128 replies to this topic

[DocBach]

I wouldn't say it forces stock builds as much as it restricts builds to pretty much their stock roles. You can't turn a long range JM6-S Jagermech into a short range boomjager for instance, but you could switch the small cannons around a bit or combine them into a Ultra AC, or change the lasers out for pulse or combine them for large lasers. It's sort of a lovechild of the MW4 hardpoint system, PGI's system, and the actual customization rules from Strategic Operations where you can only swap stuff out the same size or smaller.

Edited by DocBach, 08 November 2014 - 12:18 PM.

[CDLord HHGD]

DocBach, on 08 November 2014 - 12:11 PM, said:

I wouldn't say it forces stock builds as much as it restricts builds to pretty much their stock roles. You can't turn a long range JM6-S Jagermech into a short range boomjager for instance, but you could switch the small cannons around a bit or combine them into a Ultra AC. It's sort of a lovechild of the MW4 hardpoint system, PGI's system, and the actual customization rules from Strategic Operations where you can only swap stuff out the same size or smaller.

I think this is an important distinction. There is still plenty that can be done to tweak a mech (FF, ES, DHS, Engine) that we'd still enjoy a pretty robust mechlab. While it won't allow Boom/Gauss Jager/Cats, this customization is against the spirit of the battletech/mechwarrior genre.

[pyrocomp]

Rebas Kradd, on 10 October 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:

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.

PGI has access to all builds of all Mechs that are currently exist on all accounts. They can easily get statistics per chassis per build per player Elo solo/group, classify and number each even with restriction 'played at least once last month'. And they can apply all abovementioned cuts to get real figure what percentage of affected Mechs really is.
Such data mining would've been great to have (or there can be a direct publication to simplify things) to do all that. But now from all the discussions there are three options: ghost heat (really not working well espetially for ballistics), slow convergence (or no convergence at all), CoF (may be 1/10 or 1/20 of MG CoF, but really existing). Not a single of those will satisfy comunity, for there alway be angry ones for 'ruining my play'.
I, personally, wouldn't mind about some restrictions applied (like no PPC or AC/20 on Lights/Meds with known exclusions when Mech was specifically built around some weapon).

Edited by pyrocomp, 08 November 2014 - 01:55 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 November 2014 - 03:36 AM, said:

Overwhelming negative response with very little positive input...

You mean, people disagreed with you.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

No, I mean that there was very little discussion other than fallacies that this would keep all 'Mechs stock or completely remove customization from the game. This option was a project that Russ asked for, someone to go through each chassis and see which builds would be possible and which would be eliminated if a hardpoint system was implemented -- the system I chose was a combination of PGI's system and the one many players had brought up before, the MechLab slot restrictions from MechWarrior 4.

Interestingly though, as it turned out, many would work very well with the quirks PGI added -- for instance, the Centurion which received SRM-4 quirks would only be able to boat SRM-4's in this system as it was limited to three hardpoints that could total at most 3 slots.

I am working several nights a week and going to a full time program for my BSN while juggling time with my family; if nobody is interested in seeing the visualized Heavy 'Mech hardpoints, there is no reason for me to waste what little time I have for unproductive commentary.

Edited by Gerhardt Jorgensson, 08 November 2014 - 03:49 PM.

[pyrocomp]

Ignore whine and cries, 'this eliminates everything' and 'no way this will work', answer only to constructive criticism and remain calm. I'm for one is interested in this idea, not that my opinion weights much, but now you're yourself doing a negative generalization. With quirks added builds have changed. Changing meta is good for the game. So it certainly won't hurt the game if you'll finish your idea. After that there can be some discussion, what your system really leaves out of brackets.

[Rebas Kradd]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 08 November 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

No, I mean that there was very little discussion other than fallacies that this would keep all 'Mechs stock or completely remove customization from the game.

It wasn't a fallacy. You yourself did not deny that your CN9-A vision, for instance, would remove >80% of the current loadout permutations on that mech; you simply said "Well, go play another mech if you don't like it". Is that a harsh representation of your stance? Perhaps, but it's exactly the perception some people will get, no matter how you couched it.

I don't blame you for being too busy for a hobby project, but learn the difference between being trolled and being disagreed with. Offer your opinion, but don't expect everyone to love it and don't assume you can't be wrong.

Edited by Rebas Kradd, 09 November 2014 - 09:29 AM.

[kapusta11]

TT never had sized hardpoinds, come up with better way to limit huge alpha strikes, preferably without affecting other variables and limiting customization.

For example, you can't shoot more than 2 Gauss rifles at once, in practice you have a damage cap and everyone is fine with it, extend it on the rest of the weapons with some adjustments that factor in weapon's mechanic and range, like 30 long range FLD cap, 40 short range FLD cap, 40 long range laser cap, 50 short range laser cap, exact numbers are open for debates, the point is cap implementation.

Edited by kapusta11, 09 November 2014 - 09:45 AM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

kapusta11, on 09 November 2014 - 09:44 AM, said:

TT never had sized hardpoinds, come up with better way to limit huge alpha strikes, preferably without affecting other variables and limiting customization.

There was a rule set in Strategic or Interstellar Operations (of the top of my head I do not remember which, or have the book in front of me to check) that explained the difference between customizing and creating a brand new 'Mech.

The customizations we have in MWO go beyond the customizing rules for 'Mechs in the lore -- we are creating brand new ones.

If I remember correctly, the way MPBT 3025 limited the problem of alpha strikes slaved to the same reticle was diminished damage that had some sort of calculation to determine how much less damage each weapon fired at the same time did. MechWarrior does something similar with ghost heat and more recently, larger differences in projectile speed to break up front loaded damage to one location.

However, that is a different conversation then this one; this was to illustrate what a hardpoint system would look like. Like Rebas showed, it would eliminate the really popular builds (players would be forced to use certain 'Mechs to excel at roles -- ie the Trebuchet would have a job).