128 replies to this topic

[Celthora]

Tarogato, on 10 October 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

if you, as a developer, made these changes, you'd immediately loose a chunk of your population

How do you know this? The only difference is you will need many variety of mechs to run your favorite builds. So ppl will have to buy many more mechs, so they ll have to play a lot more. A lot more playing --> a lot more rating, spending cash. This is what game companies want, isnt it?

Also this rule will not be applied to a group of players, it ll be for everyone. It would bring the real brawling to the game.

Edited by Celthora, 10 October 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

Tarogato, on 10 October 2014 - 03:31 AM, said:

.... if you, as a developer, made these changes, you'd immediately loose a chunk of your population.......

You mean the chunk that abuse the meta and aggravate the rest which is why threads like this exist? Perish the thought.... I look forward to the day I can peek around a corner and not instantly lose half my mech.

[Rebas Kradd]

cdlord, on 10 October 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

You mean the chunk that abuse the meta and aggravate the rest which is why threads like this exist? Perish the thought.... I look forward to the day I can peek around a corner and not instantly lose half my mech.

This never happens to me.

If it happens to you all the time because you're in an assault, try the smaller mechs.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 October 2014 - 04:54 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 09 October 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

The CN9-A with sized hardpoint restrictions gains the uniqueness of being the only medium class 'Mech capable of mounting a Gauss rifle in its arm with unimpeded horizontal range of motion. However, the champion version and popular SRM boat build would become invalidated; at most the CN9-A would be able to carry 12 SRM's between three SRM-4 packs, or 6 SRM's with Artemis. In regards to LRM's, it would be able to carry at most an LRM-15 or an LRM-10 with artemis.

So I did some math. There are 227 unique missile combinations the CN9-A can carry right now. Your hardpoint restriction reduces that figure to 34, only six of them Artemis-capable. You have eliminated 85% of the possible missile configurations that this variant could carry.

I am flabbergasted that nobody sees this as a problem. Yes, a good chunk of those combinations are joke builds, but what are you going to tell these guys? Have their builds been getting complained about on the forums? Does anyone view it as a barrier to balance or an insult to design elegance? Not really. I'd venture to say that they even require skillful play. But they'll get mowed over for the sake of some rigid, abstract philosophy. Sorry, bud, go play a Kintaro. Maybe they don't want to play a Kintaro. Maybe they want to play a Centurion.

That's the problem with reactionary solutions - it mistakes a handful of edge cases for an overarching problem, then throws out a whole bunch of perfectly viable situations to fix it.

In other words, this is nothing more than a lateral solution at best. At worst, it's a sweeping nerf that will drive people away as surely as they bring KaoS back.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 October 2014 - 05:53 PM.

[ApolloKaras]

cdlord, on 10 October 2014 - 04:38 AM, said:

You mean the chunk that abuse the meta and aggravate the rest which is why threads like this exist? Perish the thought.... I look forward to the day I can peek around a corner and not instantly lose half my mech.

hate to break it to you, but no matter what system you put in there will always be a best. This system is no different. I already see issues and have already voiced those concerns, however the pushers of this idea appear to be overlooking it

Edited by Saxie, 10 October 2014 - 05:52 PM.

[DocBach]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

So I did some math. There are 227 unique missile combinations the CN9-A can carry right now. Your hardpoint restriction reduces that figure to 34, only six of them Artemis-capable. You have eliminated 85% of the possible missile configurations that this variant could carry.

Yes, a good chunk of those combinations are joke builds, but what are you going to tell these guys?

That the Kintaro, Shadow Hawk, Griffin and Trebuchet can boat SRM's better, perhaps they should use an autocannon or gauss rifle on their CN9-A which would be one of the only medium 'Mechs able to do so in a fully articulated arm mount?

From what I can interpret, these changes would make the Centurion into a sort of jack of all trades, master of none sort of build. Yeah, it can still take a pretty decent amount of SRM's compared to other 'Mechs (in our hypothetical restricted world), but it can do a lot more than that players miss out on if they decide to use it as a missile boat when actual dedicated missile carriers would be better at that role (again, in our hypothetical restricted world).

[Rebas Kradd]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 05:55 PM, said:

That the Kintaro, Shadow Hawk, Griffin and Trebuchet can boat SRM's better, perhaps they should use an autocannon or gauss rifle on their CN9-A which would be one of the only medium 'Mechs able to do so in a fully articulated arm mount?

From what I can interpret, these changes would make the Centurion into a sort of jack of all trades, master of none sort of build. Yeah, it can still take a pretty decent amount of SRM's compared to other 'Mechs (in our hypothetical restricted world), but it can do a lot more than that players miss out on if they decide to use it as a missile boat when actual dedicated missile carriers would be better at that role (again, in our hypothetical restricted world).

And what if they don't want to play a Kintaro, Shadow Hawk, Griffin, or a Trebuchet?

What if they want to play...a Centurion? For its small profile and elusiveness, its missile-door damage reduction quirks, or maybe just for love from lore?

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 October 2014 - 05:57 PM.

[DocBach]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 05:56 PM, said:

And what if they don't want to play a Kintaro, Shadow Hawk, Griffin, or a Trebuchet?

What if they want to play...a Centurion? For its small size and elusiveness, or maybe just for love from lore?

They still could -- they just wouldn't be as good at boating missiles. It doesn't mean that they can't, it means a different 'Mech might be better suited to it and could carry more or carry them with Artemis.

Get it?

[Rebas Kradd]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 05:58 PM, said:

They still could -- they just wouldn't be as good at boating missiles. It doesn't mean that they can't, it means a different 'Mech might be better suited to it and could carry more or carry them with Artemis.

Get it?

I've always gotten it. What you're not getting, is that maybe those two guys on Reddit don't care. And there's more where they came from.

And "they still could" is pretty drastically underselling the 85% reduction of choice.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 October 2014 - 06:03 PM.

[DocBach]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 06:01 PM, said:

I've always gotten it. What you're not getting, is that maybe those two guys on Reddit don't care.

You know who did care? The several hundred players (and their wallets) in my gaming group and the countless others who gave up on this game years ago when PGI refused to make any actual changes to balance.

But I'm glad that the two guys with their free Champion Centurions are happy with the three SRM-6 build they got.

[Rebas Kradd]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 06:03 PM, said:

You know who did care? The several hundred players (and their wallets) in my gaming group and the countless others who gave up on this game years ago when PGI refused to make any actual changes to balance.

But I'm glad that the two guys with their free Champion Centurions are happy with the three SRM-6 build they got.

You know perfectly well that those two guys on Reddit represent a CHUNK of the playerbase, who will pass by your competitive buddies in MWO's doorway if this hardpoint philosophy goes into the game.

PGI has to decide which group is bigger.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 October 2014 - 06:08 PM.

[DocBach]

Or, they need to decide which group will pay more money to their product -- looks like the OP has a $500 gold 'Mech, and is willing to see its hardpoints be changed with the hope it would bring more variety or less cheese builds to the game. That seems more of a sacrifice then not being able to run three SRM-6's on the Centurion PGI gave away for getting 10 kills over the weekend.

[Rebas Kradd]

DocBach, on 10 October 2014 - 06:08 PM, said:

That seems more of a sacrifice then not being able to run three SRM-6's on the Centurion PGI gave away for getting 10 kills over the weekend.

And yet...somehow...despite all those departures...the game is still here.

You know damn well the SRM-6 Centurion is only one example. How many other builds are you going to eliminate if the Centurion alone loses 85% of its customizability? (or even just, as a random figure, 60% of its VIABLE options"?)

But it's clear you're just pissed now, so I'm done arguing. You believe your solution will benefit PGI more financially, I believe mine will, and neither of us really has any way to prove it.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 10 October 2014 - 06:12 PM.

[Pjwned]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 03:23 AM, said:

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.

That can be handled more elegantly than by strictly limiting critical slot space within hardpoints, and if you'll notice that suggestion I linked to does not result in "the same generic hardpoints."

Edited by Pjwned, 10 October 2014 - 10:27 PM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Pjwned, on 10 October 2014 - 10:24 PM, said:

That can be handled more elegantly than by strictly limiting critical slot space within hardpoints, and if you'll notice that suggestion I linked to does not result in "the same generic hardpoints."

While an interesting idea, the point of this thread is to illustrate what builds would be eliminated by a hardpoint size system and which ones would still be possible, per Russ Bullock's request.

Real life has gotten in the way of me finishing this project right now, but as time permits I will be continuing and hope to have the IS heavy 'Mechs posted Monday.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 11 October 2014 - 11:44 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

I am flabbergasted that nobody sees this as a problem. Yes, a good chunk of those combinations are joke builds, but what are you going to tell these guys? Have their builds been getting complained about on the forums? Does anyone view it as a barrier to balance or an insult to design elegance? Not really. I'd venture to say that they even require skillful play. But they'll get mowed over for the sake of some rigid, abstract philosophy. Sorry, bud, go play a Kintaro. Maybe they don't want to play a Kintaro. Maybe they want to play a Centurion.

This train of thought leads to every mech being the same "gunbag" under different skin. Why would I want to have many mechs when select few allow me to use any loadout I want? This is bad for both PGI (no incentive to buy more mechs) and players (very little variety on the battlefield). This is why we see this as a solution, not a problem.

[merz]

the effort the original poster has put into this thread is commendable, and i very well understand the good nature of his intentions. unfortunately the kind of balance he seeks to strike may be achieved in a much simpler way requiring less resources: force stock mechs. instead of spending gargantuan effort on curbing build flexibility, go back to tt stock and let god sot them out, as they say.







i'm not being serious.

[Celthora]

This was my favorite post. I'm sorry to see it not to be updated.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Overwhelming negative response with very little positive input coupled with real life obligations made me decide not to continue this project, sorry.

[Widowmaker1981]

yeah, i don't really think too many people want forced stock builds, which is pretty much what your system is/was