418 replies to this topic

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 06 October 2014 - 08:54 PM, said:

That gives like around 100 variants i suppose. And all those meks need some special flavor and uniqueness. Current system was ok when we had few chassis to choose from, so morphing any mek in to almost any other helped. Customer need to have a reason bay a mek. No reason or almost none now.

Exactly, since most 'Mechs are just generic skins that can all hold the same weapons, players choose 'Mechs based on the hardpoint locations and hitboxes rather than what the 'Mech's loadout and intended role in lore was. You end up with very sterile builds despite cries for "customization" -- everyone up top runs the same 'Mech, with the exact same guns.

Providing some sort of sized hard points would individualize 'Mechs, and even sub-variants of 'Mechs further. In the example I used, the CN9-D can carry more missiles, but a smaller autocannon than the CN9-A -- however, it could go faster as a tradeoff. Yes, some of the more popular meta variants would disappear -- but new loadouts would be tinkered with and emerge and 'Mechs that are currently considered sub-tier would come on their own and be able to perform specific roles other 'Mechs cannot.

[MisterPlanetarian]

Too convoluted OP.


Here's a simpler version, Example STK-3F:

Right and Left Arm: 2E on 5 critslots. 1M on 5 crit slots.

Right and Left Side Torso: 1E on 3 crit slots 1M on 3 crit slots.


What does this mean? Max of 1 PPC per arm in practice. It Can still fit 1xPPC 1xLPL or 2xLL for example. You can fit 4x PPC's if you spread them out across all locations. You can't fit Artemis LRM20's on the Stalker 3F at all. the 3H would have 6 slots for Missiles in the arm, 4 for energy etc.


Weapon allocated crit slot limitations on hardpoint locations mean you can still combine and configure but you can set adjust it in problem areas. Any surplus crit slots can be used for heatsinks/ammo/BAP etc

Edited by MisterPlanetarian, 07 October 2014 - 06:44 AM.

[Tastian]

kapusta11, on 07 October 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

So what are you going to do with Thunder Hawk, Devastator, Pillager, King Crab? Paring Ballistics with Energy weapons woud've never been a problem with proper HEAT SCALE, you woldn't be able to "cheat" with PPCs by not putting enough heatsinks, your ammo/gauss would just blow up.

Thunderhawk can carry 3 Gauss rifles. But there is already a 2xGauss firing limitation not even associated with Ghost heat. Also, a 100 ton Innersphere mech with XL engine? Noone would want that.

Same with the Devastator. 2 Gauss, 2 PPC. PPCs don't fire well with Gauss. And a 100 ton IS mech with XL engine?

Same with Pillager. Except with hardpoint restrictions, it can have 2 Gauss and no PPCs. And another 100 ton IS mech with XL engine.

King Crab IS coming out. Yes we can have dual AC20 or dual Gauss which I'm sure everyone will do. But I don't think it'll be as kingly as everyone thinks.

[kapusta11]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

Thunderhawk can carry 3 Gauss rifles. But there is already a 2xGauss firing limitation not even associated with Ghost heat. Also, a 100 ton Innersphere mech with XL engine? Noone would want that.

Same with the Devastator. 2 Gauss, 2 PPC. PPCs don't fire well with Gauss. And a 100 ton IS mech with XL engine?

Same with Pillager. Except with hardpoint restrictions, it can have 2 Gauss and no PPCs. And another 100 ton IS mech with XL engine.

King Crab IS coming out. Yes we can have dual AC20 or dual Gauss which I'm sure everyone will do. But I don't think it'll be as kingly as everyone thinks.

You're right, it won't, unless you restrict other mechs from having equal hardpoints, firepower wise. You're looking at the wrong direction with your sized hardpoints idea.

Edited by kapusta11, 07 October 2014 - 06:26 AM.

[Eddrick]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

Thunderhawk can carry 3 Gauss rifles. But there is already a 2xGauss firing limitation not even associated with Ghost heat. Also, a 100 ton Innersphere mech with XL engine? Noone would want that.

Same with the Devastator. 2 Gauss, 2 PPC. PPCs don't fire well with Gauss. And a 100 ton IS mech with XL engine?

Same with Pillager. Except with hardpoint restrictions, it can have 2 Gauss and no PPCs. And another 100 ton IS mech with XL engine.

King Crab IS coming out. Yes we can have dual AC20 or dual Gauss which I'm sure everyone will do. But I don't think it'll be as kingly as everyone thinks.

Isn't allowing all other mechs the ability to Alpha Strike all of their stock weapons beside ones with more then 2 Gauss Rifles or Gauss Rifles and PPCs a double standard.

Edited by Eddrick, 07 October 2014 - 06:30 AM.

[Tastian]

Jacob Side, on 07 October 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Sized hardpoints are a terrible idea. If added to the game people will quit.

I found this poll by searching the forums. People seem to like the idea over ghost heat 4 to 1 http://mwomercs.com/...e__show__st__80

So, would people quit or would people come back?

[IceSerpent]

HlynkaCG, on 06 October 2014 - 09:08 PM, said:

Let's not mince words here, the purpose of sized hard-points is to curtail build variety, always has been.

The purpose is to replace ghost heat. GH attempts to get rid of certain "boats" by penalizing alpha strike with more than N weapons of the same type (i.e. more than 2 PPCs). Sized hardpoints get rid of those boats by not allowing more than N weapons of the same type to be mounted on that mech.

Quote

IF you absolutely must crack down on about boating, have certain weapons occupy multiple hard-points. Make PPCs require 2 Energy points, vice one, or AC20s require 3 ballistic. We already have hard-point inflation, lets put it to use.

We certainly could. It's just a variation of sized hardpoints though, having AC20 to require 3 ballistic hardpoints has the same overall effect as limiting hardpoints that you don't want to hold AC20 to 9 crits. In both cases you would only be able to mount AC20 only on specific hardpoints/mechs.
Potential problem with your idea is that it would allow boating of smaller weapons in large numbers, i.e. Warhawk that packs quad PPCs stock would have to have 8 energy hardpoints in the arms alone and would be perfectly capable of boating as many ERLLs as it wants.

[kapusta11]

IceSerpent, on 07 October 2014 - 07:59 AM, said:

The purpose is to replace ghost heat. GH attempts to get rid of certain "boats" by penalizing alpha strike with more than N weapons of the same type (i.e. more than 2 PPCs). Sized hardpoints get rid of those boats by not allowing more than N weapons of the same type to be mounted on that mech.

Proper HEAT SCALE does it better than both of them. Why not just follow BattleTech rules in the first place. Core rule ignore and invent a wheel?

[IceSerpent]

kapusta11, on 07 October 2014 - 08:04 AM, said:

Proper HEAT SCALE does it better than both of them. Why not just follow BattleTech rules in the first place. Core rule ignore and invent a wheel?

I agree that proper heat scale would be absolutely awesome. Even simple separation of heat capacity and heat dissipation would be a big improvement. It doesn't completely solve this problem by itself though - boating quad AC20s gives you only 4*7=28 heat on alpha strike for example.

Edited by IceSerpent, 07 October 2014 - 08:18 AM.

[Sybreed]

I love it when people mention battletech rules as an argument FOR customization when in fact battletech had pretty STRICT rules in that wouldn't allow almost freeform customization that we have.

You're just stating half of the truth to support your claim, but in reality the entire truth is against it.

[Johnny Z]

I have had a chance to consider this idea more. Although there are mechs like the Catapult that seem to demand sized hard point and many other examples, I am not sure if its a good idea or not. lol Seriously, would it limit load outs to much is the main concern.

It appears that if this came into the game it would have to be a very loose rule system, at least to start.

To explain again, the Catapult should be a go to missile mech and the size of its missile racks demands a bonus to missile carrying capacty. For example the catapult could carry 2 LRM 20's where other mechs couldnt so easily.

Again the main pro's for hard point size is for role warfare, defining chassis and chassis variant character, game play balance.

The main con, less customization. If there are any other cons to this idea I have missed them because the "I am a big baby, I will quit if this is added" doesnt count.

Edited by Johnny Z, 07 October 2014 - 08:50 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 08:18 AM, said:

I love it when people mention battletech rules as an argument FOR customization when in fact battletech had pretty STRICT rules in that wouldn't allow almost freeform customization that we have.

You might want to take a look at BT construction rules...just saying...

[Sybreed]

IceSerpent, on 07 October 2014 - 08:21 AM, said:

You might want to take a look at BT construction rules...just saying...

I'm referring to the different types of refitting you could do, just saying

[IceSerpent]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 08:56 AM, said:

I'm referring to the different types of refitting you could do, just saying

I know.
I was referring to those rules not being much more strict than MWO ones. Refits merely take more c-bills/times to do in TT.

[Sybreed]

Ok.

Then I guess I'm the only one having an issue with the fact that everyone seems to magically have the best engineers and factories on hand at all times :S

I mean, this isn't really Mechwarrior (not the one I knew anyway), this is "design your gunbag online"

Edited by Sybreed, 07 October 2014 - 09:33 AM.

[Tuefel Hunden]

Let's just make it so you can't alter the loadout on the mechs. That way it really come down to just twitch skill. No brain power will be involved.

[Lordred]

Tuefel Hunden, on 07 October 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

Let's just make it so you can't alter the loadout on the mechs. That way it really come down to just twitch skill. No brain power will be involved.

This + 30 heat scale.

[Sybreed]

Tuefel Hunden, on 07 October 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

Let's just make it so you can't alter the loadout on the mechs. That way it really come down to just twitch skill. No brain power will be involved.

Actually.

I think I would have taken some inspiration from mobas to design a Mechwarrior game. By that, I mean that different mechs have different roles, all based on their loadout, and the skills mostly come from the fact that you play well and take the best tactical decisions to win the game. The maps in MWO don't allow for such tactics, so of course everyone will want to max weapons as much as possible. But in scenarios where you need stealth, detection, long range artillery and multi-purpose mechs for a variety of scenarios, stock builds would shine in that you would need your team to build in accordance to the map and objective.

Then, having pinpoint accuracy, max weapons, matter less. It becomes a test of tactics and positionning and good reaction time, a bit like in mobas. Right now, MWO is to battletech like a dota 2 game with only carries is to an actual, good dota game. Supports win games people

I might be speaking chinese right now, but I hope some understand.

Edited by Sybreed, 07 October 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 09:33 AM, said:

Ok.

Then I guess I'm the only one having an issue with the fact that everyone seems to magically have the best engineers and factories on hand at all times :S

I mean, this isn't really Mechwarrior (not the one I knew anyway), this is "design your gunbag online"

It's not that I particularily like this fact, but I don't see any good way around it, given the overall design of MWO. Making refits more expensive would just widen the gap between veterans (who sit on billions) and rookies (who are poor). Mking refits take time would do the same - sending one mech for refit when you have 50 is not a big deal, doing that when you only have one means you can't play.

[Sprouticus]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

Actually.

I think I would have taken some inspiration from mobas to design a Mechwarrior game. By that, I mean that different mechs have different roles, all based on their loadout, and the skills mostly come from the fact that you play well and take the best tactical decisions to win the game. The maps in MWO don't allow for such tactics, so of course everyone will want to max weapons as much as possible. But in scenarios where you need stealth, detection, long range artillery and multi-purpose mechs for a variety of scenarios, stock builds would shine in that you would need your team to build in accordance to the map and objective.

Then, having pinpoint accuracy, max weapons, matter less. It becomes a test of tactics and positionning and good reaction time, a bit like in mobas. Right now, MWO is to battletech like a dota 2 game with only carries is to an actual, good dota game. Supports win games people

I might be speaking chinese right now, but I hope some understand.

I tend to disagree that the maps are the issue, let me explain:

People want to progress
To progress in MWO you need CB and XP/GXP
To get CB and XP/GXP you focus on rewards in game
The current reward system is extremely limited and favors damage and kills


You can build the best role warfaresystem in the world and no one will ever play scouts if they dont get CB and XP for doing their job.



**** NOW, hopefully there are major changes for the reward system upcoming. and hopefully those rewards will make running a scout worthwhile. Only time will tell. ****


My system (proposed many many times since before closed beta):

1) You choose a role when you ready up (scout/attack/support/Commander)
2) MM takes role into account as part of the MM process (1-3 scouts, 3-6 attack, 2-4 support, 1-2 commander)
3) Rewards are based upon role, (scouts get points for spotting/UAV, attack for kils, support for assists, command for ??)


Do that and people will be far more plikely to play other roles, even if the mechs involved are non optimal.