418 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

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.

So, limit 2 of the 4 energy hardpoints to 2 crits max, leave the other 2 untouched (prevents quad PPCs, although I don't think it's a problem on a 65t mech). If you want to preven AC40 build, limit ballistic hardpoints to 9 crits. What's the problem?

[Alistair Winter]

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 03:46 PM, said:

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

I'm just trying to follow my own advice and imagining that the guy is just as smart as I am. It's a wonderful piece of advice I got from reading a book by a Norwegian philosopher called Arne Næss. Now, if this thread is implemented optimally, I see no reason why it wouldn't work. It would limit customization, yes. But as I understand it, this game needs a lot of limits to customization, because TT Battletech was never intended as the framework of this sort of computer game. So omnimechs, as they work in TT, would just be too powerful for MWO. The ability to put JJ's on a Dire Wolf, for example, would not be good for this game.

But getting back to the energy crit space. I think it's a good idea. Just because it didn't work in MW4 doesn't mean it would never work. A person with good knowledge of MWO could probably make it work better than the current hardpoint system.

And we would no longer have this fiasco.



PS: I feel obliged to say that Arne Næss would probably not recommend calling other people 'fascists' over something like this, if a productive conversation is your goal.

Edited by Alistair Winter, 06 October 2014 - 03:59 PM.

[Big Tin Man]

Alek Ituin, on 06 October 2014 - 03:54 PM, said:

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.

The Dual Gauss, 6xUAC5 and 4xLB10 Dire Wolfs would like to talk to you. If they're so inefficient and bad, why are they so prevalent?

The idea is to penalize boating them for a 20+ point ballistic pinpoint alpha. Chainfire all day if you like.

[Ultimax]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 06 October 2014 - 03:51 PM, said:

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

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

Just because it didn't work in MW4 doesn't mean it would never work.

So wait, do we want MW4's system or not. Was MW4 perfectly balanced with a special place for all mechs?

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

I'm just trying to follow my own advice and imagining that the guy is just as smart as I am. It's a wonderful piece of advice I got

You sure that's what other players in this thread want, I think that's wihful thinking on your part?

[Lyoto Machida]

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.

The Jester is made up (AFAIK) so it wouldn't matter...PGI could give it whatever they wanted without too much fuss (as long as they didn't go overboard). The hardpoints are based off the original loadouts though, so it would matter for canon variants still.

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

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.

Exactly...that build shouldn't be possible anymore.

Still unsure if the K2 had 2 extra energy hardpoints that were taken away from early closed beta. If it did, then 2 PPC/4ML/2 MG would be fine (with additional quirks/module slots possibly).
Then again, it's all a matter of planned obsolescence really. PGI needs to sell you newer (and better) mechs.

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

I'm just trying to follow my own advice and imagining that the guy is just as smart as I am. It's a wonderful piece of advice I got from reading a book by a Norwegian philosopher called Arne Næss. Now, if this thread is implemented optimally, I see no reason why it wouldn't work. It would limit customization, yes. But as I understand it, this game needs a lot of limits to customization, because TT Battletech was never intended as the framework of this sort of computer game. So omnimechs, as they work in TT, would just be too powerful for MWO. The ability to put JJ's on a Dire Wolf, for example, would not be good for this game.

But getting back to the energy crit space. I think it's a good idea. Just because it didn't work in MW4 doesn't mean it would never work. A person with good knowledge of MWO could probably make it work better than the current hardpoint system.

And we would no longer have this fiasco.



PS: I feel obliged to say that Arne Næss would probably not recommend calling other people 'fascists' over something like this, if a productive conversation is your goal.

Isn't that (crit spaces) a different idea somewhat than what this thread is proposing (sized hardpoints)?

[Pyrrho]

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 03:57 PM, said:

PS: I feel obliged to say that Arne Næss would probably not recommend calling other people 'fascists' over something like this, if a productive conversation is your goal.

To be fair, he did say that his main method of discourse he was trying to purposefully bait you into a response through feigned ignorance, though he did apologize for that.

*edits: yeesh, thoughts are hard.

Edited by Pyrrho, 06 October 2014 - 04:11 PM.

[IceSerpent]

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

To be fair, he did say that his main method of discourse was to purposefully bait you into a response through feigned ignorance, though he did apologize for that.

I am not buying the "feigned" part - so far all of his posts in this thread display complete lack of understanding of what is being suggested.

[Alistair Winter]

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

To be fair, he did say that his main method of discourse was to purposefully bait you into a response through feigned ignorance, though he did apologize for that.

Hah, I have not read that. I guess he was a fan of Socrates too then. It was my main method of discourse when I was a youth and a disciple of Plato, but I could never get it to work. It just resulted in people losing interest in talking to me. I guess there's a fine balance I never mastered.

I do seem to recall Arne Næss being very open and humble about his mistakes and talking about times where he did not follow the philosophy he advocated himself. So I won't hold it against him. His ambition was the pursuit of truth, like Gandhi before him, so it seems inappropriate and dishonest to feign ignorance.

Did not expect to have a discussion about this when I entered this thread, but the internet is like that sometimes.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

So wait, do we want MW4's system or not. Was MW4 perfectly balanced with a special place for all mechs?

How long were ppl playing that game?

But still, saying that the work isnt done at all and the devs have no time for it is a bit off as well isnt it?

[Ultimax]

IceSerpent, on 06 October 2014 - 04:07 PM, said:

I am not buying the "feigned" part - so far all of his posts in this thread display complete lack of understanding of what is being suggested.

Is that right?

Part of Russ' challenge is to show

Then compare that to the current game and come up with a true audit of what builds would still exist, which ones would disappear.


So far you guys are failing the challenge, because purposefully showing all of the builds that would disappear would ruin your entire argument.


The onus is on you to prove there would be more builds possible rather than less - or you fail.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 06 October 2014 - 04:23 PM.

[Gas Guzzler]

Lol boomjager is a case study? Come on people. If you have problems with those, you need to look inside yourselves for the solution.

[Pyrrho]

Alistair Winter, on 06 October 2014 - 04:09 PM, said:

I do seem to recall Arne Næss being very open and humble about his mistakes and talking about times where he did not follow the philosophy he advocated himself. So I won't hold it against him. His ambition was the pursuit of truth, like Gandhi before him, so it seems inappropriate and dishonest to feign ignorance.

For me, The ambition is tranquility through suspension of judgement. The world and being a part of it is quite humbling to me.

[Lyoto Machida]

Gas Guzzler, on 06 October 2014 - 04:13 PM, said:

Lol boomjager is a case study? Come on people. If you have problems with those, you need to look inside yourselves for the solution.

I don't think its an issue but do you think he would have had the attention of more people if he had used a Splatcat as one of his first examples? Neither of those two are particularly relevant currently but the whole premise of the thread is that ghost heat would be removed if the sized hardpoint system went into effect. At least the AC40 is still seen on the battlefield, wheras the Splatcat...

AC40s (as well as Splatcats) would no doubt be more feared on the battlefield if ghost heat was gone, compared to how they currently are.

[Lacewing]

Wow. If they implement hardpoint sizes, I might start to play MWO again. It's just immersive and logical.

[Hoax415]

I'm not sure why you would bother to restrict anything other than PPC, Gauss and AC20. Basically you just give select hardpoints the special designation of being able to mount those weapon systems.

Those are the three big deal weapons that any mech from lore that uses it was designed around the weapon system.

You could literally leave everything else as is and just take away the ability to boat those 3 weapons and you'd achieve 90% of what you are looking to achieve.

That approach has some serious drawback though, because it just means that double gauss mechs will always be extra strong and extra special but you know what they are going to be good anyways so I'm not sure how much we've lost.

Not sure what that does to clan mechs, they probably get much stronger in relation to IS mechs as boating lasers and lower caliber AC's is strong for them anyways. We would ditch the really annoying FLD metawhales and other C-Gauss builds though I think for the most part.

Effects:
Jagers can't use AC20 or Gauss anymore. They are now just as bad as every other IS heavy. Almost. High arms are still high.

The Protector might be good even though its low arms are terrible. Its a bad Dragon Slayer Jr.

K2 can mount 2 PPC's this is an extra special thing.

Awesomes with multiple PPC mounts are special.

Vindicators and HBK's and Cents that are designed around AC20 or PPC might make a bit more sense.

Stalkers can't PPC boat anymore, not that they do anymore anyways. I think the Misery loses the ability to mount AC20?

CTF's can't gauss anymore until 3060 and the can only mount single PPC. They are probably still quite good thanks to hardpoints and will swap down to AC10 and/or LL. If they regain some pop tart abilities from the jj changes they'll be fine most likely.

The Dragon Slayer is basically even more broken and special than it was.

Cbill VTR's can't mount PPC anymore. So RIP those builds.

Basically Gauss, AC20 and PPC become much rarer sights on the battlefield. The game becomes more laser warrior online, which is good because lasers don't do FLD and are weak against twisting and moving targets and require a lot better aim to maintain top damage. Pilot skill is more important.

Maybe/Hopefully single Gauss becomes not a "bad" setup.

Obviously only builds are lost in this setup as opposed to the argument that changing to a MW4 system adds a bunch of build variety if you want to make every mech a 13 small laser Nova-style atrocity.

Edited by Hoax415, 06 October 2014 - 04:24 PM.

[IraqiWalker]

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.

You just removed energy boating and LRM boating from a mech that has no ballistic hardpoints. I'm sorry, but I will call this beyond idiotic. My personal opinion, but this is a bad solution.

[Gas Guzzler]

Hoax415, on 06 October 2014 - 04:20 PM, said:

I'm not sure why you would bother to restrict anything other than PPC, Gauss and AC20. Basically you just give select hardpoints the special designation of being able to mount those weapon systems.

Those are the three big deal weapons that any mech from lore that uses it was designed around the weapon system.

You could literally leave everything else as is and just take away the ability to boat those 3 weapons and you'd achieve 90% of what you are looking to achieve.

That approach has some serious drawback though, because it just means that double gauss mechs will always be extra strong and extra special but you know what they are going to be good anyways so I'm not sure how much we've lost.

Not sure what that does to clan mechs, they probably get much stronger in relation to IS mechs as boating lasers and lower caliber AC's is strong for them anyways. We would ditch the really annoying FLD metawhales and other C-Gauss builds though I think for the most part.

Effects:
Jagers can't use AC20 or Gauss anymore. They are now just as bad as every other IS heavy. Almost. High arms are still high.

The Protector might be good even though its low arms are terrible. Its a bad Dragon Slayer Jr.

K2 can mount 2 PPC's this is an extra special thing.

Awesomes with multiple PPC mounts are special.

Vindicators and HBK's and Cents that are designed around AC20 or PPC might make a bit more sense.

Stalkers can't PPC boat anymore, not that they do anymore anyways. I think the Misery loses the ability to mount AC20?

CTF's can't gauss anymore until 3060 and the can only mount single PPC. They are probably still quite good thanks to hardpoints and will swap down to AC10 and/or LL. If they regain some pop tart abilities from the jj changes they'll be fine most likely.

The Dragon Slayer is basically even more broken and special than it was.

Cbill VTR's can't mount PPC anymore. So RIP those builds.

Basically Gauss, AC20 and PPC become much rarer sights on the battlefield. The game becomes more laser warrior online, which is good because lasers don't do FLD and are weak against twisting and moving targets and require a lot better aim to maintain top damage. Pilot skill is more important.

Maybe/Hopefully single Gauss becomes not a "bad" setup.

Obviously only builds are lost in this setup as opposed to the argument that changing to a MW4 system adds a bunch of build variety if you want to make every mech a 13 small laser Nova-style atrocity.

.....

Can I just keep playing the game we have now?

[IceSerpent]

Ultimatum X, on 06 October 2014 - 04:10 PM, said:

Is that right, genius?

You bet it is.

Quote

Part of Russ' challenge is to show

Then compare that to the current game and come up with a true audit of what builds would still exist, which ones would disappear.


So far you guys are failing the challenge, because purposefully showing all of the builds that would disappear would ruin your entire argument.

The answer to that part of the challenge is "none". No builds will disappear, except for the one we're trying to get rid of. If you want to get rid of hexastalker (let's say, limit the max number of PPCs to 4), the only builds that disappear are the ones that have more than quad PPCs. You want to limit it to 2 PPCs max? Only builds that disappear are the ones that have more than 2.

Quote

The onus is on you to prove there would be more builds possible rather than less - or you fail.

The whole purpose of this is to remove certain builds that are deemed OP from the game, how do you expect removal of a build to result in "more builds possible" is beyond me.

By the way, thanks for proving my point about your lack of understanding.

[Ultimax]

Lyoto Machida, on 06 October 2014 - 04:19 PM, said:

Neither of those two are particularly relevant currently but the whole premise of the thread is that ghost heat would be removed...

If Ghost heat were removed, I'd run Quad CERPPC Warhawk (stock load) or Gauss + 3 CERPPC Dire Wolf (uses 3x 2 crit E hardpoints - stock sizes).


I thought the premise of the thread was that more builds could be played?

I thought the premise of the challenge, if you read Russ' wording, is that players would need to prove we would have more builds and not less builds requiring a full audit.


So the premise is that Ghost Heat goes by by and I can 40+20 point alpha you with my WHK-Prime for the same amount of heat that a Laser Vomit TBR alphas?


Tell me more.

IceSerpent, on 06 October 2014 - 04:26 PM, said:

The answer to that part of the challenge is "none". No builds will disappear, except for the one we're trying to get rid of.

The whole purpose of this is to remove certain builds that are deemed OP from the game, how do you expect removal of a build to result in "more builds possible" is beyond me.

Russ laid out the challenge.

Full audit, due diligence or failure.

Where is your attempt at an audit to prove what you say? To meet Russ' challenge?

[White Bear 84]

Zack Esseth, on 06 October 2014 - 11:29 AM, said:

The only thing coming from changes to come Hardpoint size restrictions is going to be less diversity on the Field.

This is such a tiring argument. Looking at the OP's posts, the restrictions would restrict 'some' builds, but look at the variation across each mech type. Right now I can outfit most my jagers with pretty much the same thing.. ..so what is the point in having those variants?

The truth is that you are not removing any diversity, you are probably increasing it because you are making balanced, mech specific builds the 'meta' rather than having a 'meta' that most competitive players run now as it is.

Personally I am an advocate for making mechs more stock, to play them as battletech intended not as high alpha pinpoint cannons.

The effects can be interesting - I have played a number of group matches where competitive teams that are so used to this meta when they went over to stock they got STOMPED. Fancy that.