418 replies to this topic

[Lyoto Machida]

Personally, I love the idea, as it would allow for a greater variety of chassis on the field and help keep the "flavor" of a mech from lore.

I love these threads because it shows the bias of some people through their posting...like these guys below:

Alwrath, on 06 October 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

No it doesnt breath new life into a chassis at all it restricts it, and there are less builds available to a chassis, which means you cant come up with cool unique builds for every chassis, and the game gets even more boring. No thanks.

Seems like he can't understand how one chassis becoming more loadout restricted could expand on the usefulness of other lesser used chassis.

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

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.

You have proof that "it would see many players leave the game"???

It will more than likely cause more mechs to be used than before, rather than less. Just because a build couldn't be used on a chassis/variant anymore doesn't mean that it couldn't be used on another chassis/variant.

terrycloth, on 06 October 2014 - 12:36 PM, said:

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.

Doesn't like the idea because all of his builds will be affected...may not realize that he is not the only person playing this game. Sometimes, individuals have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole...like jumpsnipers were (albeit, a little too far in that case).

[Victor Morson]

Lyoto Machida, on 06 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

Doesn't like the idea because all of his builds will be affected...may not realize that he is not the only person playing this game. Sometimes, individuals have to be sacrificed for the good of the whole...like jumpsnipers were (albeit, a little too far in that case).

If there's one thing MechWarrior: Online could use more than anything else, it would be a complete boat rocking of all the standard meta builds. I think in the end quite a few people would enjoy working out a whole new metagame based around such a system, with a real change to experiment and tweak stuff again.

We've been using the same "build concepts" if not the same builds for years now. I for one welcome change.

[EgoSlayer]

Lyoto Machida, on 06 October 2014 - 01:55 PM, said:

<snip>


Seems like he can't understand how one chassis becoming more loadout restricted could expand on the usefulness of other lesser used chassis.


You have proof that "it would see many players leave the game"???

It will more than likely cause more mechs to be used than before, rather than less. Just because a build couldn't be used on a chassis/variant anymore doesn't mean that it couldn't be used on another chassis/variant.


<snip>

Nerfing a tier 1, 2 or tier 3 chassis down to tier 4 or tier 5 by reducing the hard point options doesn't make people want to play the other tier 4 and 5s more. It makes them look for another tier 1, 2 or 3 mech.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 06 October 2014 - 02:13 PM.

[Pyrrho]

EgoSlayer, on 06 October 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Nerfing a tier 1, 2 or tier 3 chassis down to tier 4 of tier 5 by reducing the hard point options doesn't make people want to play the other tier 4 and 5s more. It makes them look for another tier 1, 2 or 3 mech.

I think, if a sized HP limitation were implemented, the tier list you are referencing will have been shaken up a bit. Imagine if there were only three tiers and they were only marginally divided!

[terrycloth]

You left out the part where I'm not even using the builds you're supposedly trying to eliminate, and it's still affecting me drastically. There is a *lot* of unintentional fallout from this. You're not the only person playing the game, so just because it doesn't affect your builds doesn't mean it isn't going to cause people lots of grief.

This is a general problem that's running rampant in this forum -- people are pushing solutions that piss all over some segment of the players that they don't happen to be in because since it doesn't affect their play, it must have no real drawbacks. All people have to do to cope is change to be exactly like them!

Edited by terrycloth, 06 October 2014 - 02:19 PM.

[Zack Esseth]

Roland, on 06 October 2014 - 12:09 PM, said:

This is incorrect.

Your statement is invalid.

Please give a proper rebuttal stating why my statement is incorrect.

[Xarian]

I wanted to say that I was surprised and glad to see this thread pop up. Haven't read through everything, but I wanted to say at least this:

Sized hardpoints is not about enabling or eliminating certain builds, especially cool ones. It's about making every mech variant useful. This means that some "good" builds are going to be broken because they rely on one variant being extremely versatile - the way to tone that down, and make the crapper variants useful, is to use hardpoint sizes as a balancing tool.

Example using fake hypothetical mechs:
Mech A-01 is a 40t IS mech with 2 energy hardpoints in each arm, 1 ballistic hardpoint in the LT, and 1 missile hardpoint in the RT. It has jump jets, and its engine cap lets it run at 120 kph.
Mech A-02 is a variant with 1 energy hardpoint in each arm, and 1 ballistic + 1 missile hardpoint in the RT. It also has jump jets, and its engine cap lets it run at 94 kph.

Without sized hardpoints, you're giving up two energy hardpoints and moving the missile and ballistic to the same position, and your engine cap is a fair bit worse. This is a really terifically bad tradeoff, and you would rightly sell your A-02 as soon as you had it mastered.

With sized hardpoints, you could make A-01 arm hardpoints size 1, meaning no LL and no PPC. A-02 arm hardpoints would be size 3, meaning that it can use either. Remaining hardpoints would be size 3 for energy, 6 for missiles, and 7 for Ballistic - not the biggest Ballistic, but hey the Hunchback has to have a niche somewhere. A-02 can be used as a PPC or Gauss sniper, just like it was always able to. A-01 is primarily a short-ranged striker, but can also be set up as a Gauss sniper.

[Ultimax]

WM Quicksilver, on 06 October 2014 - 01:16 PM, said:

The Dire Wolf Prime arms are an easy fix, remove the ability to mount anything larger than a UAC5, done.
Same with the B side torsos, in other words if you want to run Gauss on a Dire, it has to be the arm with only 1 Ballistic hardpoint.
Suddenly the Laser Vomit build loses its luster as the Gauss are a huge boost to the build, and the Giga spike build is no longer viable.

As for quad ERLL, that won't be near as much damage considering the current build is doing more damage than that albeit at a shorter range.

So we need more nerfs and restrictions on top of nerfs and restrictions, is that even canon restricting Omni-pods that way?

The Quad ER LLAS also has Quad MPLs and 2x UAC 5s.

That I could turn that into a completely legit multi UAC build across arms and (B torsos) torsos combining UAC5s/2s + whatever combination of CMPLs I can fit.

You understand you can swap the DWF A RA and DWF A LA for Gauss + 3x LPL which can then translate into Gauss + 3x CERPPCs right?

So one mech gets a 50 to 60 point completely stock legit alpha.


That mechs like the STOCK STK-3F are basically designed as a Boat


Winners and losers.


Or do we also then nerf those STOCK BUILDS, to keep up with the other nerfs?

[Jetfire]

I am pretty sure this is not the vital fix the game needs. It is something I see it as interesting but I would put it on the post-collisions importance list after CW as well. If I were to do it I would generally rank the slots as follows:
Size 1: 1 slot
Size 2: 2 slots
Size 3: 3+ slots
As to which builds this eliminates... Primarily it gets rid of the 6 PPC stalker, AC/40 Catapult, AC/20 raven and some other quirky weird builds. I am not sure it gets rid of any of the top tier builds though nor would it do anything to limit the DWF or some other high alpha builds. I would argue the Jager is perfectly fine with dual AC/20 or Gauss and as a glass cannon build is pretty balanced by the XL engine and easy to remove side torso.

Does this remove the need for ghost heat? I am really not sure it does, but maybe if we keep the PPC/gauss firing link it would be enough. It is an interesting idea but for the moment it is not something I would call mission critical.

Edited by Jetfire, 06 October 2014 - 02:28 PM.

[Scratx]

IceSerpent, on 06 October 2014 - 01:54 PM, said:

Are you serious? A Warhawk that only has 3 "large" energy hardpoints across all its omnipods is unable to mount quad PPCs. Same happens if you go by crit. size instead of large/medium/small - only 3 energy hardpoints larger than 1 crit. in size only allow you to pack up to 3 PPCs.

Out of curiosity, why do you want to eliminate quad large lasers on a DWF? It's not even a good build.

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

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

[Asmudius Heng]

Did not read this thread through but I just wanted to comment.

I was a hardcore hardpoint size supporter. I still am to a degree.

Hardpoints sizes would have provided more role warfare, more diversity and uniqueness per variant and chassis.

Hardpoints would have provided a LIMITED amount of balancing tools for the developers.

However with the amount of quirks coming and the what seems to be large buffs this actually provides my first point mostly. PGI are putting in something to encourage role warfare and mech differentiation. I am happy with that.

Hardpoint sizes I still think could work well, however I understand PGIs reluctance to implement them as it will still not solve boating completely as there will still be boatable mechs. Solving that issue with different weapon mechanics, getting rid of arm lock etc should help (since CoF is out of the equation)

Anyway ... just a perspective of a hardpoint size supporter who is happy with SIGNIFICANT quirks like they are promising.

[Johnny Z]

For the guy who mentioned players leaving the game over this. Then good riddance. I can assure you more leave the game because of crazy alphas coring their nooby mech or a player falling in love with a chassis for what ever reason and finding it gets the crap beat out of it no matter the load out he is using. And dont even think for a second this is a post about my personal preferences or experiences, this is about game balance and its effects on different players.

I will use the catapult as a perfect example. Some players like that mech as a go to LRM mech it is supposed to be..... I really dont need to say more because it hasnt lived up to that in this game yet. If those giant missile racks actually had something to show for their size then it may be a more viable mech.

Edited by Johnny Z, 06 October 2014 - 02:36 PM.

[Xtrekker]

What if instead of a restrictive hard point system, the quirk system was integrated with a sort of hard point design. Basically provide a buff/nerf based on class of weapon. Something to encourage the intended play style of the chassis.

In the example of the Catapult, a quirk could provide a bonus for a class of large weapon (the larger LRM racks) -- LA/RA +20% cooldown (or whatever, maybe less heat due to placement) Class 5 weapon mount.

Perhaps the K2 could have a similar nerf for upper class weapons in the side torsos.

[LordKnightFandragon]

MW4s size critical slots was cool and annoying. It didnt allow the Direwolf to really make many truly amazing loadouts, while mechs like the Mauler, once you packed in Clan tech, could mount a good amount of firepower.

In later mektek mod with the Marauder IIC and Behemoth, those were simply murderous.

[CyclonerM]

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.

You can already customize your IS 'Mechs much more easily than it should be, and we have all seen what too much freedom brings. I support this concept and i have always thought it should have been in the game from the start.

[Rebas Kradd]

Tastian, on 06 October 2014 - 11:52 AM, said:

Jagerbombs used to be a huge problem before ghost heat (and clan mechs like the TWolf and DWhale) Russ offered a challenge with the hopes of maybe eliminating some or all of ghost heat. I think you'll find this is doing just that.

Jagerbombs are not a problem at all outside 300m. They're not even a problem inside that, given their XL engines. Have you ever piloted one?

Look...in the end, hardpoint sizes are just as artificial and intentional a solution as Ghost Heat, so if you're arguing for it as a naturalistic solution, give it up. The fact that it makes more sense from an ontological perspective doesn't change that. Its purveyors are griping about specific mechs. If it were a natural system, you wouldn't have that.

Hardpoint sizes target very specific builds while also eliminating their hybrid versions from the same mechs, yet the same restrictions aren't applied to non-problem mechs. That strikes me as just as arbitrary as Ghost Heat. Unless you do go ahead and apply the same restrictions to non-problem mechs for the sake of systematic integrity, in which case eliminating a boat has just cut out a HUGE chunk of customization.

The biggest fans of this system are armchair designers who want the game's balance to be elegant and can't stand how arbitrary Ghost Heat is. They also fail to acknowledge the built-in tradeoffs that a lot of these builds already have (e.g. the vulnerability of Jagerbombs, the lack of short-range weapons on missile boats, the massive CT of Catapults, etc.). The rest are taken care of by Ghost Heat.

MWO relies on wide-open customization for its popularity. You can't have both wide-open customization and weapons balance, not with mechs sporting different concentrations of each weapon. It's ridiculous to think that would ever work. Therefore, the solution is going to have to be arbitrary, and as long as we're on those grounds, I'd much rather make boating costly (which is what Ghost Heat does) than eliminate it entirely. I see eliminating boating as eliminating specialization and even role warfare, and removing a lot of the very tradeoffs and tactical decisions that hardcore fans actually want.

The whole anti-Ghost Heat Campaign is a massive case of overstating the problem. Boats are manageable, some strategies to manage them (e.g. hit-and-run strikes by fast lights and mediums) aren't even bothered with by players, and the reasons they're not employed (i.e. too many mechs in too small a space, so nobody wants to try) have nothing to do with Ghost Heat. I also suspect that the majority of Ghost Heat's biggest haters are assault pilots, and assaults are supposed to be prone.

There is no alternative to Ghost Heat I've read yet that doesn't have even worse repercussions, and the ongoing desperate search for one strikes me as a misguided effort and makes me more of a fan of Ghost Heat by the day.

CyclonerM, on 06 October 2014 - 02:37 PM, said:

You can already customize your IS 'Mechs much more easily than it should be, and we have all seen what too much freedom brings. I support this concept and i have always thought it should have been in the game from the start.

I disagree. We'll have to see on which side the community consensus lands.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 06 October 2014 - 02:49 PM.

[DivideByZer0]

Regarding these issues (I know I'm not really on topic, but sized hardpoints? Are you kidding me ?) :
These suggestions aren't canon, but they do have some base in reality.

For AC fire, has anyone considered simply adding a heavier recoil to the person firing the AC ?
Example: Cone of fire increases as:
-velocity increases
-multiple AC weapons are fired simultaneously
-******when lighter mechs mount bigger AC (i.e. An AC20 on a raven should feel more unwieldy than an AC5, this is my solution to hardpoint sizing. Don't limit the size, just make it harder to run big guns on small mechs. Even big guns on big mechs, if there are alot of them.)

-for the mathmatically inclined-

[CoF error]=K1*velocity+K2*[size of gun/mass of mech]^2+K3*[number of guns fired simultanously]^2

I believe that AC fire should cause significant recoil to the firing mech, as well as the mech being shot at. AC is supposed to be a loud, crude weapon that has an intimidation factor. Thats why IS uses big single shot cannons and clan AC fires multiple times for the same damage. IS mechs should be able to lay down cover and suppressive fire.

Regarding lasers:
It takes a lot of power to fire a laser. This following suggestion isn't cannon, but , neither is ghost heat... :

When your mech has a high power draw, instead of ghost heat:
-Cockpit displays flicker momentarily (radar, status, etc)
-Movement/torso speed slows momentarily
-Possibly even have a "fuse breaker" attached to onboard systems that takes a moment to reset based on a diceroll (similar to how the IS UAC-5 works, with a possibility of jamming)
-The incredible heat and EMR from firing all that stuff should light up enemy radar like christmas
(increase detection range momentarily while doing large energy based alpha strikes)

I don't have a fancy pants equation for this one. It' more based on random numbers.

Technically, ghost heat is completely backwards from how heat dissipation works IRL. Rate of heat dissipation is proportional to the difference in Temp(inside) to Temp(outside). So if you make a lot of heat, it should actually dissipate faster.
The only time electronics might generate more heat is like in a power converter that is working at capacity, it might get less effecient at higher loads. But that just means more wattage is wasted in heat, taking away from total power output.

You should still overheat if you alpha a lot of lasers. But ghost heat can be worked around currently by either accepting the shutdown, or blowing a coolant shot.
My solution, affecting onboard systems, removes this mechanic. Blowing a coolant shot does nothing if your cockpit controls can't respond due to low power availability.

[Lyoto Machida]

EgoSlayer, on 06 October 2014 - 02:04 PM, said:

Nerfing a tier 1, 2 or tier 3 chassis down to tier 4 or tier 5 by reducing the hard point options doesn't make people want to play the other tier 4 and 5s more. It makes them look for another tier 1, 2 or 3 mech.

Or...they'd use a tier 4 or 5 mech because no tier 1,2 or 3 mechs exist with the hardpoints they want for their config. Maybe...just maybe, those tier 4 and 5 mechs wouldn't be tier 4 and 5 mechs anymore...

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

So we need more nerfs and restrictions on top of nerfs and restrictions, is that even canon restricting Omni-pods that way?

The Quad ER LLAS also has Quad MPLs and 2x UAC 5s.

That I could turn that into a completely legit multi UAC build across arms and (B torsos) torsos combining UAC5s/2s + whatever combination of CMPLs I can fit.

You understand you can swap the DWF A RA and DWF A LA for Gauss + 3x LPL which can then translate into Gauss + 3x CERPPCs right?

So one mech gets a 50 to 60 point completely stock legit alpha.


That mechs like the STOCK STK-3F are basically designed as a Boat


Winners and losers.


Or do we also then nerf those STOCK BUILDS, to keep up with the other nerfs?

Please explain how 2 SRM6 / 2 LL / 4 ML / 2 LRM10 is a "boat"...maybe a Medium Laser "boat" but that's kind of a stretch. If we're talking hardpoints and not stock loadouts, it wouldn't matter because someone trying to config a 3F with hardpoint restrictions couldn't just shove in 6PPCs. At most, they'd get 4MPLs and 2PPCs out of those slots.

I'm also of the opinion that missle slots should be locked to the stock tube count. Using the 3F as an example, it comes with 10/6/6/10 (RA/RT/LT/LA). If you throw on an LRM20 onto one of the arms, it should fire 2 salvos of 10 with an automatic 3.75 second cooldown in between (with no ability to cancel the 2nd salvo of 10 once the trigger has been pulled).

If you were to throw a LRM20 onto one of the torsos (SRM6 tube), it would fire 6, 4 second cooldown, fire another 6, 4 second cooldown, fire another 6, 4 second cooldown and then 2 with a 1.33 second cooldown.

Rebas Kradd, on 06 October 2014 - 02:39 PM, said:

Jagerbombs are not a problem at all outside 300m. They're not even a problem inside that, given their XL engines. Have you ever piloted one?

Look...in the end, hardpoint sizes are just as artificial and intentional a solution as Ghost Heat, so if you're arguing for it as a naturalistic solution, give it up. The fact that it makes more sense from an ontological perspective doesn't change that. Its purveyors are griping about specific mechs. If it were a natural system, you wouldn't have that.

Hardpoint sizes target very specific builds while also eliminating their hybrid versions from the same mechs, yet the same restrictions aren't applied to non-problem mechs. That strikes me as just as arbitrary as Ghost Heat. Unless you do go ahead and apply the same restrictions to non-problem mechs for the sake of systematic integrity, in which case eliminating a boat has just cut out a HUGE chunk of customization.

The biggest fans of this system are armchair designers who want the game's balance to be elegant and can't stand how arbitrary Ghost Heat is. They also fail to acknowledge the built-in tradeoffs that a lot of these builds already have (e.g. the vulnerability of Jagerbombs, the lack of short-range weapons on missile boats, the massive CT of Catapults, etc.). The rest are taken care of by Ghost Heat.

MWO relies on wide-open customization for its popularity. You can't have both wide-open customization and weapons balance, not with mechs sporting different concentrations of each weapon. It's ridiculous to think that would ever work. Therefore, the solution is going to have to be arbitrary, and as long as we're on those grounds, I'd much rather make boating costly rather than eliminating it (which is what Ghost Heat does). I see eliminating boating as eliminating specialization and even role warfare.

The whole anti-Ghost Heat Campaign is a massive case of overstating the problem. Boats are manageable, some strategies to manage them (e.g. hit-and-run strikes by fast lights and mediums) aren't even bothered with by players, and the reasons they're not employed (i.e. too many mechs in too small a space, so nobody wants to try) have nothing to do with Ghost Heat. I also suspect that the majority of Ghost Heat's biggest haters are assault pilots, and assaults are supposed to be prone.

There is no alternative to Ghost Heat I've read yet that doesn't have even worse repercussions, and the ongoing desperate search for one strikes me as a misguided effort and makes me more of a fan of Ghost Heat by the day.



I disagree. We'll have to see on which side the community consensus lands.

Fine...let's go the other extreme and allow all IS mechs full customization. Since we're already headed down that route for the most part and this game isn't TT, what's the harm in that? It's not like we have actual Omnimechs in Clan mechs.

The whole point is to get more mech diversity, not less. If we allow more customization options, you'll see less chassis on the field, not more...people will just take the mech with the best hitboxes at a certain weight/class and fit whatever loadout they want. If you reduce customization options, more chassis become viable (not less). Certain popular chassis may take a hit but it will allow other less used chassis to become viable.

What exactly is a Trebuchet good for right now?

[Rebas Kradd]

Lyoto Machida, on 06 October 2014 - 02:49 PM, said:

The whole point is to get more mech diversity, not less. If we allow more customization options, you'll see less chassis on the field, not more...people will just take the mech with the best hitboxes at a certain weight/class and fit whatever loadout they want. If you reduce customization options, more chassis become viable (not less). Certain popular chassis may take a hit but it will allow other less used chassis to become viable.

What exactly is a Trebuchet good for right now?

You're talking about equalization. Dumbing down mechs so that others can do just as well. That's not the same as balance and it doesn't particularly promote role warfare.

I personally like the idea of Russ's quirk system, even if it is layered onto Ghost Heat. I want to see where that goes first.

[Xtrekker]

LordKnightFandragon, on 06 October 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

MW4s size critical slots was cool and annoying. It didnt allow the Direwolf to really make many truly amazing loadouts, while mechs like the Mauler, once you packed in Clan tech, could mount a good amount of firepower.

In later mektek mod with the Marauder IIC and Behemoth, those were simply murderous.

The 7 light gauss Daishi wasn't amazing enough?

Xtrekker, on 06 October 2014 - 02:53 PM, said:

The 7 light gauss Daishi wasn't amazing enough?

Actually that might have been MW3...lol. Searching...

Xtrekker, on 06 October 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

The 7 light gauss Daishi wasn't amazing enough?


Actually that might have been MW3...lol. Searching...

Sweet, I quoted myself in the same post.

Xtrekker, on 06 October 2014 - 02:56 PM, said:

The 7 light gauss Daishi wasn't amazing enough?


Actually that might have been MW3...lol. Searching...


Sweet, I quoted myself in the same post.

Weeeeeeee