336 replies to this topic

[IceSerpent]

1453 R, on 09 October 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Sized Hardpoint Revision

Because, y'know, there isn't a thread out there suggesting just exactly that thing right up there that he could be taking as an example or anything...

1. You might want to actually read the thread you're linking next time around - Gerhardt's suggestion calls for combining stock weapon sizes with current MWO hardpoints, it doesn't always limit the size to that of a stock loadout.

2. Here's another thread with even more suggestions, which also don't limit hardpoints to stock.

[Xarian]

Ultimatum X, on 09 October 2014 - 08:50 AM, said:

Stop trying to find a perfect uniquely defined space for every single goofball mech that ever existed.

There are many mechs in the game. Some of these mechs are not worth playing because they are straight-up worse than other mechs, often variants of the same mech. If these mechs/variants were not intended to be played, they would not be in the game at all - it is extremely resource-inefficient to have content that nobody will ever use. Using this line of thought, it's pretty obvious that mechs being unplayable is unintentional.

Logic:

• Players want two features
  
• Developers use resources to include that feature and another mutually exclusive feature (cannot be used at the same time)
  
• Some factors are more important than others (for example, looking good is not as important as performing well)
  
• Due to these factors, one of the features can become an invalid choice (for example, it's not competitive or "unplayable")
  
• Players want a valid reason to use every feature because it adds variety to the game
  
• Developers then use resources to ensure that each feature is a valid choice

It's not rocket science. When you spend resources on putting a feature in the game - resources that you could've spent elsewhere - you have to make sure that the following is true:

• Every added feature has a good reason to use that feature

Otherwise, you just wasted your time and money. Translated over to Mechwarrior:

• Every Mech should have a reason to play it
  
• If a mech is the absolute best at its role, then other mecs fulfilling that role will not be used.

A good case here is the Hunchback: there's no reason to play it over the Shadow Hawk, because the Shadow Hawk does everything that the Hunchback does, except better. Following the above logic, you have two choices:

• Ignore the Hunchback, and delete it down the road if you need the "storage space" for more mechs
  
• Fix the situation so that there's a reason to use the Hunchback over the Shadow Hawk in some situations

Saying that "some mechs are just better than others" is the same as saying that you support PGI wasting their time and money putting features in the game that nobody would want to use. This is an utterly indefensible position.

Thus, from a logical as well as a reasonable standpoint, you're wrong.

[ApolloKaras]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

1. You might want to actually read the thread you're linking next time around - Gerhardt's suggestion calls for combining stock weapon sizes with current MWO hardpoints, it doesn't always limit the size to that of a stock loadout.

2. Here's another thread with even more suggestions, which also don't limit hardpoints to stock.

I've read these threads.. and at the end I'm still thinking to myself "Why do this?"

@Xarian thats why they are expanding the quirk system...

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 09:41 AM.

[IceSerpent]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

I've read these threads.. and at the end I'm still thinking to myself "Why do this?"

The idea is to replace ghost heat and gauss rifle "quirks" with a solution that is more intuitive and actually works.

[Josef Nader]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

The idea is to replace ghost heat and gauss rifle "quirks" with a solution that is more intuitive and actually works.

Except, as we've said dozens of times, it doesn't actually work as there are still plenty of mechs that can abuse the meta and it decapitates mechs that can no longer use the meta effectively.

Meta-humping players aren't about to stop ruthlessly exploiting the "best" stuff in this game just because you changed what can use the "best". They're going to find the mechs that can use the "best", even if it's only one or two chassis, and play that exclusively. Bad mechs get worse, good mechs get bad, and those of us that enjoy the challenge of winning fights in our bad mechs get shafted.

It does literally nothing to curb the problems with this game.

Also, I love how many people are buttmad about the gauss rifle charge up. It took me less than half a match to get the hang of it, and frankly, I love being able to charge-down my shots if I decide it's not worth wasting the round at long range. It's not even like charging weapons are new or different to FPS or simulator games. It's literally just inflexible people whining about a mechanic that slightly more involved than clicking a button.

EDIT: To clarify, meta players have no loyalty to the Victor, or the Dire Wolf, or the Timber Wolf. They don't give a flying Urbie about which chassis they're in. When I first started playing, it was Catapult K2s and Jenners. It eventually moved on to Cataphract 3Ds, SRM bombing Centurions, and Raven 3Ls. After that, it got updated to Victors, Shadow Hawks, and Spiders. They're going to change to whatever mech is considered best. They aren't about to stop doing that just because you whacked the VIctor in the face with the nerf-bat.

Edited by Josef Nader, 09 October 2014 - 09:51 AM.

[Xarian]

1453 R, on 09 October 2014 - 09:25 AM, said:

Actually no - sized hardpoints would remove the Shadow Hawk from contention as a serious machine, because most of its hardpoints would be single-slot wastes of space and single AC/5s have never once swung a game one way or another.

You know how you make the Hunchback unique and give it a reason to exist? You give it quirks that accentuate and enhance its ability to use large-bore ballistics, things like cooldown times or projectile speed increases or structural buffs that let it keep its cannon longer, and then you don't give those quirks to the Shadow Hawk. Now the Shawk can still use AC/20 builds if the Shawk player feels like that's what he wants his Shadow Hawk to do, but players who want the best medium-weight AC/20 they can find will go to the Yen-Lo-Wang Hunchback, instead. Man, it's really a shame Piranha's not going to be shipping out a huge quirk pass with all kinds of chassis-specific goodies any time soon...

What you don't do is say "NO BAD SHAWK PLAYER. You get 1x AC-5, 1x medium laser, 1x LRM-5, and 1x SRM-2, AND YOU WILL LIKE IT."

• It's still obvious that you haven't actually read any of the sized hardpoint proposals. Nobody wants them to be restricted to stock-only loadouts, because that's stupid.
  
• A single AC/5 certainly will swing the game. Every little bit counts, every weapon counts, and the AC/5 is widely considered to be one of the best weapons in the game. You don't need two of them.
  
• Buffs to weapon types decreases average TTK. Decreasing TTK is not a good thing in a game when people are already constantly complaining that TTK is too short.
  
• Compare Superman and Batman. Superman, despite being ridiculously powerful, is boring. Batman, despite having relatively minor super powers, is exciting. Mechs are defined as much by their limitations as they are by their strengths. A Shadow Hawk has amazing agility, good survivability, and has well-placed hardpoints. Being limited to taking LB-10 or lower, for example, would make the Hunchback stand out that much more.
  "Gee, that HBK is really scary because he can blow your leg off in 2 hits!" sure sounds like a better game than "Gee, that HBK sucks because it doesn't have jump jets"

[1453 R]

Xarian, on 09 October 2014 - 09:38 AM, said:

There are many mechs in the game. Some of these mechs are not worth playing because they are straight-up worse than other mechs, often variants of the same mech. If these mechs/variants were not intended to be played, they would not be in the game at all - it is extremely resource-inefficient to have content that nobody will ever use. Using this line of thought, it's pretty obvious that mechs being unplayable is unintentional.

Logic:

• Players want two features
  
• Developers use resources to include that feature and another mutually exclusive feature (cannot be used at the same time)
  
• Some factors are more important than others (for example, looking good is not as important as performing well)
  
• Due to these factors, one of the features can become an invalid choice (for example, it's not competitive or "unplayable")
  
• Players want a valid reason to use every feature because it adds variety to the game
  
• Developers then use resources to ensure that each feature is a valid choice

It's not rocket science. When you spend resources on putting a feature in the game - resources that you could've spent elsewhere - you have to make sure that the following is true:

• Every added feature has a good reason to use that feature

Otherwise, you just wasted your time and money. Translated over to Mechwarrior:

• Every Mech should have a reason to play it
  
• If a mech is the absolute best at its role, then other mecs fulfilling that role will not be used.

A good case here is the Hunchback: there's no reason to play it over the Shadow Hawk, because the Shadow Hawk does everything that the Hunchback does, except better. Following the above logic, you have two choices:

• Ignore the Hunchback, and delete it down the road if you need the "storage space" for more mechs
  
• Fix the situation so that there's a reason to use the Hunchback over the Shadow Hawk in some situations

Saying that "some mechs are just better than others" is the same as saying that you support PGI wasting their time and money putting features in the game that nobody would want to use. This is an utterly indefensible position.

Thus, from a logical as well as a reasonable standpoint, you're wrong.

Inner. Sphere. Quirk. Pass.

Instead of punishing Shadow Hawk players for not being Hunchback players, how about you give Hunchback players special bonuses for being Hunchback players? Give the Hunchback quirks that enhance its natural role as an AC/20 with feet, and then don't give those quirks to the Shadow Hawk. Suddenly, look at that! The Hunchback is still the game's medium-weight AC/20 specialist, with a more effective AC/20 in the medium weight bracket than anyone else, but people can still play generalist AC/20 Shadow Hawks if that's what they like to play.

Instead of being forced to play Shadow Hawks as single-AC/5 oversized Sentinels with every last little bit of the 'Mech's infamous, rookie-friendly versatility stripped away from it because all its natural hardpoints are one-slot popguns.

[ApolloKaras]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 09:43 AM, said:

The idea is to replace ghost heat and gauss rifle "quirks" with a solution that is more intuitive and actually works.

Its not a quirk you're limiting the scope of builds. This will in turn take people away from some of these mechs and turn them to the one that will give the most benefit. One thread is suggesting removing an Large laser hard point from the 3L on the arm.... what? All the while leaving the Ember alone? Some of these mechs already have a role and shouldn't be played around with if you want it to continue being in the game.

As a comp player and know MANY who are also, spend a lot of time looking at every variant and maximizing its full potential. That will not change. Give me a sized hard point system and I'll give you a build to maximize it.

So what if you just remove the 'class 4' (ppc) from the group, the 'meta' will be at that time ER/Large lasers. This solves nothing and will in the future give a whole host of new "problems". I would have LOVED to have seen Gerhardt's take on the Griffin 3M while minimizing the hard point sizes on the rest of the other medium chassis.

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 09:56 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Xarian, on 09 October 2014 - 09:50 AM, said:

• It's still obvious that you haven't actually read any of the sized hardpoint proposals. Nobody wants them to be restricted to stock-only loadouts, because that's stupid.
  
• A single AC/5 certainly will swing the game. Every little bit counts, every weapon counts, and the AC/5 is widely considered to be one of the best weapons in the game. You don't need two of them.
  
• Buffs to weapon types decreases average TTK. Decreasing TTK is not a good thing in a game when people are already constantly complaining that TTK is too short.
  
• Compare Superman and Batman. Superman, despite being ridiculously powerful, is boring. Batman, despite having relatively minor super powers, is exciting. Mechs are defined as much by their limitations as they are by their strengths. A Shadow Hawk has amazing agility, good survivability, and has well-placed hardpoints. Being limited to taking LB-10 or lower, for example, would make the Hunchback stand out that much more.
  
  "Gee, that HBK is really scary because he can blow your leg off in 2 hits!" sure sounds like a better game than "Gee, that HBK sucks because it doesn't have jump jets"

Again, you're showing a complete lack of understanding of how competitive players work, how a metagame is defined, and how meta-humpers try to make up for their lack of skill by using what people consider to be the "best" loadout. This "boy howdy golly gee wilikers this mech is super special because it can use this one specific weapon" is meaningless if the mech has bad hitboxes and limited ability. The Wolverine has agility, jump jets, and good survivability, but you don't see it lighting a fire under the metagame because it's hardpoints are innately inferior to the Shadow Hawk or Griffin. Kneecapping the Shad and the Griff isn't going to make the Wolverine better, it's simply going to bump those mechs down into the unused bin with the Wolverine.

[IceSerpent]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

Except, as we've said dozens of times, it doesn't actually work as there are still plenty of mechs that can abuse the meta and it decapitates mechs that can no longer use the meta effectively.

Meta-humping players aren't about to stop ruthlessly exploiting the "best" stuff in this game just because you changed what can use the "best". They're going to find the mechs that can use the "best", even if it's only one or two chassis, and play that exclusively. Bad mechs get worse, good mechs get bad, and those of us that enjoy the challenge of winning fights in our bad mechs get shafted.

Except, as we've said dozens of times, it's not intended as a solution to fix broken weapon balance, but a solution that curbs boating (a replacement for GH). Different issues call for different solutions, quiaff?

[Xarian]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 09:39 AM, said:

@Xarian thats why they are expanding the quirk system...

Two situations: either the quirk is equivalent to having jump jets, or it isn't. If it's equivalent, then the quirk is probably too strong because JJs are really, incredibly good. If it isn't equivalent to having jump jets, then you'll just keep playing the mech with Jump Jets.

The alternate course of action is to restrict the really amazingly good mechs. Not by making them flat-out worse, but by forcing them to use weaponry with less front-loaded damage. Thus you can give a HBK some quirks to make it better but not as good as adding JJs, and you give the SHD some quirks to restrict its weaponry choices: this doesn't make the mech worse overall, but it makes specific builds less accessible.

[ApolloKaras]

Xarian, on 09 October 2014 - 09:57 AM, said:

Two situations: either the quirk is equivalent to having jump jets, or it isn't. If it's equivalent, then the quirk is probably too strong because JJs are really, incredibly good. If it isn't equivalent to having jump jets, then you'll just keep playing the mech with Jump Jets.

The alternate course of action is to restrict the really amazingly good mechs. Not by making them flat-out worse, but by forcing them to use weaponry with less front-loaded damage. Thus you can give a HBK some quirks to make it better but not as good as adding JJs, and you give the SHD some quirks to restrict its weaponry choices: this doesn't make the mech worse overall, but it makes specific builds less accessible.

Why don't we wait instead of pushing a system that will be flawed in the end. That should be said from the people pushing the hard point sizes. Comp players will find a way to max the potential and find the most efficient chassis. In the end you have the same problem. If there are multiple energy hard points/ballistic hard points there will always be boating.

[Josef Nader]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

Except, as we've said dozens of times, it's not intended as a solution to fix broken weapon balance, but a solution that curbs boating (a replacement for GH). Different issues call for different solutions, quiaff?

Except, as we've said a dozen times, you're using the term "boat" and "mech I don't like" interchangeably while ignoring mechs that could run these loadouts stock as non-problematic. I fail to understand why a sized hardpoint solution is any better than Ghost Heat, who's only serious problem is it's lack of documentation and who's effects have been very beneficial to the game as a whole.

Again, there are stock mechs that run the loadouts you're complaining about, yet somehow it's a sin for mechs of very similar (if not identical) weight classes to use these loadouts because it violates some inherent "job" of the mech. It's a completely backwards notion with no internal consistency or value for balance that simply seeks to placate tabletop nerds who are upset that the Shadow Hawk is being used as a Juggernaut and the Victor is being used as a Brawler.

[Almond Brown]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

This :-)

I just wonder when the meta shifts if there will be a plea to change hard point sizes constantly....

Nope. There would be no re-do's. It would be a complete system over-haul and never in any games history, has a major system over-haul (which are rare like hens teeth to start with) been rescinded, despite the QQ level.

It is one thing for the Dev to make minor changes to a design, but if they cave to the community and it goes south, game over. Besides. Community consensus saves Dev teams from this problem. Always has and will this time as well.

[1453 R]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 09:49 AM, said:

Also, I love how many people are buttmad about the gauss rifle charge up. It took me less than half a match to get the hang of it, and frankly, I love being able to charge-down my shots if I decide it's not worth wasting the round at long range. It's not even like charging weapons are new or different to FPS or simulator games. It's literally just inflexible people whining about a mechanic that slightly more involved than clicking a button.

Hear, hear. I actually really like the Gauss charge-up mechanic and feel as if it's contributed to both my accuracy and my ammunition efficiency with the weapon. I waste less rounds on bad snapshots, and I can correct my aim with the weapon and release the shot more naturally than I could with the original instant-fire mechanism. I enjoy playing with the gauss rifle more since the introduction of the charge mechanic, not less, and feel it's helped the weapon feel both more powerful and more unique.

Not everybody shares an identical vision of what MWO should be, doods. If it did, Piranha's job would be stupidly easy and there wouldn't be any need for forums at all.

[IceSerpent]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 09:54 AM, said:

Its not a quirk you're limiting the scope of builds.

My proposal only limits boating of large weapons while leaving the rest of the builds as-is. Other proposals impose more limits to various extent.

Quote

One thread is suggesting removing an Large laser hard point from the 3L on the arm.... what? All the while leaving the Ember alone? Some of these mechs already have a role and shouldn't be played around with if you want it to continue being in the game.

Personally, I agree. If you have an objection to a specific part of a specific proposal, maybe you should voice it in that particular thread?

Quote

As a comp player and know MANY who are also, spend a lot of time looking at every variant and maximizing its full potential. That will not change. Give me a sized hard point system and I'll give you a build to maximize it.

I don't doubt that. Again, sized hardpoints are intended to replace GH, not fix every single problem in MWO. Does GH prevent you from creating meta-builds in general? No. So, why do you expect its replacement to do it?

[Xarian]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 09:55 AM, said:

Again, you're showing a complete lack of understanding of how competitive players work, how a metagame is defined, and how meta-humpers try to make up for their lack of skill by using what people consider to be the "best" loadout. This "boy howdy golly gee wilikers this mech is super special because it can use this one specific weapon" is meaningless if the mech has bad hitboxes and limited ability. The Wolverine has agility, jump jets, and good survivability, but you don't see it lighting a fire under the metagame because it's hardpoints are innately inferior to the Shadow Hawk or Griffin. Kneecapping the Shad and the Griff isn't going to make the Wolverine better, it's simply going to bump those mechs down into the unused bin with the Wolverine.

I am fully aware of how competitive players work: you pick the builds that give you a statistical advantage. Currently that means PPC/Gauss or multi-Gauss for long range using high-mounted hardpoints, backed up by SRM spam for short range. Low-slung hardpoints are always disfavored because you can't use cover as effectively.

But suddenly, what if the low-slung hardpoints had a competitive advantage because they could mount heavier weapons? What if dual Gauss builds simply ceased to exist, except on Assault mechs and certain fragile/otherwise-subpar variants designed specifically for that purpose? What if poptarting only worked with mechs that had other significant drawbacks? The whole game changes.

Your argument here is that "The WVR is worse than the SHD and the GRF, so nobody will play it... but if we nerf the SHD Hawk and the GRF, nobody will play any of them". What will they be replaced by, then? KTO? TBT? Maybe there will be more than 2 obvious choices for the best IS Medium?! It's almost like you're finally working out the argument that we've been trying to make since the beginning.

You're pretty mistaken in assuming that "meta humpers" compensate for lack of skill by using statistically optimized builds: if you're a skilled player who likes to win, why would you handicap yourself? Also, how do you think that people figured out these "meta" builds in the first place? It was because competitive players kept playing around until they found the most powerful combinations.

The idea is to dilute the powerful combinations in such a way that the "meta" expands from 2 or 3 obvious choices to being many obvious choices. Taking a bunch of ERSL on a DWF will always be a bad idea, but taking an AC/20 on a HBK should be a good idea at some point.

Quirks won't increase TTK. Hardpoint sizing will increase TTK. Want to increase TTK? Restrict hardpoints.

[Almond Brown]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

And we're back off topic. Hardpoints are meant to eliminate the meta-overkill builds that BOAT particular combinations of weapons in mechs that should not carry them, thereby imbalancing gameplay. 65 ton dual gauss boats, or ppc/ac5 boats are the problem, not 100 ton assaults. Why is that so hard to comprehend?

Please go to Smurfy's and build everyone a 65t 2 Gauss Boat and let's see how it turns out.

Now remember. It has to have a BIG Engine (to go fast with), Max Armor (in case a Light or 2 finds it alone) and a min. of 15 minutes worth of ammo (just in case a Match goes the distance). Oh and some back up weapons would be preferred as well. (nothing crazy required)

Thanks and looking forward to your 65t Boat of Doom.

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 October 2014 - 10:14 AM.

[Xarian]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 10:05 AM, said:

It's a completely backwards notion with no internal consistency or value for balance that simply seeks to placate tabletop nerds who are upset that the Shadow Hawk is being used as a Juggernaut and the Victor is being used as a Brawler.

That's not why people are upset. It's because the SHD is being used as a better Juggernaut.

Take a decent mech. Add the ability to use JJs. You end up with a better mech.

Would you be in favor of giving the HBK jump jets? No? Me either: because making the mechs identical to each other won't make for a better game - it makes it boring. Restricting something like the SHD, on the other hand, makes you think "Well, I want to make an AC/20 striker, but I also want to make a Jump Jet striker... hard decision between the HBK and the SHD". That's a whole lot better decision than "Well, I want to make an AC/20 striker, but it's hard to decide between this 15% cooldown reduction on my HBK and having jump jets on this SHD". Partially because JJs are going to win every time, unless the bonus to HBK is so powerful that it dramatically decreases TTK.

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 10:13 AM, said:

Please go to Smurfy's and build everyone a 65t 2 Gauss Boat and let's see how it turns out.

Now remember. It has to have a BIG Engine (to go fast with), Max Armor (in case a Light or 2 finds it alone) and a min. of 15 minutes worth of ammo (just in case a Match goes the distance). Oh and some back up weapons would be preferred as well. (nothing crazy required)

Thanks and looking forward to your 65t Boat of Doom.

You are aware that twin Gauss in 65t and lower mechs is a thing, right? A very common thing, used in competitive play?

[ApolloKaras]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 10:07 AM, said:

My proposal only limits boating of large weapons while leaving the rest of the builds as-is. Other proposals impose more limits to various extent.

If a mech has many energy hardpoints it will always be a boat there will be no way around it. You'll still be 'boating', look @ the Timberwolf laser vomit. That is a great example of how hard point restrictions will not assist you in this endeavor.

Quote

Personally, I agree. If you have an objection to a specific part of a specific proposal, maybe you should voice it in that particular thread?

I only commented on the threads that you have linked. Unless you have formed your own proposal and I have missed the link.

Quote

I don't doubt that. Again, sized hardpoints are intended to replace GH, not fix every single problem in MWO. Does GH prevent you from creating meta-builds in general? No. So, why do you expect its replacement to do it?

Ghost heat does prevent quite a few builds in fact its all but eliminated a few mechs. I have to plan around Ghost heat in several different areas. So yes it DOES eliminate some builds. With the hard point restriction and eliminating ghost heat you bring back some VERY nasty possibilities. Even if you are eliminating the ghost heat issue, there are still a few mechs that would rear its ugly head and upset the entire system that you ventured to create.

Also everyone using the word meta... You realize the Meta is temporary and flows like the water caught up in an ocean current. You change the conditions the water will just flow to different pastures. So your new 'meta' will be something else. We'll have people complaining about that too.


EDIT:

Quote

You are aware that twin Gauss in 65t and lower mechs is a thing, right? A very common thing, used in competitive play?

Below 65 tons... huh?

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 10:22 AM.