128 replies to this topic

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Rebas Kradd, on 09 October 2014 - 02:35 PM, said:

Yes, the balancing process irritates people who lose their megabuilds. But that's typically limited to a few chassis, or coincides with the fresh validation of a weapon system. Your idea solves a problem that's already been significantly mitigated, and ignores other solutions. Your suggested amnesty period would soften the blow a little, but it would still rob the tinkerers of their joy in this game and leave a foul taste in people's mouths.

The fact that these mega builds are limited to certain few chassis is exactly one of the problems a hardpoint size solution is trying to address -- instead of only five or so 'Mechs in the game being considered viable because the hard point system is so open players just flock to whatever 'Mechs have the best hit boxes, players would have to make concessions on which chassis they decide to build on -- most builds would still be possible, perhaps now on a different variant or chassis, but again, most of the more grievous exploiters of the free hard point system we currently have would be eliminated.

As for PGI's quirk system -- as we have not yet had a glimpse at it, we will not know how it impacts the game at all. If it is anything like the other systems they have put in place, we are probably looking at small boosts like "2% recycle rate" or "5% less damage to legs."

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

The KTO-18 Kintaro with hard point size limitations would be able to carry a maximum of 24 SRM missiles (one of the most SRM's of any Inner Sphere 'Mech with hardpoint limitations in place), down from 30 that it can currently carry. If a player elects to use Artemis, the number is reduced to 14. Without Artemis, the KTO-18 can carry 35 LRM tubes, or twenty if a player elects to use Artemis. Due to the small hard point sizes of the energy weapons, the KTO-18 would be restricted to two single slot energy weapons (one per arm), removing its current ability to carry large lasers or PPC's.



The major difference between the KTO-19 would be somewhat less SRM's (22 total by way of three SRM-6 and an SRM-4), with the ability of the right arm hard point to utilize a large class laser. It would, however, keep the same payload of LRM's as the KTO-18.



So far, the Golden Boy would be the absolute king of medium Inner Sphere SRM 'Mechs with the ability to carry 26 SRM's as it comes with in its stock configuration. This number is reduced to 16 if the player elects to use Artemis. The right arm can carry up to a large class laser weapon. If the player elects to use LRM's in lieu of SRM's in the missile slots, they can bring 40 tubes by four LRM-10's or 25 tubes if using an LRM-15 and two LRM-5's with artemis.



The KTO-20 carries less missiles than other Kintaro variants, with a total of 16 SRM's max or 25 LRM's with hardpoint size restrictions, but has the ability of carrying two large class laser weapons, or a combination of smaller laser systems. Like other Kintaro variants, it loses the ability to carry PPC's outright.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 09 October 2014 - 03:29 PM.

[Dracol]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

As for PGI's quirk system -- as we have not yet had a glimpse at it, we will not know how it impacts the game at all. If it is anything like the other systems they have put in place, we are probably looking at small boosts like "2% recycle rate" or "5% less damage to legs."

One chassis' quirks covered in the town hall by Russ was the locust. He said they were looking at doubling the internals of the locust. So looks like some big improvements to the tier 5 mechs are inbound.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

As for PGI's quirk system -- as we have not yet had a glimpse at it, we will not know how it impacts the game at all. If it is anything like the other systems they have put in place, we are probably looking at small boosts like "2% recycle rate" or "5% less damage to legs."

We've been given much more of a glimpse than that. Russ's last town hall had some in-depth stuff.

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

The fact that these mega builds are limited to certain few chassis is exactly one of the problems a hardpoint size solution is trying to address -- instead of only five or so 'Mechs in the game being considered viable because the hard point system is so open players just flock to whatever 'Mechs have the best hit boxes, players would have to make concessions on which chassis they decide to build on -- most builds would still be possible, perhaps now on a different variant or chassis, but again, most of the more grievous exploiters of the free hard point system we currently have would be eliminated.

Yeah...I'm just starting to think you're one of the painfully pedantic and ****-retentive armchair designers who sees a horribly flawed system that's actually quite tolerable. Guess we'll have to agree to disagree from this point on, but I'll just reiterate that I do NOT support balance solutions that throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 09 October 2014 - 03:52 PM.

[1453 R]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

The fact that these mega builds are limited to certain few chassis is exactly one of the problems a hardpoint size solution is trying to address -- instead of only five or so 'Mechs in the game being considered viable because the hard point system is so open players just flock to whatever 'Mechs have the best hit boxes, players would have to make concessions on which chassis they decide to build on -- most builds would still be possible, perhaps now on a different variant or chassis, but again, most of the more grievous exploiters of the free hard point system we currently have would be eliminated.

As for PGI's quirk system -- as we have not yet had a glimpse at it, we will not know how it impacts the game at all. If it is anything like the other systems they have put in place, we are probably looking at small boosts like "2% recycle rate" or "5% less damage to legs."

The Locust is possibly receiving a 100% buff to its internal structure, as in double its current internal structure health, on top of buffs to its ability to poke folks with the I-ERLL, as I recall.

Perhaps wait to see what they actually do before deriding the new system as pointless and demanding that 'Mechs being forced to use their stock armaments ONLY is the only possible solution to the horrible imbalances plaguing MWO, hmm?

[DocBach]

For the record, I don't have a problem with this or the current system that is in place. I'll adapt to whatever system they put in the game.

That said, I would like to see 'Mechs have more personality. It's pretty lame that to be competitive you are goaded into playing certain 'Mechs if you want to be taken seriously. A hardpoint system done well could be a pretty positive factor in changing up the game and what we consider to be viable 'Mechs.

[Sable]

I say it in every thread about this topic and i'll say it here again. Sized hardpoints are THE worst idea and should never be used. This was the single most ANNOYING feature in mechwarrior 4 mercenaries. i'd get a mech and oh wait you can't put the weapons you want in there even though you have the tonnage because of the way the weapon slots were split up for no reason at all. It ruined the potential for a lot of mechs in that game and i don't want that to happen here. Because then you WILL have cookie cutter meta mechs and no one will use the other ones because of the way it's limited.

[Scratx]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 02:54 PM, said:

The fact that these mega builds are limited to certain few chassis is exactly one of the problems a hardpoint size solution is trying to address -- instead of only five or so 'Mechs in the game being considered viable because the hard point system is so open players just flock to whatever 'Mechs have the best hit boxes, players would have to make concessions on which chassis they decide to build on -- most builds would still be possible, perhaps now on a different variant or chassis, but again, most of the more grievous exploiters of the free hard point system we currently have would be eliminated.

As for PGI's quirk system -- as we have not yet had a glimpse at it, we will not know how it impacts the game at all. If it is anything like the other systems they have put in place, we are probably looking at small boosts like "2% recycle rate" or "5% less damage to legs."

As others have pointed out (you didn't listen to the Town Hall, did you? ), the quirk's magnitude is far far higher than that. Locusts are looking at having a giga-buff and if that's indicative of what all tier 5 mechs are getting, even tier 4's will receive mega-buffs. And hey, the vast majority of the IS mechs rank either 4 or 5.......

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Sable, on 09 October 2014 - 04:14 PM, said:

Because then you WILL have cookie cutter meta mechs and no one will use the other ones because of the way it's limited.

Well, you just out-argued me. We would not want to see a situation like this occur!

Scratx, on 09 October 2014 - 04:22 PM, said:

As others have pointed out (you didn't listen to the Town Hall, did you? ), the quirk's magnitude is far far higher than that. Locusts are looking at having a giga-buff and if that's indicative of what all tier 5 mechs are getting, even tier 4's will receive mega-buffs. And hey, the vast majority of the IS mechs rank either 4 or 5.......

I did listen to the Town Hall, however I remembered Russ saying that the buff to the locust was to double the leg structure -- grated, I listened at about 330 AM at work so my memory could be off.

Still, with a hard point system, or double structure, the Locust will never be competitive or worth taking based on several components of this games design -- but that is a different conversation than illustrating what hard point restrictions would do to the game.

[Walluh]

I don't understand why nobody thinks the IS quirks can't exactly be, you know, significant. There's absolutely NOTHING holding them back from turbobuffing mechs

[Karl Streiger]

First have to say - kudos for the great work. Its always a pitty to see so much manpower wasted.
Because all do the same mistake:

Its always bottom up - You say the HPs and then you say what is possible what is not - and of course you invalidate - Mechs that could be "bought" for example the Centurion A (C) - would not be possible - if i have understand it right.

And here is the challenge - try to break your system - find the Mech that will destroy your modell - after that rethink it.

And here is my Cookie for you - THE Banshee.....- jump over all other Mechs - go for the banshee and invite a HP system:
- here some quirks

• a Banshee should be able to have a AC 20
  
• a Banshee should be ablle to have a AC 10

When you have don this - think about the Banshee 5S..... how do you want to balance hardpoints with a Banshee 5S?

Same Engine Cap - as the 3E and 3M, huge number of energy weapons, missiles are possible to, and of course a gauss.

Edited by Karl Streiger, 10 October 2014 - 12:36 AM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Several canon variants would not be possible to be recreated, but that does not mean they would be impossible to add as new variants to the game. The BNC-5S, however, cannot be made in the game as the hardpoint currently as the locations of the hard points and engine size restrictions make it impossible to copy. This proposed system is also just a visual illustration on what a system could look like and I specifically point out major builds that are broken per Russ' request -- individual chassis would likely need to have individual balance passes to expand modularity or performance (notably mechs which use smaller weapons spread across the chassis) -- if this system was strict and now passes for individual mechs were made, some weapons like the clan class 20 cannons would not even be mountable, as no clan component off the top of my head comes with one.

[Karl Streiger]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 12:45 AM, said:

Several canon variants would not be possible to be recreated, but that does not mean they would be impossible to add as new variants to the game. The BNC-5S, however, cannot be made in the game as the hardpoint currently as the locations of the hard points and engine size restrictions make it impossible to copy.

Exactly.
Some cannon versions - can not be made with a to restrictive Hardpoint setting. And I think the Banshee is a perfect example.The Banshee 3MC (name is missleading must have been a 3EC) - is similar to the 3E - but here you have 11 SHS instead of 16 SHS upgrading the AC 5 to a AC 10.
What does this mean for MWO? If you have a better hard point setting on the 3EC - nobody would run the 3E - because the 11 SHS could be upgraded to 10 DHS and you still have better cooling as the 3E.

On the other hand - the 3Q with its sole AC 20 and the head laser - would be of value as long as the AC 20 is its only weapon. Of course you have to ask if a Banshee is the right weapon carriage for this big gun.

of course and again there is the 5S - that would be able to perform like any other variant - but slightly better or more flexible. So there is no need for any other Banshee....(on the other hand - there would not be any sense to have another Banshee - when you keep the current system)

To create differences you have to add some serious flaws to the BNC-5S - and you know what will happen.
(For example the DireWhale in June - it was a deadly beast but with its hitboxes easy prey - it wasn't that common - even with the whale available for C-Bill i don't think that you would have seen that thing often)

[Tarogato]

Gerhardt, with all the builds you've broken so far, if you were a developer, you just lost a potential customer, because I honestly wouldn't be playing this game anymore. I'm not saying hardpoint restriction can't be implemented, but at the very least, you're doing a very bad job at trying.

Jenner K: you just took its Narc away - which was basically *the* only excuse to play a Jenner K.
Oxide: No SRM 16/18? There goes a significant option.
COM 1B: no SRM 6/Narc? There goes half the builds.
SDR 5K: uhh, LL? You want this mech to be absolutely useless half of the match? What about the Champion? Ouch.
CDA 3M: you just took away the 2x LPLas build, which isn't even a sniper.
Anansi: you just took its Narc away, as well as the SRM6. Who would buy this?
Arrow: lord forbid we use two LL or even a single PPC.
GFN 1N: you just took away the SRM18 build, which was the only thing to make this a viable XL brawler.
GFN 3M: still no SRM18, and now I can't even build an SRM20+ with my lovely four hardpoints.


The reason I point these out is because these particular 'mechs aren't a problem, and you're castrating them for no reason at all. Most of the builds you took eliminated were already balanced by the sacrifices made to make them possible (the GFN 3M and Oxide come to mind here) I'd hate to see what you do to the heavies and assaults - it's harder than you think to eliminate problem builds while not removing perfectly reasonable builds.

[pwnface]

I'm just going to go on record to state I think sized hardpoints is completely unnecessary. It solves no issues and limits creativity by restricting a lot of build. I feel like I should be allowed to play my 2xPPC spider, killing fun builds doesn't fix anything.

[Pjwned]

Restricting certain weapons from being equipped at all seems rather uninspired and unnecessarily harsh while completely breaking a number of valid builds, I support an idea like this far more because it doesn't arbitrarily limit what you can equip in hardpoints while still accomplishing the same goal of limiting FLD boats and such.

[Celthora]

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Tarogato, on 10 October 2014 - 01:48 AM, said:

Gerhardt, with all the builds you've broken so far, if you were a developer, you just lost a potential customer, because I honestly wouldn't be playing this game anymore. I'm not saying hardpoint restriction can't be implemented, but at the very least, you're doing a very bad job at trying.

Jenner K: you just took its Narc away - which was basically *the* only excuse to play a Jenner K.
Oxide: No SRM 16/18? There goes a significant option.
COM 1B: no SRM 6/Narc? There goes half the builds.
SDR 5K: uhh, LL? You want this mech to be absolutely useless half of the match? What about the Champion? Ouch.
CDA 3M: you just took away the 2x LPLas build, which isn't even a sniper.
Anansi: you just took its Narc away, as well as the SRM6. Who would buy this?
Arrow: lord forbid we use two LL or even a single PPC.
GFN 1N: you just took away the SRM18 build, which was the only thing to make this a viable XL brawler.
GFN 3M: still no SRM18, and now I can't even build an SRM20+ with my lovely four hardpoints.


The reason I point these out is because these particular 'mechs aren't a problem, and you're castrating them for no reason at all. Most of the builds you took eliminated were already balanced by the sacrifices made to make them possible (the GFN 3M and Oxide come to mind here) I'd hate to see what you do to the heavies and assaults - it's harder than you think to eliminate problem builds while not removing perfectly reasonable builds.

As I have stated multiple times in the thread, this is an illustration to point out exactly what builds would be broken by hardpoint restrictions. However, many of the builds you listed would still be possible, many by a different variant of the same mech and most certainly by mechs of the same weight class. The griffin may not be able to carry as many srm's, which may incentivize players to use perhaps a laser or ppc in its arm, or use a chassis like the kintaro or trebuchet to boat missiles. The fact that not every build can do every role is one of the arguments used to support such a change -- diversity between mechs to accomplish certain roles would be a requirement rather than just picking a mech with good hot boxes and generic hardpoints like we currently have.

And again, this is a rough pass to provide an image on what kind of load outs mechs might be able to run if restrictions were put in place. Certain chassis would need their hardpoints sizes revised to make them more viable in the game, or to even mount clan ac class 20 weaponry, as no omni pod comes stock with it in the game, meaning no hardpoints without size revisions could use it.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 10 October 2014 - 03:20 AM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Pjwned, on 10 October 2014 - 02:00 AM, said:

Restricting certain weapons from being equipped at all seems rather uninspired and unnecessarily harsh while completely breaking a number of valid builds, I support an idea like this far more because it doesn't arbitrarily limit what you can equip in hardpoints while still accomplishing the same goal of limiting FLD boats and such.

A major goal of this is not just limiting fld, rather promoting certain mechs be better suited for different roles; trade offs between best hard points and hit boxes would be considered to run certain builds rather than currently where any mech can do the job of any other provided it has the same generic hardpoints.

[Tarogato]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 03:19 AM, said:

-- decent replies here --

Thank you for a sensical response that thoroughly defended your point of view.

To be honest, I quit reading this thread about halfway through your original post and started looking at your layouts. What you say actually makes sense, and if you'd explain it in your OP the same way you explained it in your reply just now, you might get more constructive responses from the community, including myself. I however still support my argument that if you, as a developer, made these changes, you'd immediately loose a chunk of your population, and it therefore might not be worth the risk or effort, but I'm sure that's already been discussed somewhere in another thread.

Edited by Tarogato, 10 October 2014 - 03:34 AM.