41 replies to this topic

[Zordicron]

So the russ challenge sized hardpoints thread looks to be getting long and full or bickering rants. So I made this one as a one-off to bring up an OLD idea I had about how to put a soft limit on alpha builds without actually making them invalid. This is something I have been posting here and there for a while and so I made a topic I can bookmark and keep about it to link so I can quit retyping the whole thing.

Weapon systems include lasers, ballistics, missiles. Lets break it down!

Ballistics-
Can be mounted anywhere on any mech hardpoint, with the only restriction being crit space or tonnage. This has allowed alpha builds, heavy boating(multi AC2 macro builds, etc) weird out of lore stuff like K2's with twin guass in the torso, etc. GHOST HEAT was required to stem things like AC40 loadouts, and the like, and in general has forced the devs to consider things like how many ballistic hardpoints a mech has when considering a new mech to add to the game, and where the HP are.

Lasers-
Can be mounted anywhere on a mech, only tonnage and crit space restricts this. This leads to things like pulling small lasers off a mech and putting ERPPC instead, 6 PPC stalkers, etc. GHOST HEAT was required to prevent crazy alphastrike PPC loadouts. Heat in general has been increased, even in clan mechs recently, because of how they can be boated.

On both Lasers and Ballistics, there is NOTHING to prevent a MG getting turned into an AC20, or a Flamer turning into an ERLL. There is no compelling reason not to drop 6 PPC onto a mech except the addition of GHOST HEAT.

Missiles-

Missiles do not have any restrictions on what you can mount and where on any mech, outside of crit space and tonnage. Any missiles could be swapped for another, a NARC turned into a LRM20.

BUT WAIT. THERE IS A RESTRICTION NOT SEEN ON THE OTHER TWO TYPES.

TUBE COUNT.

You want to remove a NArc to add more LRM20's to your boat? LOLOKAYS. Now you get missile machine gun as tube count forces the LRM 20 to fire one at a time.

See where i am going here?

Now then, that idea from ages ago, re-hashed several times:

Add this type of tube count "choke" to all weapon types, on a per variant basis.

NOT SIZED HARDPOINTS. This is different, it is a "functionality" alteration, not a plain 100% restriction. For example:

K2 catapult. had MG in torsos. Player A loves that, l;eaves it. Player B wants a pair of AC5, player C wants twin AC20. Player D is a masochist, and wants to run twin AC2 that do no dmg and run mega hot, but we will entertain his fetish for now.
Currently: nothing matters, except AC40 pult cant run an XL engine.

Now lets add tube count choke to these two ballistics HP:
We will look at the K2, see that stock it had MG, so limit the "tube size" to AC2.
Player A with his MG sees no change. MG is smaller then AC2.
Player B, with twin AC5: wait, AC5 is bigger then 2. SO: When player B fires his AC5, it isnt a single slug. It becomes 2(or 3) slugs instead, turned into burstfire because the mechs tube size is smaller then the AC5.
Player C wants his AC20's. he can still mount them. But with the tube size of AC2, his AC20 now will fire 10 pellets instead of one.
Played D with AC2's, no cange, the tube size is the same.


In this way, we have not restricted ANY LOADOUT, as the hardpoint system has not changes at all. Is turning an AC20 into a ten pellet burst a restriction? Not technically, it is just not PPFLD anymore on a mech that wasnt designed to be able to fire 40 PPFLD in the first place. Consider a Jager- stock has AC2's and 5's. We set tube size to AC5, no stock loadout is changed, AC10 loadouts are only split into two pellets, and AC20 into 4. The PPFLD issue of an AC40 jager is greatly reduced, while not invalidated. It also opens the door for certain mechs that should have a great benefit in mounting a large weapon stock, like an Atlas with a single shot AC20, or a YLW to actually benefit from the perk. Possibly, chassis perks will address this now(in previous re-hash/tellings of this idea, that was not on the table) but those will come in a round abot way, where as this is right up front and obvious.

With a system like this, ghost heat would become overkill, and could potentially be removed, or at the least reduced greatly.

Lasers could be treated in a similar way, though possibly instead of "bursts" or pellet count type, it could translate into duration. PPC in a SL slot for example, could be broken into 2 or more "shots" in rapid succession, an ERLL in a SL slot could have its duration increased. think of it as accomodating power coupling sizes on the mech or whatever you wish, in the end, it would remove massive PPFLD without invalidating boat loadouts in doing it, and without GHOST HEAT, or at least with a severely diminished GHOST HEAT.

IMO, they got the missile restrictions right, right off the get go, but somehow the weapons designers didnt follow with that type of system on the other two types of weapons, all the way back to twin guass and twin AC20 catapults.

Speaking of Gauss, how would we put this into the system without ruining it completely?(it is bigger then all other ballistics) Simple, while AC2 would fit an AC2 tube size, a guass could simply be assigned whichever tube size made sense after looking at the variants and the adjustments. Want to keep gauss pretty well a single slug? make it an AC2 tube size weapon, and it will remain as is in everything but a MG size mount(would only see that on certain super ballistic heavy mechs like that 12 MG one we dont have in game yet, or on lights that make sense, like a locust) Want guass to be toned down? Give it an AC5 size, now many hardpoints would see a split round. ETC.

Anyway, as usual this got long, and many will come here, read half and then make bad comments. To those that read it all, and digest it, I put this to you (again) as a solution that can accomplish the goals of removal(or at least reduction) of GHOST HEAT and also certain troublesome PPFLD loadouts.

Also of note: this is the foundation of the thoughts about the weapon manufacturer and weapon variants stuff. Same weapon with different functionality type thing.

Edited by Zordicron, 24 April 2016 - 11:27 AM.

[Pjwned]

The tube limit on ballistics seems interesting, and I like the idea that gauss would be considered as small as an AC2 to keep its pinpoint damage. I'm not sure if I agree with the example of an AC20 firing 10 shells from an AC2 rated tube though because (after some missile tube size adjustments on some mechs anyways) even LRM20 in a hardpoint with small missile tubes doesn't get punished that much.

The increased beam duration or multiple PPC projectiles on oversized energy weapons is interesting too, I could see that affecting certain light mech builds that may not have been intended for that sort of thing.

[Zordicron]

Pjwned, on 06 October 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

The tube limit on ballistics seems interesting, and I like the idea that gauss would be considered as small as an AC2 to keep its pinpoint damage. I'm not sure if I agree with the example of an AC20 firing 10 shells from an AC2 rated tube though because (after some missile tube size adjustments on some mechs anyways) even LRM20 in a hardpoint with small missile tubes doesn't get punished that much.

The increased beam duration or multiple PPC projectiles on oversized energy weapons is interesting too, I could see that affecting certain light mech builds that may not have been intended for that sort of thing.

10 shots from an AC20 would indeed stretch it out, however, a tube size type restriction of AC2 wouldnt HAVE to be applied to a mech that didnt warrant it. For instance, the K2 in the example could just as easily have an AC5 size, and then the AC20 would only be 4 pellets. It is completely customizable by variant in this way. EDIT* Further, imagine the K2 had one torso an AC5, and the other an AC2. now there is a way to discourage boating as the fire duration/pellet count wouldnt match up.(again, just an example) Another eample, Jager- maybe it is just fine to have a single AC20, fire a single round. But we dont like twin for AC40, so we limit the other arm to an AC10 or 5, so that now the PPFLD is allowed on only half the mech. Still could mount 2x AC20, but they wont fire exactly the same so we remove the PPFLD aspect of it, partially.

This would also look similar to the LRM as you say with LRM20 in a 6 tube launcher not being THAT bad, well, AC20 in a AC5 size mount wouldnt be THAT bad either. LRM20 in a NARC tube = AC20 in a MG mount, is the easiest way to put it.

Edited by Eldagore, 06 October 2014 - 09:15 PM.

[YueFei]

This is very similar to Wanderer's hardpoint size idea.

[El Bandito]

Either way, GH should be replaced.

Edited by El Bandito, 06 October 2014 - 09:38 PM.

[Hoax415]

This is quite a clever and fun but sadly probably too complex idea for Ballistics. Thumbs up. But I can't say the same for Energy weapons.

Maybe the more elegant Laser solution working in this system is that PPC's mounted in non-PPC mounts splash instead of doing all their damage in one point? I don't know if you have to change LL's.

But if it turned out that energy was too strong the obvious change that could go hand in hand would be a more meaningful set of heat penalties and/or removal of the HS increasing heat capacity system.

[Zyzyx66]

Makes a lot of sense, and would make things much simpler, mechanically, to understand. I like it a lot.

[Tastian]

I think any hardpoint limit would work - whether its classes, or counts, or spaces. But can you answer how this would solve the Dire Wolf Prime (4xERLarge), Nova Prime (12xERMed), and Warhawk Prime(4xERPPC)?

[Zordicron]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 04:18 AM, said:

I think any hardpoint limit would work - whether its classes, or counts, or spaces. But can you answer how this would solve the Dire Wolf Prime (4xERLarge), Nova Prime (12xERMed), and Warhawk Prime(4xERPPC)?

It would not on it's face. I do not think the warhawk would be an issue anyway, quad LL was always powerful, but it never was nearly as strong as our PPFLD alpha metas were.

Medium laser boats were always restricted by range and heat, even before ghost heat. Much like the 9 ML hunchback was not the be all end all before ghost heat, I doubt the nova would bre either, especially if they leave laser heat values as they are.

That said, IF certain things like ML end up becoming to potent, some form of ghost heat could remain for them. I do not like the solution to that particularily. However, I would not change laser weapons at all until after ballistics went in, minus the PPC's, which should see some tweaks as they act like ballistics themselves. At that time, things like alternatives to ghost heat: like say, you fire more then 6 ML and the duration increases instead of heat- could be looked at to fit the weapons into the then drastically different weapon balance scenario.

[Karl Streiger]

I still don't get it - really - what is the very idea behind hardpoint sizes?

Should the number of Competive KISS Mechs be reduced?
Why not a stock only mode? Much simpler as recoding the MechLab.

[Sprouticus]

I have said it before, and Ill say it again:

Yes GH is a PITA
No, GH is not elegant in any way.
Yes, I wish PGI had done it differently (sized hardpoints from day 1).


However,

PGI is a small company with limited resources. With that in mind

Would you rather have:

more maps
more mechs
more game modes
better CW back end
better UI/better mechlab (smurfy)
more weapon balance (with the current weapons)
Revised sensor system

or

no ghost heat


Im not saying you would lose all those things. Some of it is certainly done by different folks. But the changes you are proposing would require at least SOME time from almost everyone who does the work above. Personally I would prefer the new maps and better CW and keep GH. Perhaps some of you feel differently, and that is fine. I just want everyone to realize how much we may have to give up to get rid of GH.

[Ultimax]

This is a convoluted and restrictive system that is no better than Ghost Heat, and in many ways is worse.

I don't understand what makes this better than ghost heat, other than it seems some players want the game to be a tickle fight.

[Scratx]

Sized hardpoints do jack **** to Ghost Heat and it's high time people stopped pretending it does.

Nova Prime, stock, with double basics has, IIRC, 79.56 heat cap. Full alpha without ghost heat is 72. Yep, let's allow it to pour down 84 damage in 1.25 seconds into anyone in one single burst of laser fire. I can't see how it could possible go wrong. /sarcasm

Ghost Heat fights the problem of firing all the weapons at the same time. Sized hardpoints doesn't. On top of this, some of the worst offenders are themselves either stock builds or variations of stock builds that wouldn't be affected by sized hardpoints.

Sized hardpoints are a solution for a different problem, but even that problem may already have a solution on the way. It's the Quirk system that PGI is implementing. Positive reinforcement to use certain types of loadouts and/or tactics. Sized hardpoints is a negative reinforcement type of system, which also breaks large amounts of mechs currently in the field.

But, really, what pisses me off is people pretending this will do anything to combat the issues ghost heat is designed to deal with. It doesn't, it won't and stop pretending. And if you truly believe it does, then you don't know the game half as well as you think.

The fundamental issue behind Ghost Heat is that there is otherwise nothing stopping you from firing every weapon you have mounted in your mech at the same time to hit the same component of the target you're shooting at. Restricting hardpoint size does nothing about this, it only shifts which mechs and loadouts are optimal to do this with. If we are serious about eliminating ghost heat, we need an alternative mechanism that forces more DPS'y and less Alpha'y weapon usage.

[Gryphorim]

I don't see how this system couldn't just be incorporated into the quirks that are getting implimented in under a month.
Basically, by adjusting the cooldown, as well as other features like range, projectile speed or beam duration on big bore weapons, inappropriately fitted, the effective RoF could be tuned to making these non-lore-friendly-or-just-downright-wrong builds sub-optimal. I do like that certain mechs that traditionally lack appropriate tonnage or space in a specific hardpoint (like the Blackjack or the K2 fitting AC20, for example) having to take a less pinpoint, burst-fire AC, like the clan models. Seem the closest we'll get to alternate manufacturers, too.

[Zordicron]

Gryphorim, on 07 October 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

I don't see how this system couldn't just be incorporated into the quirks that are getting implimented in under a month.
Basically, by adjusting the cooldown, as well as other features like range, projectile speed or beam duration on big bore weapons, inappropriately fitted, the effective RoF could be tuned to making these non-lore-friendly-or-just-downright-wrong builds sub-optimal. I do like that certain mechs that traditionally lack appropriate tonnage or space in a specific hardpoint (like the Blackjack or the K2 fitting AC20, for example) having to take a less pinpoint, burst-fire AC, like the clan models. Seem the closest we'll get to alternate manufacturers, too.

First, I am ignoring a few of the posts above this one as I am not proposing sized hardpoints. These posts fit into that "read not even half the OP and blathered out some spiteful garbage" as I wrote we would see right in the OP.

Anyway, the multiple versions/manufacturers aspect of weapons in Battletech actually fits into this system also. Got a cannon that fires one huge slug? It follows the tube size type rules above. Got one that is built to fire smaller rounds already? Well, fits right in without change into rules above, not even hard to code to fit in as all one would have to do is set each manufacturer's version to an appropriate tube size/type.

The reason it is important to have a ruleset like I outline in place before we see variations of weapons, is to avoid balance issues with mechanics. it is much easier to make "more DPS" style variations appealing, if the "one slug" variant of a AC can't be fitted "as stock" into a smaller tube size. For instance, an AC20. We will say there is a single slug variant, and a multi shot variant. we will say 4 shots. multi shot produces less heat, but only slightly, and possibly we give it a tiny cooldown boost or some such. Single slug is standard cooldown and heat. While a select few might see the cooldown/heat as a bonus and fit into their loadout, I would bet most of the try-hard crowd would see the FLPPD aspect of the standard single slug as too beneficial to pass by.

EXCEPT, now that FLPPD standard variant of that AC20 wont fit onto their mech without having the tube size alter the fire pattern into 4 shots, as the tube size on their mech is AC5. Suddenly, the multi-shot variant of the AC20 is looking really good, because both would fire in a similar way anyway.

Without such a system, producing a whole bunch of variations on the weapons in game is almost pointless waste of resources, because the FLPPD variants of the weapons will get the majority of the loadouts anyway. The two ideas compliment each other, one lays the groundwork while the other adds a whole slug of possibilities to customization into the game.

As a general response to the quirks covering how this would work: I find that to be borderline hyperbole. Regardless of the negative quirks, an IS AC20 is going to fire a single round of 20 dmg. Adding more heat, cooldown, reducing range etc wont remove in any way, the PPFLD. This is absolutely key.

[Xarian]

Not a bad idea. Energy stuff- putting in oversized weapons leads to:
- Longer burn times (lasers)
- Lower damage, lower heat, and lower cooldown (PPCs)

For the PPC thing- let's say you put a PPC (10 damage) where a Small Laser (3 damage) used to be. As a result, the PPC now fires shots that do 3 damage. However, it also cools down 70% faster and generates 70% less heat. The projectiles are also noticeably smaller. Basically, pew pew pew.

[Zordicron]

Xarian, on 08 October 2014 - 05:42 PM, said:

Not a bad idea. Energy stuff- putting in oversized weapons leads to:
- Longer burn times (lasers)
- Lower damage, lower heat, and lower cooldown (PPCs)

For the PPC thing- let's say you put a PPC (10 damage) where a Small Laser (3 damage) used to be. As a result, the PPC now fires shots that do 3 damage. However, it also cools down 70% faster and generates 70% less heat. The projectiles are also noticeably smaller. Basically, pew pew pew.

That would be one way to do the laser type. Only thing I see with that is it might step on the toes of a manufacturer/multiple variant of a weapon system. Also, it alters more then one aspect of weapon stats, which I am on the fence about with this. I would rather we saw only one stat changed for simplification, like duration.

I am on the fence and not totally against it because duration pretty well automatically affects cooldown on weapons(any coded to begin cooldown after fireing, not just after trigger pull) I lean mostly towards duration because I see it as an alternative to ghost heat for small laser weapons like ML. More then 6 now= ghost heat could be changed to more then 6= longer duration to reduce PPFLD(as much PPFLD as lasers do anyhow) which is the point of ghost heat anyway.

[Zyzyx66]

Something that I'd like to bring up in this whole 'thing' about loadout limitations is the ephemeral effect a limit will have on a player's information gathering potential in a match. And I'm [making a very egotistical assumption and] speaking for the group of people like me, who don't play a massive amount of MWO, aren't involved in the grand 'meta', and just want to feel like Im participating in a big stompy mech fight that adheres to certain rules laid down by the universe we play in.

If I'm playing a match at the moment, and I see a 'mech, I can identify what chassis it is, but that seems to have absolutely no effect on what it's carrying. With a loadout limitation (ANY loadout limitation), I could learn over time the sort of fight I'm getting myself into immediately upon seeing my opponent (just like a real MW would presumably do). I pop up and see a K2, I know it's going to be packing a big punch in those arms. That gives the K2 a solid 'vibe' and cements the fantasy of the game world. Except it doesnt, because the (practically) universal system the game currently has means that punch could be coming from anywhere on the mech. And in effect, my intelligence gathering becomes a complete crapshoot.

I don't care about boats. They exist, they probably SHOULD exist. I just want to know that the 'mech I'm looking at is boating 4 PPCs because the chassis is DESIGNED to do that, and avoid or engage it appropriately, rather than be in the dark about it until the salvo hits me in the face.

I think that looking at the hardpoint limitation (or modification of value in this case, I guess) as simply a means to stop massive alphas is perhaps the wrong way to see it. We should be viewing it as a concrete way of giving every chassis a real flavour, and not just mechanically. I think a limitation would greatly expand the mechanics of a meta game, and I really think more 'mechs would become viable than would lose viability.

That's just my two cents, but I'd like to urge everyone to consider the non-mechanic value of a system of stricter limitations.

EDIT:

Eldagore, on 08 October 2014 - 05:48 PM, said:

That would be one way to do the laser type. Only thing I see with that is it might step on the toes of a manufacturer/multiple variant of a weapon system. Also, it alters more then one aspect of weapon stats, which I am on the fence about with this. I would rather we saw only one stat changed for simplification, like duration.

I am on the fence and not totally against it because duration pretty well automatically affects cooldown on weapons(any coded to begin cooldown after fireing, not just after trigger pull) I lean mostly towards duration because I see it as an alternative to ghost heat for small laser weapons like ML. More then 6 now= ghost heat could be changed to more then 6= longer duration to reduce PPFLD(as much PPFLD as lasers do anyhow) which is the point of ghost heat anyway.

Why not include the manufacturers in this system? As in, automatically slot the 'correct' manufacturer's version of a PPC into that tiny slot (whichever one fits into the firing size). In the mechlab, we'd just add a PPC, but when it's added, we can see that it's a [manufacturer X] PPC, that does Y and Z.

Edited by Zyzyx66, 08 October 2014 - 05:53 PM.

[Zordicron]

Zyzyx66, on 08 October 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

Something that I'd like to bring up in this whole 'thing' about loadout limitations is the ephemeral effect a limit will have on a player's information gathering potential in a match. And I'm [making a very egotistical assumption and] speaking for the group of people like me, who don't play a massive amount of MWO, aren't involved in the grand 'meta', and just want to feel like Im participating in a big stompy mech fight that adheres to certain rules laid down by the universe we play in.

If I'm playing a match at the moment, and I see a 'mech, I can identify what chassis it is, but that seems to have absolutely no effect on what it's carrying. With a loadout limitation (ANY loadout limitation), I could learn over time the sort of fight I'm getting myself into immediately upon seeing my opponent (just like a real MW would presumably do). I pop up and see a K2, I know it's going to be packing a big punch in those arms. That gives the K2 a solid 'vibe' and cements the fantasy of the game world. Except it doesnt, because the (practically) universal system the game currently has means that punch could be coming from anywhere on the mech. And in effect, my intelligence gathering becomes a complete crapshoot.

I don't care about boats. They exist, they probably SHOULD exist. I just want to know that the 'mech I'm looking at is boating 4 PPCs because the chassis is DESIGNED to do that, and avoid or engage it appropriately, rather than be in the dark about it until the salvo hits me in the face.

I think that looking at the hardpoint limitation (or modification of value in this case, I guess) as simply a means to stop massive alphas is perhaps the wrong way to see it. We should be viewing it as a concrete way of giving every chassis a real flavour, and not just mechanically. I think a limitation would greatly expand the mechanics of a meta game, and I really think more 'mechs would become viable than would lose viability.

That's just my two cents, but I'd like to urge everyone to consider the non-mechanic value of a system of stricter limitations.

EDIT:




Why not include the manufacturers in this system? As in, automatically slot the 'correct' manufacturer's version of a PPC into that tiny slot (whichever one fits into the firing size). In the mechlab, we'd just add a PPC, but when it's added, we can see that it's a [manufacturer X] PPC, that does Y and Z.

Absolutely. On both counts, this system accomodates. K2 with big stuff in the torso, sure it has ability to fire big dmg, however, it will not be PPFLD as really big stuff would get it's firing mechanics altered into burstfire. The arms on the other hand, would allow PPC with no issue as those are stock for the mech. So, while "upside down" loadouts for K2 would still exist, it would deffinatly shove the mech towards a more traditional cannon style loadout as far as info gathering is concerned, because the big punch FLD weapons would only be in the arms, as opposed to having twin AC20 cats doing 40 PPD in the torsos like we can see now.

As for manufacturers, YES! as i wrote above, the two systems compliment each other, both is stock config ability, and in custom ability. if a stock K2 comes with one type of PPC, and you want to shake it up and try another, there is nothing stopping you.

For instance a K2 PPC could be considered tube size 10 or something, and fire it's single non-altered shot. A different variant might have a tube size of 5, with multi-shot on it. K2 could mount both without alteration. On the flip:
take say a HBK, has medium lasers. We will say it has a tube size 5( i am just thinking out loud to illustrate) so putting the smaller tube size PPC on would not alter it, HOWEVER, putting the stock K2 style tube 10 variant onto the HBK would then alter it's firing mechanics.

So, there would be no restriction on which type you want to mount, BUT the tube size limitation would alter the firing mechanics of a weapon that has a larger tube size assigned to it.

[Scratx]

Eldagore, on 07 October 2014 - 05:33 PM, said:

First, I am ignoring a few of the posts above this one as I am not proposing sized hardpoints. These posts fit into that "read not even half the OP and blathered out some spiteful garbage" as I wrote we would see right in the OP.

I'm going to assume mine is one of those you blatantly ignored.

Okay.

Here's the fun bit. You are suggesting sized hardpoints, just a different kind of them. They don't actually stop you from mounting big guns in "small" mounts, but it nerfs them if you do. In this way, it passes the sniff test of "Is this going to invalidate a lot of builds?". It won't invalidate them, but it may adversely affect non-problematic builds just the same.

Anyway, I am not going to argue about Catapult K2's "Machinegun" hardpoints.

I am simply going to point to the Nova Prime as one of the reasons why this approach is flawed. I quoted it in my ignored post, in fact. Also the Warhawk, Dire Wolf and a lot of builds whose stock or not-very-different-from-stock builds are considered problematic.

Does this proposal affect them? You can't size the hardpoints such that you're nerfing the stock build. That's ridiculous. How are you going to nerf 12 ERMLs? They're already about as small and light as weapons go. And the Warhawk's hardpoints? Quad ERLL, without ghost heat, would be downright nasty on a heatsink boat like that. Dire Wolf? Same, except with more guns.

Sigh. I'm starting to lose count on how many times I pointed this out, and nobody's yet given a solution that isn't ridiculous.

You can keep pretending this problem doesn't exist, or you can own up to the fact it does and actually, honestly, try to come up with some way of dealing with it that isn't ridiculous like arbitrarily telling the Nova alone that NOPE, you can't actually fire more than 6 lasers or something like that.