128 replies to this topic

[Josef Nader]

Quote

If every 'mech had limitations and sub-optimal hard points rather than every 'Mech serving as a generic skin for whatever weapons players want, they decision to choose sub-optimal hit boxes as a trade off for effective weapons becomes a very real choice even competitive players will have to make.

Competitive players don't make tradeoffs. Competitive players take the best in slot, no matter what it is, and beat it against their enemies until all the little nails have disappeared.

All this does is kneecap the competitiveness of sub-par mechs and make them beyond useless. Competitive players don't weigh options or make choices. They don't accept tradeoffs. They find whatever fills the most roles the most effectively in the widest variety of circumstances and use that.

[Zyllos]

While in general, the idea is nice. It produces the "sized" hardpoints along being limited by # of hardpoints.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

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

just base hardpoint size on the amount of structural hitpoints a particular hitbox has. more structural hitpoints more room. start with this, 4hp per slot. commando has 8hp in an arm, so two energy slots if it comes with an energy weapon in that arm. firestarter has 12hp, so three slots if it comes with a, well you get the idea.

note these are not hard points. 2 energy slots is two one slot energy weapons or one two slot energy weapon.

i had to get up from the computer, i didnt get to finish my thought. to continue:

and for mechs that have multiple weapons, lets say the stalker, there are missiles and energy weapons in the arms, but a total of 7 slots. these slots can either be for energy or missile but with variant perks giving bonuses to a particular kind of weapon.

however, in order to satisfy high slottage weapon requirements, if a variant comes with equipment that exceeds in slots the hitpoint of the weapon section, then that is a special quirk of the variant to allow an unusual amount of weaponry or heavy weaponry of a specific type. The only real issue i can see arising is that in such a system machine guns and big engines immediately becomes the meta due to their unusual effectiveness against armor.

I've gone and made some visual examples of hunchbacks.

HBK-4G

Spoiler

HBK-4P

Spoiler

HBK-4H

Spoiler

[EgoSlayer]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 05:29 PM, said:

Most of the light 'Mechs competitive builds are unaffected at all by hardpoint sizes - they are already limited by weight limitations more than any sized hardpoints.

Then why have them?

And why do people always cherry pick "easy" configs to show how "well" sized hard points work. Try doing the builds that will *still* be broken even with sized hard points and then explain how they are fine without some other esoteric solution like ghost heat. - I'll save you time time: They won't, you still need some other system to fix "problem" builds.
Some examples to start with:
Hunchback 4p
Firestarter 9s
Warhawk Prime
WarHawk Prime with "B" RA
Direwolf Prime
Direwolf Prime with "A" RA and "B" LA

And so on. Without a mechanic like ghost heat, even with sized hard points they *STILL* need some other system to balance them. Net result is revamping all the mechs, plus building a new ghost heat replacement is COMPLETELY WASTED development time that could be better spent elsewhere.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 08 October 2014 - 06:58 PM.

[Reported for Inappropriate Name]

Battlecruiser, on 08 October 2014 - 06:35 PM, said:

I've gone and made some visual examples of hunchbacks.

I went and did a few more because I have nothing better to do

HBK-4SP

Spoiler

GRID IRON

Spoiler

[Gas Guzzler]

I'm good with the hardpoint system we have now thanks.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Xarian, on 08 October 2014 - 05:22 PM, said:

Interesting idea, but you need to think of a way to deal with Artemis on mechs that don't have it stock.

Artemis would be a trade-off -- 'Mechs that do not come with it stock will have to sacrifice tube size for tracking ability and grouping consistency.

EgoSlayer, on 08 October 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

Then why have them?

And why do people always cherry pick "easy" configs to show how "well" sized hard points work. Try doing the builds that will *still* be broken even with sized hard points and then explain how they are fine without some other esoteric solution like ghost heat. - I'll save you time time: They won't, you still need some other system to fix "problem" builds.
Some examples to start with:
Hunchback 4p
Firestarter 9s
Warhawk Prime
WarHawk Prime with "B" RA
Direwolf Prime
Direwolf Prime with "A" RA and "B" LA

And so on. Without a mechanic like ghost heat, even with sized hard points they *STILL* need some other system to balance them. Net result is revamping all the mechs, plus building a new ghost heat replacement is COMPLETELY WASTED development time that could be better spent elsewhere.

...why have them? Because not every 'Mech is a light 'Mech restricted by weight, and some 'Mechs are considered sub-tier specifically because of the lack of individuality between current hard points. I am not cherry picking configurations, I am going through each chassis completely, and each will be posted as time permits.

A lot of the current meta builds would still be impossible to be created in the examples you provided (which I will get to as I get to them, will post the remaining light IS 'Mechs tonight then post the mediums tomorrow) -- for instance, a Dire Wolf with a B right arm and A left arm would only be able to carry a single gauss rifle as the B arm's LB-10X is too small to replace with a gauss rifle.

And I did not say that this proposal would mean the end of ghost heat, or be the end all for balance -- I am simply providing a response to Russ Bullock's post where he wanted someone to go into detail a proposal and what effects said proposal would have in the game -- any changes to the hard point system would come after Community Warfare -- these changes, however, would help add depth to community warfare, giving specific faction 'Mechs different feels and capabilities.

That said, I now continue with the Raven.



The RVN-2X Raven can carry two large lasers, or four single slot energy weapons. The missile slot size restriction with a single hard point limits it to at most an SRM-6 (or SRM-4 with Artemis) or an LRM-10.



The RVN-3L Raven's size restriction limits it to a single large laser -- which would break the sniper build with two ER large lasers -- though a similar configuration would be available to the 2X Raven, albeit without the ability to carry ECM (a tradeoff for sensor immunity perhaps). The RVN-3L Raven can carry two SRM-6 packs or two SRM-4's with artemis, or up to 20 LRM's by the way of two LRM-10 packs.



The RVN-4X Raven can carry two single slot energy weapons, or combine them for a single large class laser system. The size restriction to the missile pack limits it to a single SRM-6 or LRM-10. The ballistic slot size restrictions means that the RVN-4X can no longer carry a Gauss rifle, AC/20, or other large autocannon; machine guns and AC/2's would be the only ballistic weapons available to it.



The Huginn would lose the ability to carry 12 SRM tubes, with hardpoint restrictions limiting it to an SRM-6 and SRM-4. The Huginn could carry a maximum of 15 LRM tubes by way of an LRM-10 and LRM-5 Ballistic hardpoint sizes would restrict its builds to machine guns or AC/2's for the arm mounted ballistic slots.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 08 October 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[EgoSlayer]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 07:34 PM, said:

<snip>

And I did not say that this proposal would mean the end of ghost heat, or be the end all for balance -- I am simply providing a response to Russ Bullock's post where he wanted someone to go into detail a proposal and what effects said proposal would have in the game
<snip>

Russ's sized hard point challenge is using sized hard points to replace ghost heat. That's the WHOLE point. The question was posed in the town hall of why ghost heat and not something else like sized hard points.
Sized hard points without eliminating ghost heat amounts to 'You're not playing the mechs the way I think you should be playing them'.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

EgoSlayer, on 08 October 2014 - 07:40 PM, said:

Russ's sized hard point challenge is using sized hard points to replace ghost heat. That's the WHOLE point. The question was posed in the town hall of why ghost heat and not something else like sized hard points.
Sized hard points without eliminating ghost heat amounts to 'You're not playing the mechs the way I think you should be playing them'.

We have ghost heat because of several factors; beyond the ability to boat huge weapons, we have the ability to slave them to a single cross hair and shoot them all at the same time in the same location. Without a way that mitigates that ability we will continue to see inbalances between chassis and watch players boat weapons together.

The majority of the 'Mechs in this game with a hardpoint size pass would not be able to boat the same type of weapon that would even be affected by ghost heat, with the exception of a few 'Mechs (and those in general can only boat small caliber systems), these 'Mechs capable of boating would be held in check by a second line of balance in the form of ghost heat -- ghost heat in combination with another balancing mechanic like sized hard points increases the time to kill, which is the whole point mechanics such as ghost heat exists in the first place.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 08 October 2014 - 07:48 PM.

[Lord de Seis]

I don't like it, the mech lab is quite restrictive as is.

Players will find ways around whatever system to make the most effective builds as possible. I don't like some of the boats out there, especially on the Dire Wolf's but a big part of the fun in Mechwarrior/Battletech is the mech lab and making builds. The more you restrict that the more you take away everyone's creativity and fun in the game.

I would take the current hard point system and ghost heat over hard point size restrictions.

Edited by Lord de Seis, 08 October 2014 - 08:06 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Lord de Seis, on 08 October 2014 - 08:05 PM, said:

I don't like it, the mech lab is quite restrictive as is.

Players will find ways around whatever system to make the most effective builds as possible. I don't like some of the boats out there, especially on the Dire Wolf's but a big part of the fun in Mechwarrior/Battletech is the mech lab and making builds. The more you restrict that the more you take away everyone's creativity and fun in the game.

I would take the current hard point system and ghost heat over hard point size restrictions.

The inspiration for this literally comes from a combination of the Battletech lore, specifically the customization rules from the strategic operations book and the previous incarnation of MechWarrior, both of which had some restrictions on limiting extensive modifications to chassis. The intent is to make it so certain mechs can fulfill certain roles in unique ways rather than any mech with generic hard points being able to do everything as we see with the meta builds -- mechs would become more than just skins, they would have unique abilities to their chassis and variants and trade offs for using them such as the inability to boat the best weapons on the mech with the best hit boxes or high mounted weapons.

[Lord de Seis]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 October 2014 - 08:13 PM, said:

The inspiration for this literally comes from a combination of the Battletech lore, specifically the customization rules from the strategic operations book and the previous incarnation of MechWarrior, both of which had some restrictions on limiting extensive modifications to chassis. The intent is to make it so certain mechs can fulfill certain roles in unique ways rather than any mech with generic hard points being able to do everything as we see with the meta builds -- mechs would become more than just skins, they would have unique abilities to their chassis and variants and trade offs for using them such as the inability to boat the best weapons on the mech with the best hit boxes or high mounted weapons.

I understand where you are coming from believe me, but the mechs are already being restricted to those roles by hardpoints in the first place and this approach is just further restricting that. I think being able to mount 2 Gauss Rifles on a CPLT-K2 is great, it was a creative idea when it first came out in the beta and it is still a decent build today. Why should I be restricted to only taking PPC's or Lasers on a CPLT-K2? If I was I wouldn't take it that's for sure.

Please note the CPLT-K2 is just what came to mind, I am not sure if anyone has proposed anything for it in this thread.

[Sergeant Random]

If OP had an agenda it may be that he hates lights - and likely the RVN 3L in particular.

But if I'm wrong, you may call me an old conspiracy theorist.

[Alex Morgaine]

I think non meta builds get hurt more by this, I mean no more urban spidars for one thing. Trying to emulate other mechs not in the game (yet I hope) may not be possible, and the meta will still revolve around what puts out the most precision FLD available with mobility.

[Scratx]

At this rate I need to make a single "master post" detailing why sized hardpoints (as presented here and in many other threads) is a bad idea, which is also useless against ghost heat, etc, and simply copy/paste it on every new thread that shows up about it.

I already did like 3+ posts like that. FFS, at least...

Eldagore, on 08 October 2014 - 05:18 PM, said:

http://mwomercs.com/...zed-hardpoints/

No restrictions on any hardpoints. Possible to remove ghost heat, breaks up PPFLD loadouts, adjustable on a per variant basis. Effects already seen with clan AC's and lasers.

...this guy came up with something that doesn't break half or more of the mechs currently in people's mech bays. No plastered "INVALID"s on people's mechs while still doing something that fits the "sized hardpoints" concept. (I don't support his idea either but at least I recognize it'd actually be remotely acceptable, unlike others...)


Now, OP, if you really want to be taken seriously, forget the light mechs. Give us the Banshee, the Cataphract, the Jagermech, the Stormcrow, the Timberwolf and the Direwolf. I think we can take a look at those mechs and dissect them. The light mechs you're going on about are largely a waste of time because hardpoint sizes would usually not be a limiting factor anyway.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Xanquil, on 08 October 2014 - 05:43 PM, said:

The thing is Hardpoint size restrictions are just like ghost heat, a system almost no one wants and fails in doing what it is intended to do.

It just isn't a viable option for balance.

On the other hand if we didn't have the "magic alpha strikes" than sized hardpoints would be a welcome addition ad it would make each Mech have more of a "character".

That the point that poeple are missing. Its not intented to be balance solution. That can be just a side effect, The intetion is to give meks uniqness and flavor that will tranfer in more sells.
Right now i got no reasons to bay a mek. I can set up everything i want on few chassis that I already have. Thats the point. Flavor.

[VanillaG]

My only suggestion would to define the number of available slots so that a weapon can be "one upped" to next higher weapon. Examples of IS values:

Small Laser - 1 crit
Med Laser - 2 crit
Large Laser - 3 crit
PPC - 4 crit
LRM5 - 2 crit
LRM10 - 3 crit
LRM15 - 4 crit
LRM20 - 6 crit
SRM2/SRM4/SSRM2 - 2 crit
SRM6 - 3 crit
MG - 1 crit
AC2 - 5 crit
AC-5 - 7 crit
AC10/AC20/Gauss - 10 crit

Using these as starting values all missiles can either be changed to the next bigger launcher or have Artemis. We you look at lasers and ballistics hardpoints will still limit numbers and types of weapons that can be added.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Lord de Seis, on 08 October 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

I understand where you are coming from believe me, but the mechs are already being restricted to those roles by hardpoints in the first place and this approach is just further restricting that. I think being able to mount 2 Gauss Rifles on a CPLT-K2 is great, it was a creative idea when it first came out in the beta and it is still a decent build today. Why should I be restricted to only taking PPC's or Lasers on a CPLT-K2? If I was I wouldn't take it that's for sure.

Please note the CPLT-K2 is just what came to mind, I am not sure if anyone has proposed anything for it in this thread.

You are not a BT fun doesnt you? Thats why you would not understand. Hawken, heavy gear or whatever awaits for you.
Exactly that particular mek is a reason why so many poeple despise mwo.

[1453 R]

All you're doing, Gerhardt, is proving more and more strongly why sized hardpoints is a horrifically bad idea.

For one, you've removed - as in completely and utterly removed - the only even remotely half-viable build Huginn has (2x SRM-6), for...no reason whatsoever. You've eliminated the ability of Spiders to carry actual weapons, breaking the Champion SDR-5K build with the centerline ERLL. And when you get to 'Mechs such as the Blackjack, Dragon, Quickdraw, Thunderbolt, Centurion, Wolverine, or many others who would be destroyed in a sized hardpoints pass, you'll see it all the more clearly.

Sized hardpoints does not promote diversity. it does not correct balance issues. it does not 'bring back' bad 'Mechs. All it does - the only thing it does - is change which 'Mechs are good 'Mechs, and thusly consigning a good eighty percent of what we currently have to the Tier 5 scrap pile.

[Lord de Seis]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 08 October 2014 - 09:01 PM, said:

You are not a BT fun doesnt you? Thats why you would not understand. Hawken, heavy gear or whatever awaits for you.
Exactly that particular mek is a reason why so many poeple despise mwo.

Never played Hawken and never played Heavy Gear, I have played the table top for over 10 years and played games like Neveron for nearly the same amount of time and I like Battletechs lore more then any other sci fi genre so I consider myself a hardcore battletech fan.

I personally would have absolutely no problem playing MWO with only stock variants and no mech lab, it worked great in Multiplayer Battletech 3025 and a majority of the balance issues in MWO originate from the mech lab. However I am realistic and understand two things:

1) Mechwarrior has never been very true to sticking to the hardcore battletech line of thought.

2) MWO is a game that needs to appeal to more people the just the hardcore battletech crowd and customization is one way of doing that.

Having the freedom to try different builds out is a big part of the fun in MWO, when you restrict that aspect of it you take away players ability to be imaginative and creative with something that usually requires a lot of gameplay to work towards because of the grind. If I have to play a week to earn that assault mech I have been working towards I should be able to play it a few different ways to see how it works, not just the one or two ways that I am being told I have to play it as.

The CPLT-K2 was just my example, my favourite build ever with the catapult was my own creation called the Jennerpult:
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...7ef117ba3b66de8

Was better when it was 100 km/h before engine restrictions, is there something wrong with that build?

Edited by Lord de Seis, 08 October 2014 - 09:27 PM.