53 replies to this topic

[Ultimax]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 06:54 AM, said:

Dishonesty means "Saying something that is untrue".

No, it doesn't.


Telling a lie means saying something that is untrue.


Dishonesty doesn't require you to tell a lie, you can simply omit things that don't advance your agenda, in other words an intent to mislead or misconstrue.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 07 October 2014 - 08:56 AM.

[Ultimax]

Again, what makes a build like this "a problem build"? This build would be illegal under your proposal.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...63e242f6220db2e

[Scratx]

Gyrok, on 07 October 2014 - 06:20 AM, said:

Then lock internals on IS mechs, and stock engine, as well as endo/ferro from stock, along with JJs on all IS mechs.

If you are good with blanket balancing, that should not be a problem at all.

Zyllos, on 07 October 2014 - 07:53 AM, said:

What exactly is the point of Omni hardpoints then?

With sized hardpoints, it gives meaning to Battlemech and Omnimech.

If sized hardpoints go (and it should), then it should only effect Battlemechs.

And the current quirk system only diversifies if a certain mech will show up or not in a small level. Sized hardpoints will make variants show up more while also giving meaning to some mechs (Hollander comes to mind).

Consistency, and in case neither of you have noticed, I'm against sized hardpoints to begin with. I just think that, if for some ungodly reason we get reamed with them, Clans should eat that chow as well.

Which still doesn't change the fact that sized hardpoints are a horrible idea on multiple levels and that I vastly prefer Quirks and the like as a Positive Reinforcement strategy to help increase variety on the battlefield instead of the punishing restrictions that will break half or more of the mechs currently in player's hands and force everyone to rebuild those mechs.

Seriously, EFF THAT.

[Tastian]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

No, it doesn't.


Telling a lie means saying something that is untrue.


Dishonesty doesn't require you to tell a lie, you can simply omit things that don't advance your agenda, in other words an intent to mislead or misconstrue.

http://www.merriam-w...onary/dishonest

What exactly have I purposely omitted to advance my agenda? What exactly am I omitting to mislead or misconstrue?

[Tuefel Hunden]

Apparently, there are those who would prefer cookie cutter mechs. The OP seems to be one of those pushing for standard mech layouts that can not be altered. Diversity seems to be an issue. I dunno why, but I guess it is.

[Ultimax]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 09:42 AM, said:

What exactly have I purposely omitted to advance my agenda? What exactly am I omitting to mislead or misconstrue?

I've posted it no less than three times.

I gave you an example.

Russ even included it in his challenge that you quoted.


You can figure this out.

[Tastian]

Okay, Russ said to pick a mech (1 mech) with lots of variants. Lay out the sized harpoints. Then audit the builds that would be removed and would stay. I started this whole thing using the Stalker. It has a jaded past and has so many hard points that boating is easy (lrm, srm, PPC, large lasers). It also has 5 variants. Using the Stalker as my study, I've laid out all 5 sized hardpoints. I then examined many of the configurations both old and new to figure out which ones would be gone. Please notice this on the other thread: http://mwomercs.com/...oint-challenge/

Obviously the list is not exhaustive. For example, I'm not going to say:

1) 1 PPC, 1 Large Laser, 3 Med Laser, 1 Med Pulse - gone
2) 1 PPC, 1 ER Large Laser, 3 Med Laser, 1 Med Pulse - gone
3) 1 PPC, 1 Large Pulse, 3 Med Laser, 1 Med Pulse - gone
4) 2 PPC, 3 Med Laser, 1 Med Pulse - gone

That would take an incredible amount of time. Instead I listed them as

1) 1 PPC + anything - gone

[Eddrick]

Was your system able to introduce more timeline compliant variants without any overlapping? Was your system able to reduce any of the hardpoint inflation?

[Lily from animove]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

I'm starting a new topic to address Clan mechs specifically. This is similar to the other thread I made dealing with the Stalker, Jager, and other IS mechs. But now we have several highly problematic Clan mechs. Let's take a stab at it:

First off, here's the Weapon Classes:

Energy:
[CLASS 1]: Small Pulse, ERSmall, Flamer, Tag
[CLASS 2]: CLASS 1 + Medium Pulse, ERMed
[CLASS 3]: CLASS 2 + ERLarge, LargePulse
[CLASS 4]: CLASS 3 + ERPPC

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

Ballistic:
[CLASS 1] MG, LB2X, UAC2
[CLASS 2] CLASS 1 + UAC5, LB5X
[CLASS 3] CLASS 2 + UAC10, LB10x
[CLASS 4] CLASS 3 + Gauss, LB20x, UAC20


Let's take a look at the Dire Wolf.

Problem builds:
2 ERPPC, 2 Gauss
6 UAC5


**Dire Wolf Prime**
RA/LA
2x [Class 2] energy
2x [Class 3] energy
1x [Class 2] ballistic

LT
1x [Class 4] missile



**Dire Wolf A**
RA
3x [Class 3] energy

LA
1x [Class 4] ballistic

LT
2x [Class 3] missile



**Dire Wolf B**
RA
1x [Class 3] ballistic

LA
2x [Class 4] energy
2x [Class 2] energy

CT
1x [Class 1] energy

RT/LT
1x [Class 1] ballistic
1x [Class 2] ballistic



Allows:
4 x ER Large
8 x ER Med

Disallows:
4 x ERPPC
2 x Gauss, 2 x ERPPC
6 x UAC5
2 x UAC20



[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

No, sry can't agree. harpdoint limitations are nto the issue, the issue are mechs who can just slap on epic amount of wepaons.
make a limit on wepaon size and what can be fired simultanously.

Nova is not even that good. but yet 12 hardpoints. Dakkawolf? dman 4ac 10, 6 ac 5 or even 2 ac 20. it wrecks ass even with low hardpoints. same for the timberwolf. dual gauss + X not much hardpoints in use, but wrecking ass.
Stock making general limitations, mechs need to be tweaked now on chassis not in general mechanics. Ther eis imbalance between the mechs not the general system.
simply allow 12 points of "firepower"

make small wepons count as one.
medium wepaons as 2
and big ones as 5

this 2 ppc, dual gauss, do work, but they can not spam additional fire at the same time without havig to wait for a global cooldown (lets say 0,5 secs)

This prevents high alpha spam. And thats the core issue, But a high alpha is not bound to specific hardpoints, its bound to the mechs gunsize it wields.

So when someone wants to slap 2 gauss and 2 PPC on his mech or 2 gauss and 8 medium lasers. FINE he can do this, but he can't alphaspam them which means he will have to spread the damage over time. The core issue in MWO are the ballistics who run so cool that you cna freely combine them with energyweapons. Eneergy builds are all capped quite well by having a single ressource: heat but ballistics except ac 20 do not consume that ressource.

because the magic of building mechs is handling 3 ressources: tonnage, heat and slots. And with a free heatscale of around 48 (skilled) some backup lasers in the medium category are basically never a No-go, since they have no ressource competition with other weapons on the big mechs (direwolf is the best example, endless tonnage and slots). Medium and Lights don't have this alpha spam "problem", because even if having the heat ressouces a single 1tonnage wepaon heavily influences tonnage as ressource.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Ultimatum, you normally come accross as fairly level headed. But in these threads you come accross as a whining bully who can't get his way or defend his point.

This guy isn't do anything insane, he's answering Russ' question. Why don't you try and do the same to disprove this as a good idea.

Lily from animove, on 07 October 2014 - 11:22 AM, said:

No, sry can't agree. harpdoint limitations are nto the issue, the issue are mechs who can just slap on epic amount of wepaons. make a limit on wepaon size and what can be fired simultanously.

So instead of limiting hardpoint sizes...and making mechs more like they were intended to be in Battletech...you'd once again rather make a completely new mechanic that has no basis in this games past to limit how many weapons can fire based on weapon size?

Sounds a lot like Ghost Heat again.

[Metus regem]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 05:05 AM, said:

Let's take a look at the Dire Wolf.

Problem builds:
2 ERPPC, 2 Gauss
6 UAC5

Having run a 6 UAC5 Dire Wolf, I can tell you, the 'problem' with that build is the time it takes to kill something, even more so if they are a mildly competent enemy and know how to roll the damage across their torso and arms.

I found it to be totally inefficient, fun yes, but inefficient for damage to kill times. I might try 2CGauss and 2CERPPC to see how that works, I imagine it's more efficient.

Then again, I've never been one of those people that think 1000+ damage means you are good at this game, now 1200 damage and 9 kills is a different story, I've got nothing but wub, for the Wubshee.

[EgoSlayer]

Karl Streiger, on 07 October 2014 - 05:27 AM, said:

Funny eh?
You need a additional system - some weird calculation - to fix a build that is in the lore.

OK - you can redo the heat system - like in TT S7 or Mechwarrior 3 - that firing 4 Peps blow your mech into pieces the moment you do this - no matter how many heat sinks you have.


And of course what HP lovers fail to understand is that their beloved system only works as long there is not a mech that has a "problematic" loadout on stock:
Annihilator
Bane
Devastator
Thunderhawk
Hellstar
Supernova

List goes on and on and on

QFT.

We go from the current hard point system + esoteric balance factor of Ghost Heat (hestscale), to a different set of hard point limtis with a different esoteric balancing factor. It doesn't fix anything, it just changes it with no net gain.

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 05:37 AM, said:

What makes 4 ERPPCs more problematic then 4 ERLarge Lasers is pinpoint damage. 4 ERPPCs is 40 damage to one location in a split second. 4 ERLarge Lasers is spread out. You deliver instant damage to one location with 4 ERPPCs. You can shoot and twist to spread damage with 4 ERPPCs. With 4 ERLarge, you have to face your opponent longer and the damage is spread across 3 or more locations.



EgoSlayer brought up the 4 ERPPC Warhawk as one of the problematic builds. I am answering his question. 4 ERPPCs has its own challenge in that, as you mention, they are very difficult to snipe with and they are very hot. But they are still devastating.
<snip>

Yes, I did bring up the 4 ERPPC Warhawk as a problem build, but it's not because of the ERPPCs only because that forces the largest energy hardpoints. 4 C-ERLL or 4 C-LPL are far more of a problem with the current PPC settings. Because of much lower heat they can be fired more often, the effective range is better since they are hit scan and not slow projectiles so they will significantly out DPS the ERPPCs even with some laser spread, which the clan PPC's do also. And at closer ranges, with the fairly short burn time on the LPL there isn't much spread if the person is a skilled shot.

EDIT: Doing a little math with the help of Smurfy - without Ghost heat the new hardpoint limited Warhawk could do 3 full salvos of 4 C-LPLs in about 6 seconds without shutting down (elite with LPL cooldown module) . That would be a max of 139.2 damage in about 6 seconds. Then it has to switch to chain fire. Or add a cool-shot.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 07 October 2014 - 12:10 PM.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

<edit>

What I meant to say, is the people who suggest clan changes I'd appreciate seeing how long they've actually had time piloting clan mechs AND IS mechs.

In many of these threads I see suggestions that seem based off of theorycrafting rather than actual experience of using the mechs without understanding how it would really effect a mechs performance.

Edited by 00ohDstruct, 07 October 2014 - 12:06 PM.

[Ultimax]

Nicholas Carlyle, on 07 October 2014 - 11:32 AM, said:

Ultimatum, you normally come accross as fairly level headed. But in these threads you come accross as a whining bully

You've got a point.

I think I'm out of patience with the constant nerfherding on these forums.
Sometimes I'm stunned at the constant tears and cries for Nerf.


What the OP has laid out is literally a deal breaker for me.

I don't want it, I like the game better with the customization we have now.

I'd rather keep our inconsistent, poorly documented ghost heat than it.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 07 October 2014 - 12:20 PM.

[Scratx]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

You've got a point.

I think I'm out of patience with the constant nerfherding on these forums.
Sometimes I'm stunned at the constant tears and cries for Nerf.


What the OP has laid out is literally a deal breaker for me.

I don't want it, I like the game better with the customization we have now.

I'd rather keep our inconsistent, poorly documented ghost heat than it.

Join the club.

*hands Ultimate a membership card*

[Metus regem]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

You've got a point.

I think I'm out of patience with the constant nerfherding on these forums.
Sometimes I'm stunned at the constant tears and cries for Nerf.


What the OP has laid out is literally a deal breaker for me.

I don't want it, I like the game better with the customization we have now.

I'd rather keep our inconsistent, poorly documented ghost heat than it.

I wouldn't mind for the Battlemechs to have this limitation and leave the Omnimechs with out a hard point size in the omni-pods.

You know, just to have some differentiation between the two school types of mechs...

And I hate to use it, but in TT, Battlemechs had fixed configurations, and Omnimehcs could change out load out depending on the mission profile.

I'm find with the fixed Endo Steel and FF, as well as the fixed engine size, the fixed jump jets and heat sinks kind of tank, but if that is the price I have to pay for payload flexibility, then I'll gladly pay it.

[Tuefel Hunden]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 12:20 PM, said:

You've got a point.

I think I'm out of patience with the constant nerfherding on these forums.
Sometimes I'm stunned at the constant tears and cries for Nerf.


What the OP has laid out is literally a deal breaker for me.

I don't want it, I like the game better with the customization we have now.

I'd rather keep our inconsistent, poorly documented ghost heat than it.

Yep. I am totally 100% against this. Forcing everyone to play what is in essence a trial mech has zero appeal.

[Tastian]

00ohDstruct, on 07 October 2014 - 11:50 AM, said:

<edit>

What I meant to say, is the people who suggest clan changes I'd appreciate seeing how long they've actually had time piloting clan mechs AND IS mechs.

In many of these threads I see suggestions that seem based off of theorycrafting rather than actual experience of using the mechs without understanding how it would really effect a mechs performance.

Well, I can tell you this. I've been playing MWO since closed Beta. I have mastered 3 (or more) of every mech in the game up to and including the Vindicator and Mad Dog. I used to LOVE the Dragon - it was my goto mech. I've seen (and played) the devastation of the AC40 Jager, the SplatCat, the 4xPPC Stalker, and survived every LRMageddon. I also bought Battletech box set from the store in 1984 when it came out. I don't play in competition because I can't commit to specific times.

[Scratx]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Well, I can tell you this. I've been playing MWO since closed Beta. I have mastered 3 (or more) of every mech in the game up to and including the Vindicator and Mad Dog. I used to LOVE the Dragon - it was my goto mech. I've seen (and played) the devastation of the AC40 Jager, the SplatCat, the 4xPPC Stalker, and survived every LRMageddon. I also bought Battletech box set from the store in 1984 when it came out. I don't play in competition because I can't commit to specific times.

And yet you still don't get that limiting hardpoint sizes isn't a substitution of Ghost Heat. Even though you parrot that idea. Are you trying to fool people into supporting your stance or are you just misguided?

Nobody has given a hardpoint-size based answer to the Stock Nova Prime issue other than adding... wait for it... an artificial mechanic to limit how many of those lasers it can fire. But wait, isn't that what Ghost Heat is all about?...

Why are we looking at hardpoint sizes as a replacement for ghost heat if it obviously can't even handle stock builds that are considered offenders?

Come on, this is a sick joke already. Drop the Ghost Heat angle, it will never work as a replacement. Either argue on the only valid leg you have (variety) or stop doing it.

[Clit Beastwood]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

Well, I can tell you this. I've been playing MWO since closed Beta. I have mastered 3 (or more) of every mech in the game up to and including the Vindicator and Mad Dog. I used to LOVE the Dragon - it was my goto mech. I've seen (and played) the devastation of the AC40 Jager, the SplatCat, the 4xPPC Stalker, and survived every LRMageddon. I also bought Battletech box set from the store in 1984 when it came out.

People thought the earth was flat for a long time. That didn't make them right.

This. Is. Not. Tabletop.

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 12:48 PM, said:

I don't play in competition because I can't commit to specific times.

Yeah. That's probably why.