128 replies to this topic

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Play with us in monday. You will see forgotten meks, longer TTK, greater tactics, Basically a lot better game play experience.

[Kaeb Odellas]

Sized hardpoints are fine, but I would only support just penalizing oversized weapons instead of prohibiting them outright. Stuff like increased heat for stuffing a PPC into a 2-slot hardpoint, or reduced rate of fire and charge speed for cramming a Gauss Rifle into a K2's side torsos.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Scratx, on 08 October 2014 - 08:47 PM, said:

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...



...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.

That other suggestion completely invalidates the differences PGI has placed between Inner Sphere and Clan 'Mechs, so yes, it does break the game and the balance put in place by having Inner Sphere and Clan weapons perform differently than each other.

And if you have not noticed, I am going through every 'Mech, in tonnage order as people in previous threads said they wanted to see a complete audit of what would happen for such a change rather than just "cherry picked" designs.

1453 R, on 08 October 2014 - 09:04 PM, said:

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.

Yes, removing two SRM's from the Huginn does seem like a catastrophic over nerf now that I think about it. I guess the fact that every other 'Mech in the game will also have less firepower would not be a balancing factor, or something that would increase the time to kill and 'Mech survivability.

'Mechs that are considered good are considered good because of three things; hitbox size, hardpoint locations, and jump jets. Things that are hard to damage critical locations, and that can shoot while behind cover. Completely individualized hard points by 'Mech changes this -- almost every 'Mech design as we know it would be shaken up and 'Mechs that we consider to be good because of hardpoint location or ability to carry certain weapons will no longer be the case. In general, however, almost every 'Mech will have limitations.

This is good for several reasons. Higher time to kill due to the fact most 'Mechs cannot carry huge alpha strikes, diversified variants that are rarely used now being taken to carry weapons load outs of the meta. For instance, the ECM raven loses the ability to carry two ER large lasers to snipe, but the RVN-2X Raven certainly still has that ability. Most LRM boats (which usually have at least two posts on the front page of complaints) are limited, and the trade off between having tighter grouping and better tracking vs more tubes becomes a very real consideration for players to make.

Either way, I have not even gotten to the more interesting or problem builds. This is a complete audit like Russ asked for. I did not just do lights because "they are easy and avoid problem builds." Those are coming.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The CDA-2A loses the ability to carry any PPC's (most dual PPC builds are currently found on the 3M ECM capable Cicada currently); the largest laser weapons able for the chassis becomes three large class lasers, or up to six single slot energy weapons.



The 2B is very similar to the 2A, with the exception that it receives the benefits of being able to aim higher/lower than the torso mounted weaponry of the 2A allows at the cost of a single weapon slot in the center torso. Like the 2A, it cannot carry PPC's, however it can carry up to two large class lasers with a medium laser, up to five single slotted energy weapons, or a combination of the two. With its small silhouette and quick speed, this would be a good platform for long range harassment with ER lasers. This breaks the "Noisy Cricket" multi-PPC joke build, which was already heavily penalized with ghost heat.


Note: There is an error with the CT slot size, it should be two criticals. The 3M Cicada loses the ability to carry PPC's (the only Cicada that can is the 3C), and would lose the ability to carry two ER large lasers, with only a slot large enough for a large class laser system being located in the center torso. The ballistic slot hard point is large enough to be swapped out for an AC/5, AC/2 or machine gun, while the side torso medium lasers can be exchanged for pulse versions, or small classed lasers. This change effects the ECM sniper role greatest; players can no longer use ECM to fire front loaded damage through grouped PPC's -- most likely an ER large laser/light AC combo would become the preferred set up for snipers.



The CDA-3C is the only Cicada chassis now capable of carrying a PPC. The ballistic slots are small and can only fit either machine guns or AC/2's. This breaks any builds currently that use larger autocannons, including the joke dual AC/20 Cicada build. Players who enjoyed the PPC Cicada harasser 3M build could still continue similar game play by using this chassis, albiet without the sensor immunity provided by ECM.

[Jack Corban]

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.

Thats pretty easy to deal with. If it does not fit, IT DOES NOT FIT! Artemis is not a kind of lubricant you spray on your missiles. Artemis is a Space consuming refit of the launchers and missiles. there is no reason a LRM 20 with artemis should take up the same space a LRM 20 without does so if you are short on space use a smaller tube size and take artemis or stay stock and don't take artemis. Done. Deal with it.

[Tastian]

I used crit sizes to dictate hard point limitations first. Someone suggested Class weapons instead and I've found it to be a more generous and correcting system.

For example, the Firestarter 9A can have 8 med lasers. That's a massive alpha for a fast moving mech (yes its hot though). Moving Medium Lasers into a Class 2 energy weapon forces the FS9A to have 4x Class 1 energy weapons (tag, small laser, small pulse laser, flamer) and 4x Class 2 (or lighter) energy weapon (Class 1 + medium laser, medium pulse laser).

But the bigger issue came with Clan mechs because the CERLargeLaser only takes up 1 crit slot (like a med laser). I'd like to see your system on it. You'll see that you could easily put 8x CERLarge Lasers on the DireWhale Prime. With weapon classes you could put only 4x Class 3 energy weapons (CERLarge Laser) and 4x Class 2 energy weapons (CERMed Laser).

And yes, the very next issue comes up with the Nova Prime. And while we can drop Ghost Heat and noone would still be able to fire 12 CERMedLasers and not shutdown, they could fire maybe 10. A Quirk would still need to be implemented that maybe only allowed 6 lasers to fire at a time.

Edited by Tastian, 09 October 2014 - 06:33 AM.

[DONTOR]

I hate all forms of limiting customization among mechs. But I have a question about the Commando 1B, how would Artemis affect the 1 missle slot? Because If I cant have an artemis SRM4 or 2 there, then its a little flawed. Would the artemis extra crit slot be not taken into consideration as far as the sized hardpoints goes?

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 06:10 AM, said:

The CDA-3C is the only Cicada chassis now capable of carrying a PPC. The ballistic slots are small and can only fit either machine guns or AC/2's. This breaks any builds currently that use larger autocannons, including the joke dual AC/20 Cicada build. Players who enjoyed the PPC Cicada harasser 3M build could still continue similar game play by using this chassis, albiet without the sensor immunity provided by ECM.

And with only 1 PPC, so not nearly as effective. Just 1 example of non problem builds that would be wrecked by a system like this.

Edited by DONTOR, 09 October 2014 - 06:46 AM.

[Syrkres]

I do not endorse Sized Hardpoint changes...

[1453 R]

GERHARDT.

STOP.

STOP STOP STOP.

STOP.

You realize you're failing the challenge, right?

The part all you sized-hardpoint folks forget is that Piranha wants to know which currently-existing, popular, completely-fine-no-balance-problems-here builds that people like, play, and bought 'Mechs specifically to run would be removed from play. An absolutely picture-perfect example is the CDA-3M. Your suggestion completely removes the 2x large laser/2x medium laser build that many players use and enjoy on the CDA-3M, and which also does not pose any balance problems. Nobody's ever complained about broken OP Beamcadas - but you can bet players will complain about losing their favorite perfectly-acceptable builds that never dun bothered anyone because they don't fit your particular personal vision of what the 'Mech is supposed to do.

What Russ wanted was not a bunch of pretty spreadsheets showing the number of critical slots a 'Mech's stock armament takes up. They could do that themselves in two minutes for any given chassis they like. What he wanted, what he was asking for, was a breakdown of which builds people already run, which builds people like, which builds people buy 'Mechs to use, that will become completely and utterly invalid FOR NO REASON with a sized hardpoints system, as compared to the number of problematic, balance-issue-inducing builds that will also be removed, and as also compared to the number of new builds a sized hardpoint system would create.

Your harshly restrictive, stock-armament-ONLY vision of a sized hardpoints system removes virtually all existing builds from the game, whether they were a problem or not. You are invalidating virtually every build on virtually every 'Mech used by virtually every player in MWO, telling them all that if they do not use their 'Mech's stock armament, they're Playing The Game Wrong and need to be punished.

Piranha just repealed the game mode soft-vote system in a day - one day - because of forum blowback over a measure that simply changed up their gamemode preferences, and now you're expecting people to just meekly and passively swallow the utter, senseless destruction of every single 'Mech and build they own?

Just stop, dude. You're not conforming to the terms of Russ' challenge, and your blithe disregard for your fellow players and their own enjoyment of MWO is bordering on actively offensive. You're breaking existing, sold-for-real-money Champion 'Mechs as it is, and by this point everyone knows where you're going with this and what you want.

Edited by 1453 R, 09 October 2014 - 08:08 AM.

[Tombstoner]

1453 R, on 09 October 2014 - 08:07 AM, said:

GERHARDT.

STOP.

STOP STOP STOP.

STOP.

You realize you're failing the challenge, right?

The part all you sized-hardpoint folks forget is that Piranha wants to know which currently-existing, popular, completely-fine-no-balance-problems-here builds that people like, play, and bought 'Mechs specifically to run would be removed from play. An absolutely picture-perfect example is the CDA-3M. Your suggestion completely removes the 2x large laser/2x medium laser build that many players use and enjoy on the CDA-3M, and which also does not pose any balance problems. Nobody's ever complained about broken OP Beamcadas - but you can bet players will complain about losing their favorite perfectly-acceptable builds that never dun bothered anyone because they don't fit your particular personal vision of what the 'Mech is supposed to do.

What Russ wanted was not a bunch of pretty spreadsheets showing the number of critical slots a 'Mech's stock armament takes up. They could do that themselves in two minutes for any given chassis they like. What he wanted, what he was asking for, was a breakdown of which builds people already run, which builds people like, which builds people buy 'Mechs to use, that will become completely and utterly invalid FOR NO REASON with a sized hardpoints system, as compared to the number of problematic, balance-issue-inducing builds that will also be removed, and as also compared to the number of new builds a sized hardpoint system would create.

Your harshly restrictive, stock-armament-ONLY vision of a sized hardpoints system removes virtually all existing builds from the game, whether they were a problem or not. You are invalidating virtually every build on virtually every 'Mech used by virtually every player in MWO, telling them all that if they do not use their 'Mech's stock armament, they're Playing The Game Wrong and need to be punished.

Piranha just repealed the game mode soft-vote system in a day - one day - because of forum blowback over a measure that simply changed up their gamemode preferences, and now you're expecting people to just meekly and passively swallow the utter, senseless destruction of every single 'Mech and build they own?

Just stop, dude. You're not conforming to the terms of Russ' challenge, and your blithe disregard for your fellow players and their own enjoyment of MWO is bordering on actively offensive. You're breaking existing, sold-for-real-money Champion 'Mechs as it is, and by this point everyone knows where you're going with this and what you want.

The genie was let out of the bottle once we went to open beta way too early. Too many people became accustomed to the status. Once that happens you cant change squat only add. We beged and pleaded with PGI befor open beta....nothing... we continued to beg and plead and it we got no response as the game launched... now we have moved on to MWO2.0.

Things are locked in place. This is the reality. PGI did what they thought was best over all and that includes business decisions overriding good game design. Hard points could only be changed or added in closed beta for a limited population that understand things are gona change. Now that money is exchanged.... it's game over move on. Size hard points for MWO2.0 is viable.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Champion mechs would likely retain their current hard points and become individual chassis separate from the designs they originated from. They would become pgi created variants of their chassis.

Still, the hard point size restrictions do not require stock weapons be taken; and yes a lot of players would have their current favorite builds shaken up or required to be used on a different platform -- for the Cicada example brought forward by 1453 -- the 3M may not be able to carry the popular large/medium laser combo, but two other Cicada chassis, previously considered non-viable because the 3M can do the exact same thing, now become viable for pilots who want to continue using those weapon combinations.

I do not believe a single mech I own would be unaffected by any changes to hard point limitations. I am not saying that these proposed sizes would be the end all to balance or that individual cases would not need adjustments to sizes or number of hard points for balance sake. This is a visual run down of every mech in the game highlighting what a change to the system would do to each of them, for better or worse.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 10:58 AM.

[Walluh]

I'd rather deal with 'problem' builds than potentially have my customization abilities gutted.

[Dracol]

Really... just briefly scrolled through but something caught my eye: ECM spider without ability to equip PPC. I love that build, reminds me of the panther (which we'll probably never see). Why would you deprive me of one of my favorite builds?

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The BJ-1 configuration of the Blackjack loses several popular builds with hardpoint restrictions, including the AC/20 champion build. The single ballistic slots mean it becomes capable of only carrying light AC/2's or machine guns. The dispersal of single slot weapons across its torso makes it capable of only carrying at largest medium lasers. Most builds would be very similar to stock, most likely consisting of engine upgrades, double heat sinks, and additional armor as the hardpoint restrictions make it difficult for anything else.



The BJ-1DC has similar hard points and restrictions to current builds as the BJ-1, with the exception that in addition to light caliber autocannon, it would be able to carry large class lasers in either side torso.


The current preferred BJ-1X build replaces the flamers with medium class lasers; the BJ-1X would be unaffected largely by most restrictions with exception of the fact that it can at most only carry two PPC's or two large class lasers (1 in each arm).


Similar to the BJ-1X, the BJ-3 is an all energy weapon configuration. Though it cannot carry as many smaller lasers in each arm, it can carry up to two large class lasers per arm, or up to six smaller sized single slot energy weapons -- very little is changed in this configuration with the exception that the build will only be able to carry a total of 2 PPC's, one in each arm.



The Arrow's three ballistic slots per arm limit it space wise to either three machine guns or up to three AC/2 per arm as the next larger ballistic system, the AC/5, occupies 4 slots. The large center torso energy slot would likely be wasted using smaller single slot energy weapons, as it is the largest sized hard point the Arrow would receive. Re-evaluating the slots or size of the arm ballistic slots could benefit the Arrow.

Dracol, on 09 October 2014 - 10:46 AM, said:

Really... just briefly scrolled through but something caught my eye: ECM spider without ability to equip PPC. I love that build, reminds me of the panther (which we'll probably never see). Why would you deprive me of one of my favorite builds?

Partially for an unbias -- every 'Mech receives similar limitations, partially so that if the Panther does show up in the game, it has a role instead of instantly being obsoleted by the Spider, which currently does everything the Panther can do, but better.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 10:56 AM.

[Dracol]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 10:55 AM, said:

Partially for an unbias -- every 'Mech receives similar limitations, partially so that if the Panther does show up in the game, it has a role instead of instantly being obsoleted by the Spider, which currently does everything the Panther can do, but better.

So.... what you are saying is that since there are some bad builds which need to be mitigated, all players get saddled with restrictions on how to customize their mechs? Customization which makes MW:O stand out from its competition?

As for the Panther/Spider point, have you learned about the IS quirks? Cause it seems to me that is a better way to encourage different builds instead of putting hand cuffs on everyone.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The VND-1AA Vindicator would be restricted to a single PPC in the right arm, which could also be used for two smaller energy weapons such as a large + medium laser combination or two medium lasers. The other energy hard points would be restricted due to size to medium or small lasers like it currently has. The small missile hard point would restrict the Vindicator 1AA to at most an SRM-4, single Streak SRM-2 or a single LRM-5.



In exchange for a lower maximum engine rating from the 1AA, the 1R variant of the Vindicator would gain the ability to carry a larger energy weapon in the left arm, or two single slot energy weapons. The largest change would be that the 1R Vindicator would not be able to carry up to three PPC's like it currently can with unsized hard points. A single PPC in the right arm and a large laser in the left would be possible, as would a large laser in each arm. Like the 1AA, the 1R's single missile slot restricts it to carrying the smallest sized missile racks available.



The VND-1X would lose the ability to carry an autocannon larger than an AC/2, which it could carry up to three of with hardpoint size limitations. Like the other Vindicator variants, the missile pack would be restricted to smaller sized missiles, with a maximum of five LRM's, four SRM's or two Streak SRM's, all un-augmentable by Artemis.



St. Ives Blues would not be able to carry a PPC like the other Vindicator variants; in fact, the size of the hardpoints it has would make it anemic in the weapons it can carry. A recommendation to re-evaluate hard point sizes (likely for the left arm so it can at least carry two large class laser systems) might make it more viable if a restricted sized hardpoint system was implemented. The SIB can carry twice the amount of missiles as other Vindicator variants, with the ability to use the LRM-10 or two SRM-4 packs.

Dracol, on 09 October 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

So.... what you are saying is that since there are some bad builds which need to be mitigated, all players get saddled with restrictions on how to customize their mechs? Customization which makes MW:O stand out from its competition?

As for the Panther/Spider point, have you learned about the IS quirks? Cause it seems to me that is a better way to encourage different builds instead of putting hand cuffs on everyone.

What I am saying is most 'Mechs in this game have no purpose other than to be grinded out to master other 'Mechs because certain variants can do whatever any other 'Mech can do because of a vague hard point system. Most 'Mechs are completely obsoleted by tier 1 designs because of the current hard point system, and no amount of quirks is going to change the fact that players will still choose 'Mechs that have better hitboxes and weapons locations over something like a 5% bonus to heat dissipation or 2% reload speed.

[CDLord HHGD]

Sorry for the cross-post!

[Scratx]

Dracol, on 09 October 2014 - 11:00 AM, said:

So.... what you are saying is that since there are some bad builds which need to be mitigated, all players get saddled with restrictions on how to customize their mechs? Customization which makes MW:O stand out from its competition?

As for the Panther/Spider point, have you learned about the IS quirks? Cause it seems to me that is a better way to encourage different builds instead of putting hand cuffs on everyone.

Let him keep going. He's making the case for us Sized Hardpoint Opponents on how it is a pretty bad idea by going to the extreme in how things could be limited and plastering on Russ's face how it would break virtually every mech currently fielded.

In the meantime, have some!



At this point, all I want to do is laugh and try not to choke as I chew on these.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

cdlord, on 09 October 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Sorry for the cross-post!

The difference between the ideas is the fact that weapons are not broken into small or large categories with this proposal, which would actually limit customization further with only certain weapon systems being able to be mounted in place of others -- with this system, to quote USPS, "if it fits it ships."

.

Scratx, on 09 October 2014 - 11:12 AM, said:

Let him keep going. He's making the case for us Sized Hardpoint Opponents on how it is a pretty bad idea by going to the extreme in how things could be limited and plastering on Russ's face how it would break virtually every mech currently fielded.

In the meantime, have some!



At this point, all I want to do is laugh and try not to choke as I chew on these.

Most builds currently fielded with the exception of massive boats (both FLD and missile boats) would still be able to be fielded, albeit on less played chassis which would have downsides such as worse hit boxes or weapon locations. This is good for the fact that it increases diversity, rather than one or two designs dominating the entire game as we see in PGI's tier list or by watching any competitive team's "diverse" drop deck.

[CDLord HHGD]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 11:19 AM, said:

The difference between the ideas is the fact that weapons are not broken into small or large categories with this proposal, which would actually limit customization further with only certain weapon systems being able to be mounted in place of others -- with this system, to quote USPS, "if it fits it ships."

I was thinking this too, but they'd have to revamp the whole Energy/Ballistic/Missile hardpoint separation. Not saying it's impossible or even bad, but I believe it's unlikely.

I would buy $100 MC now if they'd show us the High/Low Effort/Impact chart for this and other projects.....