53 replies to this topic

[Tastian]

Scratx, on 07 October 2014 - 12:54 PM, said:

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.

My main purpose is for variety. My secondary argument is Ghost Heat. I hope to think that hardpoint restriction will answer 90% of the current issues that ghost heat was put in place to stop. The final few issues would have to be restricted with some other solution such as quirks. I don't even think that Ghost Heat is a terrible idea. I really don't. It DOES work.

Fierostetz, on 07 October 2014 - 01:02 PM, said:

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

This. Is. Not. Tabletop.

[size=4]
Yeah. That's probably why.

If you notice I haven't brought up Table Top rules at all. I only mentioned this because my depth of knowledge and experience was put into question. I'm an old time Battletech and Mechwarrior fan. Don't turn that against me. I'm assuming you love Mechwarrior too. Tabletop is a bad word in the forums but that IS where everything Mechwarrior comes from.

And please don't attack me personally. I have a family (2 small children) and other obligations. I simply cannot play at designated times. And I definitely do not claim to be a top tier player; simply a devoted one.

[Osric Lancaster]

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

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

There might be some reason to take a 1e hardpoint nova arm over a 6e hardpoint nova arm if said the first arm was able to fit an erPPC and the second was not.

Honestly though, as much as I'd like to see a well implemented hardpoint system, I really think convergence delay is the larger issue.
Ugh. I need to quit mwo forum posting, no good comes of it.

[Clit Beastwood]

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

My main purpose is for variety. My secondary argument is Ghost Heat. I hope to think that hardpoint restriction will answer 90% of the current issues that ghost heat was put in place to stop. The final few issues would have to be restricted with some other solution such as quirks. I don't even think that Ghost Heat is a terrible idea. I really don't. It DOES work.

Sized hardpoints is not the solution we're looking for. From the beginning, people have wanted it, but originally only so lights couldn't bring erppc's, etc. It's not the right solution to a non-problem. If someone wants to carry 2 ppc's in a Jenner - why not let them? They'll be driving a slow light that runs hot and has a limited engagement envelope. If they can mitigate the risks, they deserve the rewards. Why not let a raven carry 2 erll? Why not let a direwolf run 4 gauss? Someone that walks into the open and stands there staring at the DWF is still going to die, whether its ermls, gauss, or ac's. Another mechanics change will not cure inexperience and lack of training. Only experience and training can do that.

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

If you notice I haven't brought up Table Top rules at all. I only mentioned this because my depth of knowledge and experience was put into question. I'm an old time Battletech and Mechwarrior fan. Don't turn that against me. I'm assuming you love Mechwarrior too. Tabletop is a bad word in the forums but that IS where everything Mechwarrior comes from.

I understand that Battletech and Mechwarrior are two wholly (mostly) different things. Experience with Battletech is not in any way valuable or relevant to the Mechwarrior franchise. It's a hard association to break, but just leave BT experience in the bin outside the door before heading in.

Tastian, on 07 October 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

And please don't attack me personally. I have a family (2 small children) and other obligations. I simply cannot play at designated times. And I definitely do not claim to be a top tier player; simply a devoted one.

Not here to attack you personally *I don't care enough about you to do so*. From your posts so far it seems as if you play at a lower-mid or mid level in this game. As you yourself said, you have other obligations, and are not a top tier player. As such, you would lack the experience and thorough grasp of the game mechanics to be recommending such broad changes. The preceding couple pages have demonstrated more experienced players with a more thorough grasp of the aforementioned mechanics disagreeing, largely because of the VAST unintended consequences. Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics voted on the changes to mode selection, and now what do we have? Something that, so far, everyone hates. Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics (and advanced tactics like "moving") complained about meta mechs having jump jets, so we have hoverjets. Players with a poor understanding of the game in general (and again, advanced tactics like "moving") have caused ppc nerfs, ghost heat, lrm changes. THAT is why I want this thread to die. Send your recommendations to pgi directly, but don't give new guys and bads another thread to latch onto and say "ooooooh! sized hardpoints! THAT must be why I die fast - lets hammer at this point until it becomes law!",

Edited by Fierostetz, 07 October 2014 - 01:43 PM.

[lol lol lol lol lol lol lol lol]

Fierostetz, on 07 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics voted on the changes to mode selection, and now what do we have? Something that, so far, everyone hates. Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics (and advanced tactics like "moving") complained about meta mechs having jump jets, so we have hoverjets. Players with a poor understanding of the game in general (and again, advanced tactics like "moving") have caused ppc nerfs, ghost heat, lrm changes. THAT is why I want this thread to die. Send your recommendations to pgi directly, but don't give new guys and bads another thread to latch onto and say "ooooooh! sized hardpoints! THAT must be why I die fast - lets hammer at this point until it becomes law!",

Truth

I've seen very experienced players use Inner Sphere mechs to jaw dropping effect. Also I have come across MANY other pilots using the same mechs and same builds and can't do a damned thing with them but to provide target practice. I KNOW there's a lot of you out there that can attest to this, especially considering those who tried to place in, or did place in the recent IS Light tournament challenge for example. There are the IS pilots who ran in a straight line right towards you staring you down to die shortly after being focus fired, then there were the ninja-like coordinated pilots that could make their mechs dance through the enemy team, tear them apart and evade damage.

Same thing Clan mech side. I've seen a few people use Clan mechs to sickening, armor destroying effect. I've also seen many people attempt to emulate those mechs and builds and fail horribly at representing the whole "Clan mechs are OP'd" saying but believing the "Pay to Win" hype only to die out in the middle of open terrain or on top of a hill by themselves!

In the end, no amount of tweaking, balancing, buffing or nerfing will be able to fix the vocal minority who are bad pilots and those who make bad decisions while piloting.

Edited by 00ohDstruct, 07 October 2014 - 02:45 PM.

[Metus regem]

Fierostetz, on 07 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

[/size]

Not here to attack you personally *I don't care enough about you to do so*. From your posts so far it seems as if you play at a lower-mid or mid level in this game. As you yourself said, you have other obligations, and are not a top tier player. As such, you would lack the experience and thorough grasp of the game mechanics to be recommending such broad changes. The preceding couple pages have demonstrated more experienced players with a more thorough grasp of the aforementioned mechanics disagreeing, largely because of the VAST unintended consequences. Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics voted on the changes to mode selection, and now what do we have? Something that, so far, everyone hates. Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics (and advanced tactics like "moving") complained about meta mechs having jump jets, so we have hoverjets. Players with a poor understanding of the game in general (and again, advanced tactics like "moving") have caused ppc nerfs, ghost heat, lrm changes. THAT is why I want this thread to die. Send your recommendations to pgi directly, but don't give new guys and bads another thread to latch onto and say "ooooooh! sized hardpoints! THAT must be why I die fast - lets hammer at this point until it becomes law!",

I remember the first time I fired up MW4, and went into the mech lab, and went "What the **** is this hard point, and weapon size limitation crap?!?!"

I would like to see something more along the lines of MW 2 or 3... but since we are stuck with hard points (stupidest thing on the plant for Omni-mechs, since you know they are built around the idea of all Clan weapons being plug-and-play.), leave it off of the mechs that are already the most restricted in what they can do, and let the mechs with the most customization have something that they can't do anything about.

[Clit Beastwood]

Metus regem, on 07 October 2014 - 02:14 PM, said:

I would like to see something more along the lines of MW 2

This. I want *all* the machine guns. Get the duct tape, we're going with 20 machineguns.

[Metus regem]

Fierostetz, on 07 October 2014 - 02:15 PM, said:

This. I want *all* the machine guns. Get the duct tape, we're going with 20 machineguns.

So you want to run one of these then?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Piranha

20 tons

2 CERML
1 CERSL
12 CMG

151kph stock.

[Clit Beastwood]

Metus regem, on 07 October 2014 - 02:24 PM, said:

So you want to run one of these then?

http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Piranha

20 tons

2 CERML
1 CERSL
12 CMG

151kph stock.

[Tastian]

Fierostetz, on 07 October 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

[/size]
Not here to attack you personally *I don't care enough about you to do so*. From your posts so far it seems as if you play at a lower-mid or mid level in this game. As you yourself said, you have other obligations, and are not a top tier player. As such, you would lack the experience and thorough grasp of the game mechanics to be recommending such broad changes. The preceding couple pages have demonstrated more experienced players with a more thorough grasp of the aforementioned mechanics disagreeing, largely because of the VAST unintended consequences. Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics voted on the changes to mode selection, and now what do we have? Something that, so far, everyone hates. Players with a poor understanding of game mechanics (and advanced tactics like "moving") complained about meta mechs having jump jets, so we have hoverjets. Players with a poor understanding of the game in general (and again, advanced tactics like "moving") have caused ppc nerfs, ghost heat, lrm changes. THAT is why I want this thread to die. Send your recommendations to pgi directly, but don't give new guys and bads another thread to latch onto and say "ooooooh! sized hardpoints! THAT must be why I die fast - lets hammer at this point until it becomes law!",

You have no idea what kind of a player I am so do not assume such. And you are also saying that everyone who votes 'yes' for sized hardpoints is obviously a low end player. I think you'll find that many of the persons FOR sized hardpoints have a firm grasp of the game and are pro players. It just so happens that I am a 15 year professional game programmer myself. I understand much more about game mechanics then most gamers. And you go on to say that you want complete customization; do you have any idea how much THAT would break the game?

[Karl Streiger]

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.

My battletech cv would be read similar - with the difference that i bought the box in 99 - together with the City Tech box. (oh another difference i have lots of mech in the hangar - but not much at master level - (mastering Atlas 5times is enough for a life) - and never used meta when it became meta.

Anyhow back in CB i was all for a hard point setting - the Gauss Cat was dominating the heavy Mech sector (of course with only 2 heavy mechs)
The addition of the JaegerMech (considering balancing one of the worst decision) - also did think that a hard point setting would fix that - and kill the PPC Stalker and reanimate the Awesome.

But when I did start on working classes - if really fast did recognize that a hard point limit only does mean one thing.
Actually your Hardpoints - allow a huge combination of weaponsystems - because of synergy effects some weapons seem to be more potent then others.

Limit the sizes of hardpoints means you limit the combinations. And as you have seen with the example of the battlemaster - to include some diversity - you need to make difference sizes on different mechs of the same type.
What sounds good on one hand does mean on the other - you don't need a Mechlab.

Because: If the Devs have a special build in mind - for example - one BattleMaster should have a Gauss - they can build it - and offer it in the store.
So after that you may have 3-5 versions of each BattleMech variant:
For example BLR-1D Gauss; BLR-1D Dual AC 5; BLR-1D MG ERPPC, MPLAS, BLR-1D STOCK - and you only have stock ques - and you know what will happen those mechs with the best weapons will be the only ones you see. (not a big difference to the current setting)

So not sure if i made it through - hardpoints will not change anything - they may reduce the TTK, they may remove some builds - but in the end there will be builds that are more common, and build that are less.

So the real question is - what is the real problem.
Well you said that you think that a Quad PPC Stalker is a problem - and as a CB veteran you know about the PPC in Closed Beta. Was it a powerful weapon, or were the forums all over with tears that the PPC suck?
Yes Server Hit Calculation -> Lag Shield, delay between trigger and fire and those time to convergence - made the PPC a difficult weapon - in most cases the Large Laser was the better weapon.
Also you could be sure that you unlikely will hit a fast moving light with a PPC. But even back then the PPC was pure horror vs slower targets - i did run a dual PPC/ER-PPC + AC10/Gauss Atlas back then - i killed a medium mech in 3-4seconds.
I slew a bunch of targets in quick succession. Not the hallmark of a terrible weapon.
Even then you realized that the PPCs damage on impact was a great quirk when used right.
Well because of tears and tears and tears - and the impenetrable ECM shield around lagging Ravens brought us the HSR and with the HSR the delay between trigger and fire was gone, and the time to convergence was gone - now even Timmy and his younger brother were able to hit something with there Peps.
This has nothing to do with the weapon itself but the different environment.

I dunno if the former Closed Beta mechanics still work on training grounds - but i remember during the AC 2 plague - i thought i have to test that gun... run several runs in the training ground and had some issues even to hit a standing target, because the crosshair was bouncing (convergence calculation to the point below the crosshair) - but ingame it was complete different... move the cursor over a target - hold the trigger boom.

So before you ask PGI to make serious changes with the Mechlab - think about the reason why some mechs/ weapon configs are that powerful.

Quote

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

Don't mind to be competive you have to run each day in circles like the hamster in his cage and using KISS Mechs

[Tastian]

Thanks for the polite and reasonable response. I know my Battletech history is shared by many here. In fact, I'm sure there are people that are newer to the game that are more dedicated.

I use the 4 PPC Stalker as one of many examples only because it is one reason that nerfs and Ghost heat have been applied to PPCs. But hard point restrictions would do more then possibly alleviate the need for Ghost heat, it would encourage diversity. Right now, freedom of hardpoints is so unlimited that people tend to stick the same meta loadouts on many builds. PPCs are OP? Lets put 2 on the Raven and 4 on the Stalker. Sniping ERLasers are OP? Let's put 2 on the Raven and 6 on the Stalker. SRMs are OP? Let's put 2 on the Raven and 4 on the Stalker. The obvious problem with this scenario is it would still exist even with size point restrictions; it would read like this: PPCs are OP? Let's put 3 on the Awesome. Sniping ERLasers are OP? Let's put 4 on the DireWolf. SRMs are OP? Let's put 6 on the Maddog. So, the meta would shift to different mechs, not just different loadouts of the same mech.

[Karl Streiger]

The not so funny part is that those weapons are hardly OP at their own. They become OP because every buddy thinks they are OP - use them resulting in on tactic for the day - "PPC" Alpha Warrior Online - killing you when you move into the open - so you use the same weapons because they seem OP...and so the circle goes on.

So the problem is a bad habit - people tend to think that OP = AutoWin - but it isn't - only did use a "META" mech once - the GaussCat - in Closed Beta - but because i want MWO to be challenging i used other builds (for example 2 ER-PPCs on a C1 moving with 100kph - without engine cap)

OK i admit in the end it would not matter - if people tend to think that PPCs are the vanilla OP weapon, they use Mechs that can have them - so instead of a wide band of Mechs you have only a couple of the same chassis.
I can see that there is some "style" involved - currently the only weapon that has this limit is the AC 20.
(I have the YLW - because it can have the 20, i did bought the Flame because it could have a AC 20 - i only have Victors that have a AC 20 - i did bought the HGN-733 becaus it could have the AC 20....

So lets think about it -
One of my most favorite IS weapon combination is a single AC 10 and a single ER-PPC both in Arm mounts.

Currently i can run that on the Thunderbolt, the Battlemasters, the Dragon Slayer, the Catapract 3D, the CTF-IM..... the Fang if i ever use it again.

If i limit the Thunderbolts ballistic slot to Class 1 and 2 - same for the CTF-IM and CTF-3D (no PPC), or Fang (no PPC)
The only chance to run the AC 10 and ER-PPC in an arm mount is the Dragon Slayer.

That work for me - hm maybe the idea isn't as dead as i did thought - must check some of my old excel files - maybe i find my old work again

[Zyllos]

Osric Lancaster, on 07 October 2014 - 01:30 PM, said:

There might be some reason to take a 1e hardpoint nova arm over a 6e hardpoint nova arm if said the first arm was able to fit an erPPC and the second was not.

Honestly though, as much as I'd like to see a well implemented hardpoint system, I really think convergence delay is the larger issue.
Ugh. I need to quit mwo forum posting, no good comes of it.

Oh, I 100% agree with you!

Convergence is a MUCH larger issue and should be addressed first.

[Tastian]

Karl Streiger, on 08 October 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

So lets think about it -
One of my most favorite IS weapon combination is a single AC 10 and a single ER-PPC both in Arm mounts.

Currently i can run that on the Thunderbolt, the Battlemasters, the Dragon Slayer, the Catapract 3D, the CTF-IM..... the Fang if i ever use it again.

If i limit the Thunderbolts ballistic slot to Class 1 and 2 - same for the CTF-IM and CTF-3D (no PPC), or Fang (no PPC)
The only chance to run the AC 10 and ER-PPC in an arm mount is the Dragon Slayer.

That work for me - hm maybe the idea isn't as dead as i did thought - must check some of my old excel files - maybe i find my old work again

I mentioned this in the other in part already but I'll say it here too. PGI has taken the liberties to add additional hardpoints to weak or needy mechs. That's why the Catapult A1 has 6 missile hardpoints but only 2 actual missiles. Can you imagine the garbage the A1 would be with only 2 missile slots? Clan mechs don't seem to have that issue at all so they are pretty strict about 1 to 1 hardpoint to weapon. Well, loose assignments of hardpoint class sizes can also be given based on the need of the mech. The Fang, for example, could, and should, be able to carry a larger energy weapon. And its not far-fetched to imagine a the Fang with a PPC arm. Would a Fang suddenly become OP? Nope.