 crit slot SRM 6s.


Yeah enjoy having all those ANY crit slot E hardpoints dropped to 1 crit slot for a 270m range medium laser vs. clan CERLLAS in 1 crit slot.

Well, with hardpoints sized based on type (ie. small/med/large) rather than specific crit sizes, that would basically eliminate the issue you describe here.

Even though they are the same size in terms of crits, those different weapons may not necessarily fit within the same hardpoint.

[Zyllos]

LORD ORION, on 06 October 2014 - 12:32 PM, said:

1) Doesn't make sense to me that you can downgrade a PPC slot to a medium laser or upgrade a medium/small laser mount to a PPC.

I do agree with this though.

I would modify my proposal above to include sizes so that only certain sizes can be equipped instead of hardpoint slot values.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

This game has really just been left with some major derps. It's sad. I really wish they had used a more restrictive system to start with.

As it is, the customization is really a myth. Customization in MW:O currently is "Customize to be the best", "Customize to have fun" and "Customized to take advantage of terrible players"....that last one is for heavy LRM users.

There is no REAL customization, there is doing a meta style build, or purposely gimping yourself.

By limiting hardpoints you EXPAND the amount of viable mechs and builds.

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

There will always be a handful of best builds, and a handful of best mechs that will outshine all the others.

You are absolutely correct, and completely missing your own point.

There is always a best build. But what you want is the best build to be only a bit better than the next best build. And on average the best build is only some what better than the worst build.

What that means is build is less of an issue, and your skill is more important. You can take ANY mech and have fun knowing that you aren't playing a gimp build, because the best and the worst aren't that far off.

Now i'm not saying skill isn't important, but currently build is WAY too important, and we have too many suck-ass-waste-of-time-and-money mechs out there. And too many people happy to bring them along to a game. Then they complain when they get whooped on.

[process]

I like hardpoint size limits in theory, but when I think back to Mechwarrior 4, there were so many chassis I avoided because of it. The quirk system is a much better way to encourage people to use "ideal" weapons.