418 replies to this topic

[Eddrick]

Gorgo7, on 07 October 2014 - 02:06 PM, said:

I think attempting to cover each Mech based on its outline is too work intensive. Instead I propose giving the weapons a size and limiting it to a mech "one size smaller"
Try Assault, Large, Medium and Small for weapon sizes.
The weapon of the appropriate size can fit in a mech of one size smaller.

ie
Assault class weapons, Gauss Rifle, LRM 20, AC20. Any Large mech or greater may carry them.
Large weapons are PPC's, LPLaser, AC10, LBX10, LRM15. Any Med mech or greater may carry them.
Med weapons are LLasers, AC5's, AC2's, SRM6 and 4, LRM10, Any Small mech or greater may carry them.
Small weapons are MLasers, SLasers, SRM2, Streak2, LRM5, Machine guns. Any may equip them.

Exceptions can be made for cannon variants...Hunchback AC20, Griffon 3M - LRM20 etc.

This avoids overly complicated (and argumentative) takes on everyone's favorite chassis.

Cheers,

Gorgo7

Some Canon Light Mechs stock build made invalid by this

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Panther
Panther (35 Ton Light Mech) comes stock with a PPC.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/UrbanMech
Urbanmech (30 Ton Light Mech) comes stock with an AC/10.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hollander
Hollander (35 Ton Light Mech) comes stock with a Gauss Rifle.

Edited by Eddrick, 07 October 2014 - 02:23 PM.

[Johnny Z]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 02:12 PM, said:

That IS how things work in this game XD Pie charts and graphs over reasoned arguments

I will take a pie chart or a cookie or just about anything over "I am a big baby, I will quit if they bring in hard point sizes and my I WIN button get taken away" that seems to be the only arguement against hard point sizes.

[IceSerpent]

Asyres, on 07 October 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

Alright, you have a fair point here, but it's pretty immaterial, because the sample size of the poll is more or less useless unless the actual active population of MWO is under 1000 users. If it's over that - and I don't think it's especially reasonable to suggest that it isn't - you fall into standard issue polling procedure, which gives you a margin of error where the possible outcomes of the poll overlap - basically, it's too close to call, despite not looking that way.

Where did you get that from? With total population of 1000, sample size of 140, and 72% "aye" votes we get margin of error = 6.9%. With total population of 10,000 we get margin of error = 7.39%. With total population of 100,000 we get margin of error = 7.43%. In general, after a certain point increasing sample size by a lot doesn't decrease margin of error by all that much.

[Metus regem]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 01:53 PM, said:

I always thought it was more funny that ppl got angry that you could put ac20/gauss where a machinegun was than they got about the fact that you can replace the engine and the skeleton in an IS mech.

You and me both....

Sometimes the only difference between some mechs is just that a bigger engine or Endo Steel chassis.

I mean if Clan mechs have locked equipment, Battle Mechs sure as hell should too.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Johnny Z, on 07 October 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

I will take a pie chart or a cookie or just about anything over "I am a big baby, I will quit if they bring in hard point sizes and my I WIN button get taken away" that seems to be the only arguement against hard point sizes.

Where did I say that? Im genuinely curious

[Johnny Z]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

Where did I say that? Im genuinely curious

I put a like to your post. I am kidding around about the arguements of negative posts to this idea in general.

But the fact is, if sized hard points does limit load outs variety to much, it may be a bad idea.

There are plenty of good arguements saying this is a great move though.

Edited by Johnny Z, 07 October 2014 - 02:43 PM.

[Gorgo7]

Eddrick, on 07 October 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

Some Canon Light Mechs stock build made invalid by this

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Panther
Panther (35 Ton Light Mech) comes stock with a PPC.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/UrbanMech
Urbanmech (30 Ton Light Mech) comes stock with an AC/10.

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Hollander
Hollander (35 Ton Light Mech) comes stock with a Gauss Rifle.

Irrelivent seeing as they are not in game yet.
Besides exceptions can be made for cannon variants as I said in my original post.

[Asmudius Heng]

Victor Morson, on 07 October 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

The trick to a good meta is to make sure you have several metas.

Frankenmechs will never be very good, even if people want them to be. But the problem with MW:O is there's always been like, 3 viable play styles if you want to be meta, where in a lot of top games, there are a HUGE number of ways to play while remaining competitive.

And that's what I'd like to see happen here, for sure. If they ever put that "pick which 'mech you want after you know the map" thing in, it'd increase this idea further.

The broader the meta, with more counter meta's means you have shifting styles and drop decks.

We have suffered from a suffocatingly narrow meta for too long.

[Jolly Llama]

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

I'll bite.

[EDIT] Changing this to read as weapon class sizes - not crit or slot sizes.
[EDIT] Hardpoint limitations idea is by no means new. 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
[EDIT] Added a Stalker study of builds that would disappear and still be viable at the bottom using the hardpoint system outlined here.

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 class 2. 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 class chart

[CLASS 1] - Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, TAG, Flamer
[CLASS 2] - CLASS 1 + Med Laser, Med Pulse Laser
[CLASS 3] - CLASS 2 + Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser
[CLASS 4] - CLASS 3 + PPC + ERPPC

For Ballistic Weapons:

[CLASS 1] - MG, AC2
[CLASS 2] - CLASS 1 + AC5, UAC5
[CLASS 3] - CLASS 2 + LB10X, AC10
[CLASS 4] - CLASS 3 + Gauss, AC20

For Missile Weapons:

[CLASS 1] - SRM2, SRM4, Streak SRM2, LRM5, Narc, SRM2wArt
[CLASS 2] - CLASS 1 + SRM4wArt, SRM6, LRM5wArt, LRM10
[CLASS 3] - CLASS 2 + SRM6wArt, LRM10wArt, LRM15
[CLASS 4] - CLASS 3 + LRM15wArt, LRM20, LRM20wArt

[EDIT] - Also note that although dual AC20 Jagers, Quad and Hex PPC Stalkers, and Splatcats aren't a problem right now, they'd be a problem again if Ghost Heat disappeared.


First case study:

Stalker.

Problem builds: LRM and PPC boating


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

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


**Stalker 3H**
RA/LA
2x [Class 2] energy
1x [Class 4] missile

RT/LT
1x [Class 2] missile


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

LA
2x [Class 2] energy

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


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

RT
1x [Class 2] missile

LT
1x [Class 1] missile
1x [Class 2] missile

CT
1x [Class 3] energy


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

RT/LT
1x [Class 3] energy
1x [Class 2] 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.

[EDIT] List of builds that would disappear and remain. Obviously this is not exhaustive, but I think you can get the idea that it isn't killing diversity but rather keeping the flavor of the Stalker and encouraging the use of other Stalkers and even other mechs.

Stalker builds this will destroy:

1) LRM boats higher then LRM50
2) Artemis LRM boats higher then LRM30
3) laser boats with more 3x or more(ER)(pulse)Large Lasers
4) PPC boats with 3-6 PPCs including:
5) 2 PPC with anything including:
*2 PPC, 2 Large Pulse
*2 ERPPC, 4 Streaks


Stalker (3F) builds this will keep:
1) LRM50, any mix of 6x(Small)(SmallPulse)(Med)(Flamers)(TAG)
2) LRM50, 2x(ER)LargeLaser
3) LRM30wArt, TAG, 5x(SmallPulse)Med laser
4) LRM30wArt, 2x(ER)LargeLaser
5) LRM30, any mix of 6x(Small)(SmallPulse)(Med)(Flamer)(MedPulse)(TAG)
6) LRM30, SRM12 + any mix of med/small energy weapons
7) SRM24, + any mix of 6x med/medpulse/small energy weapons
8) SRM24, 2x(ER)Large laser + any mix of 4x med/small energy weapons
9) SRM20wArt + any mix of 6x small energy weapons
10) 2x (ER)(pulse)large laser, 4x med (pulse) Laser
11) 2x (ER)(pulse)large laser, SSRM8, any mix of 4 med/small energy weapons
12) 4x LRM5wArt, any mix of 6xmed/medpulse/small energy weapons
etc...

differences between some Stalker variants:

Stalker 3H
* Can carry LRM60 max (10 more then 3F)
* Can carry LRM50wArt (20 more then 3F)
* restricted to only 4x Med Lasers and no Large lasers

Stalker 4N
* can carry LRM40 max (10 less then 3F, 20 less then 3H)
* can carry LRM40wArt max (10 more then 3F, 10 less then 3H)
* can carry same lasers as 3F

Stalker 5M
* can carry LRM55 max
* can carry SRM28 or StreakSRM10
* CT (ER)(Pulse)Large Laser

Stalker 5S
* same as 3F but 2 AMS




**Catapult K2**
RA/LA
1x [Class 4] energy

RT/LT
1x [Class 1] ballistic
1x [Class 3] energy


**Raven 2X**
RA
2x [Class 2] energy

RT
1x [Class 3] missile

LT
2x [Class 3] energy


**Raven 3L**
RA
2x [Class 2] energy

LA
1x [Class 2] missile

RT
1x [Class 4] energy
1x [Class 2] missile

Again...No.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Sybreed, on 07 October 2014 - 02:03 PM, said:

/shrugs

Agree to disagree

...wait, didnt you

Quote

I'm a legendary overlord, stopped playing 5 months ago.

https://forums.rober...Comment_3520108

?

Then youve already quit I take it

Edited by Mechwarrior Buddah, 07 October 2014 - 03:12 PM.

[Rasc4l]

Good post, GJ.

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

[CLASS 1] - Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, TAG, Flamer
[CLASS 2] - CLASS 1 + Med Laser, Med Pulse Laser
[CLASS 3] - CLASS 2 + Large Laser, ER Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser
[CLASS 4] - CLASS 3 + PPC + ERPPC

This is the only thing I'd change. I'd have only 3 classes so that PPC and ERPPC go to class 3 and class 4 is removed.

[Sybreed]

Mechwarrior Buddah, on 07 October 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

...wait, didnt you



https://forums.rober...Comment_3520108

?

Then youve already quit I take it

yes, your point?

Doesn't mean I wouldn't ever come back.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

I still believe instead of adding additional classes to weapon systems, just keep the size of the original equipment mounted in the location combined with a max number of hard points like we currently have would be an easier system to transition to rather than come up with a completely new and arbitrary class system never before seen in this game or the source lore.

Want an Gauss rifle? Pick a 'Mech that had a large caliber autocannon (AC/10+) to fit it on. Want a PPC? Find a 'Mech that had several energy weapons in a single location, or one that comes stock with a PPC.

A lot of maligned chassis would see a lot more use, as seen by which 'Mechs became popular amongst the Stock Mech Monday group -- when a 'Mech cannot do everything, and most will have to rely on a mix up of weapon systems rather than super stream-lined death stars. A lot of builds that are popular would still be possible, they would just be required to be put on other chassis that may not have the most popular weapon mounts or hitboxes -- a tradeoff for taking the most effective systems.

The biggest workload would be several chassis would have to have the amount of hardpoints re-evaluated -- for instance, several chassis would be considered direct upgrades of the 3025 level 1 designs; the TBT-7M outclasses the 5N in every way -- but it still does today with the current hard point system.

[Eddrick]

Gorgo7, on 07 October 2014 - 02:50 PM, said:

Irrelivent seeing as they are not in game yet.
Besides exceptions can be made for cannon variants as I said in my original post.

If exeptions are not allowed with that system. You are limiting some of the Mechs that can be added into the game later. Its just best to plan ahead for things like that.

I can understand the reason for a system like this. But, no double standards please. The need to make exceptions shows flaws in the system.

Edited by Eddrick, 07 October 2014 - 06:02 PM.

[Keeshu]

My god I spent a good portion of my day reading this thread. I just wanted to come in and say I am all for Sized Hardpoints if done correctly.

Just a few things
#1. Where is that quote from Russ from? I couldn't find it on his twitter, announcements, command chair, feedback, or the main page. I don't know where else to look.

#2. Does PGI have a list of "problem builds?" Or some thoughts behind what exactly they want removed from certain builds?

#3. Sized Hardpoints doesn't stop boating, but it does do something very good, which is make it so each mech+variant has a purpose (which we need now since we have so many friggin mechs everywhere, and new mechs need to find a niche so they aren't abandonded as soon as they are released). If the problem builds were just instant 1 shot kill type builds, that will never be fixed from sized hardpoints due to the existence of a few stock builds.

Any of the Any Dire Wolf (but face melting power at the expense of being terrible in every other way is it's thing), Awesome (3 PPC), Warhawk (4 ER PPC), King Crab (2 AC/20). For these mechs I believe they can be dealt in other ways due to quirks. Dire Wolf has some pretty bad movement already, and Awesome is notorious for being as easy to hit as a barn door. The Warhawk is the largest offender, but I wouldn't be opposed to it getting some uniqueness injected into it where it can only fire one arm at a time if PGI really wants to avoid the 1 shot kill. The King Crab could have a similar thing with it's AC/20s as well.

Maybe Atlas K (2 ER Large [If replaceable with PPCs] + 1 Gauss), Banshee 3S? with it's 2PPC+AC10. The real question is how much damage does an instant burst of damage count as being too much?

If you include Lasers, there's a bunch of Medium laser boats in the game already (Hunchback, Nova, Battlemaster, Black 3). Firestarter and Blackjack 1X as well if flamers can be replaced with mediums (I wouldn't be opposed to seeing those mechs being Small laser boats, seriously, do you ever see anyone use small lasers competitively?). Heat scale doesn't really hurt medium laser boats too much.

Also, if pinpoint high alphas aren't a big thing anymore, you may see a resurface of SRM boats because of burst damage. Mad Dog A is a Splatdog normally but it can always recieve negative quirks if it's a problem. (Stormcrow splats would disappear unless PGI wanted to keep allowing it, Summoner and Timby could still do 4 SRMs well, Adder + Kit Fox wouldnt do it as well, but PGI could allow them to do 4 SRM 6 if they wanted). Kintaro could return as the SRM champion for the IS mediums like it was designed to be. If they did minimums Splatapult would be removed, but they still have control over what hardpoints are made, so I would assume they'd do LRM 15 + 2 or 4 hardpoints designated for SRMs.




Personally I think that both quirk systems and the sized hard point system should be in. They both give certain variants individuality. Sized hard points would ease up A LOT of work when it comes to balancing things with quirks while also making things closer to what they were originally created for. Quirks should be the last line of defense with balancing imo because it's the easiest thing to manipulate (and when you're making minor tweaks to stuff like quirks do, that's nice). Sized Hard Points make it so each mech is an individual, but if for some reason they derp up on the Hard Points for that mech they can always change it later.


I look forward to seeing the Sized Hard Point system in game.



If i were to take a crack at the tier system:
Energy
Tier 1: Flamers/ Small lasers/Tag
Tier 2: Mediums
Tier 3: Larges
Tier 4: PPCs

Ballistics:
Tier 1: Machineguns
Tier 2: AC2s, AC5s
Tier 3: AC10s
Tier 4: AC20s, Gauss Rifle

Missiles:
Tier 1: SRM 2, SSRM 2,
Tier 2: SRM 4, SSRM 4, Narc
Tier 3: SRM 6, SSRM 6, LRM 5
Tier 4: LRM 10
Tier 5: LRM 15
Tier 6: LRM 20
Missiles is the hardest to decide due to how vastly different SRMs and LRMs are. It's almost like the missile hard points will need an individual for both types (one for SRMs, one for LRMs).


Just remeber, the stock loadouts are the minimum for hard points. They can always bump it up if they want the mech to be more versatile.


Edit: I just wanted to come by and say that if sized hard points were added in, it gives more reason to add some oddball mechs like the Panther, Hollander, and Urbanmech.

Edited by Keeshu, 07 October 2014 - 05:58 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

Keeshu, on 07 October 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

My god I spent a good portion of my day reading this thread. I just wanted to come in and say I am all for Sized Hardpoints if done correctly.

Just a few things
#1. Where is that quote from Russ from? I couldn't find it on his twitter, announcements, command chair, feedback, or the main page. I don't know where else to look.

<snip>

I can answer the first one - It was a quote from the Town Hall meeting on Oct 2nd where someone proposed alternatives to ghost heat like sized hard points.

[Eddrick]

Keeshu, on 07 October 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

My god I spent a good portion of my day reading this thread. I just wanted to come in and say I am all for Sized Hardpoints if done correctly.

Just a few things
#1. Where is that quote from Russ from? I couldn't find it on his twitter, announcements, command chair, feedback, or the main page. I don't know where else to look.

#2. Does PGI have a list of &quot;problem builds?&quot; Or some thoughts behind what exactly they want removed from certain builds?

#3. Sized Hardpoints doesn't stop boating, but it does do something very good, which is make it so each mech+variant has a purpose (which we need now since we have so many friggin mechs everywhere, and new mechs need to find a niche so they aren't abandonded as soon as they are released). If the problem builds were just instant 1 shot kill type builds, that will never be fixed from sized hardpoints due to the existence of a few stock builds.

#1. Clicking the arrow on the quote will take you to where it originated from.

Russ Bullock, on 03 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

If someone wants to make a true impact on PGI with sized hard points - pick a mech with lots of variants and lay out all the sizes for all the hard points on all the variants

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

Although it might help removes some &quot;problem builds&quot; I wonder how many very good builds it might remove.

This is an exercise I that PGI will not have time for in the next couple of months as we work on CW phase 2.

#2. Not that I know of.

For the true audit. The person has to account for ALL BUILDS that would no longer be possible with sized Hardpoints. Including builds that are NOT problematic.

Edited by Eddrick, 07 October 2014 - 06:23 PM.

[Keeshu]

The funny thing is with sized hard points. They can choose to keep every single build we have by just giving everyone large hard point sizes (which would be a terrible idea because it would be the same thing as we have now), so really they can just hand pick which ones they think would be good/bad.

[Gorgo7]

Eddrick, on 07 October 2014 - 05:52 PM, said:

If exeptions are not allowed with that system. You are limiting some of the Mechs that can be added into the game later. Its just best to plan ahead for things like that.

I can understand the reason for a system like this. But, no double standards please. The need to make exceptions shows flaws in the system.

Well, what do you suggest?
And I must disagree. There will most definitely be exceptions.
Look at the Hunchback or Hollander (no one would play a stock Hollander) or an AC20 Blackjack...if you want a simple, easy to implement system, than mine has advantages.
If you want to do a complete breakdown of EVERY mech and variant. You can go with a more detailed system.
At the end of the day the current system is excellent, what it lacks is Geometry to compliment the build system.
That is most certainly at the crux of the problem.
This whole post is a red herring and lots of people are going for it.
Fix the geometry and no new system is required.

[Eddrick]

Keeshu, on 07 October 2014 - 06:21 PM, said:

The funny thing is with sized hard points. They can choose to keep every single build we have by just giving everyone large hard point sizes (which would be a terrible idea because it would be the same thing as we have now), so really they can just hand pick which ones they think would be good/bad.

It is true that, size of the Hardpoints is open to interpritation of the person making the system. Russ wasn't specific on what size the Hardpoints had to be.

The people in favor of sized Hardpoints fall into two groups.

#1. People that want Mech to stay close to stock.
#2. People that want to limit the number of large weapons specific Mechs can carry.

Given the choice between the two. I prefer #1. I don't like the possibility of #2 leading to double standards and bias.