336 replies to this topic

[Josef Nader]

If nothing can mount PPC/Gauss/AC5 combinations any more, people will stop using those combinations and find what the next best problematic build is, and then ruthlessly exploit that. That's what you don't seem to understand. You're so bloody fixated on that small handful of weapons that you're completely ignoring that the meta players don't actually care about those weapons. In the same way that they don't really give a flying Urbanmech about which chassis those weapons are on, they're using those weapons simply because they're the "best" in the current metagame. If you removed their ability to mount those weapons on good chassis, they would simply experiment till they found the next "best" thing and ruthlessly exploit that. Then folks just like yourself would come to these forums a lot like you are right now and complain that something should be done about all those unbalanced builds.

Meanwhile, folks like myself will look forlornly at our shattered garage of useless mechs that we've dumped hundreds, if not thousands of hours into mastering, and take out the tiny handful of mechs that can still mount somewhat viable hardpoints.

Your memory is hilariously short. I remember when the only "competitive" medium mech was the Cicada 3M, and it only showed up in competitions where certain weight class configurations were mandated by the competition. Comp teams just didn't use medium mechs if they didn't have to, and the only reason it showed up was to get another ECM on the field.

I remember when Small Laser boating HBK-4Ps were the top competitive mech, wrestling with the Gaussapult for dominance, and eventually getting killed off by engine caps. I remember when large laser boat assaults and heavies were stomping around kicking everything in the groin, because PPCs were too hot and ACs were useless thanks to hit detection issues, high weight, and slow RoF. I remember when the gauss was king, when it got dethroned by the AC20, when it reclaimed it's throne, and then when it got dethroned by the AC5. I remember when the AC2 had it's short run in the sun as a stupidly powerful earthquake stunlock machine. I remember when the bloody Streak SRM2 was a CT seeking death missile that would core assaults in 3-4 volleys of never-missing missiles.

My point is that people will use whatever they can to get the best advantage. Using weapon size hardpoints to kill a very small selection of builds that you see as problematic will not change this attitude. It will simply change what's on the field. What you're ignoring is the huge volume of unintended casualties that get completely removed from the game by such a system, as they no longer mount hardpoints you can even do anything with.

And why would a competitive player use a less than optimal mech? Because not every match is a live-or-die tournament battle where the outcome has significance and everyone needs to be pulling for absolute victory at all costs. Many good players can take bad mechs and spank the hell out of bad players in good mechs, or even good players in good mechs. Playing with a handicap makes you better when you take the training weights off. Playing with different builds and loadouts makes you more diverse, more flexible, and more likely to stay on top of the game when the meta shifts. You develop a deep understanding of different mechs, playstyles, loadouts, and strategies that you can then take to the competitive field and use to your advantage.

Bad "meta" players use the best mechs as a crutch because they can't win any other way. Good "meta" players step outside of the "meta" when there are no consequences to losing and experiment with vastly different strategies and tactics, gaining the edge against the players in group 1 when they discover a nifty little trick or new optimization they can make to their meta builds that give them the edge. One group of players is using the meta to define their playstyle, while the other group of players is defining the meta through their playstyle.

[Why Run]

CPLT-K2

65ts

Probably don't need all the ammo, and a couple more DHS would help, but that was quick and dirty. Who needs backup to 2ppc gauss? 74kph and near full armor.

Edited by Why Run, 09 October 2014 - 10:28 AM.

[1453 R]

Xarian, on 09 October 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

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.

Naïve, short-sighted, and showing a complete lack of understanding of how game balance and high-level competition works.

Destroy the Shadow Hawk and the Griffon – and make no mistake, you would be destroying them by restricting them to their stock armaments, not “slightly nerfing them in a logical and intuitive manner” – and no, there wouldn’t be more than two obvious “best” choices for IS medium. The game would fluctuate for a while as people sought out the next ‘Mech which accomplished what the Shadow Hawk and Griffon used to accomplish as much as possible, and then that would be the obvious best choice for IS medium. And you folks would move on to trying to find some obscure twisting of the lore and the TT canon to ruin that ‘Mech, too.

Diversity is achieved by making more than one style of play viable. As it stands, not all styles of play are viable. Restricting those viable styles of play from use on certain chassis doesn’t make them less viable, or make other styles of play more viable. It simply restricts the number of ‘Mechs capable of competing at the high end.

Even if the Awesome was the only ‘Mech in the game capable of mounting PPCs, it would be a garbage ‘Mech because it’s the size of Massachusetts and very easy to kill. Even if the Hunchback was the only ‘Mech in the game capable of mounting an AC/20, it would be a sub-optimal medium because of much the same reason the Awesome is – it’s pretty easy and straightforward to rip the hunch off a Hunchback and declaw it.

The solution is to look at each chassis individually and address its weaknesses in some way, as well as accentuating its strengths, in order to try and mitigate crippling flaws with a given ‘Mech and give it a role beyond rookie trap. Maaaaan, if only there was a system in the game that could be used to help shroe up a ‘Mech’s weaknesses and accentuate its strong points, help give it a unique identity without taking away from the identities and capabilities of ‘Mechs that are already good just to make people feel less bad about taking a Hunchback over a Shadow Hawk. That would be a pretty killer system. Why, I bet it could even be used to help address the remaining Clan/IS imbalances without ruining the sub-par Clan ‘Mechs any more, or making Ghost Heat even more opaque and nonsensical than it already is!

I really wish we had a system like that. It’d be such a helpful way to target specific problems in the game and fix them locally instead of blanket nerfhammering the entire game over and over and over and over again because Victors and Timber Wolves give people conniptions.

[IceSerpent]

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

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 don't. Never said anything even close to that. The problem as I see it is that possibility of "outflier" builds that boat PPCs, Gauss rifles, AC20s, etc. makes it difficult to balance the game. I.e. it stand to reason that AC20 should be very powerful, but then a mech that packs 3 of them becomes way too powerful while mech that only has 1 is still ok. Placing a hard upper limit on how many of those weapons can be boated makes balancing much easier.

Quote

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.

1. GH is counter-intuitive (and lacks proper documentation, as you've said), while concept of large gun not fitting into a small mount is self-explanatory.
2. GH doesn't prevent all problematic builds, while hurting quite a few stock ones
3. GH encourages chain fire builds at the expense of alpha-strikers, which results in two problems:
3.1 Chain firing requires you to continuously face the target, so your survival depends on armor instead of your damage -spreading skills. This makes heavier mechs automatically better as long as they are still fast enough to track the target.
3.2 Chain firing is highly susceptible to macros, as they allow for precise timing between shots. This gives advantage to people who use "computer assistance" over people who try to time shots manually.

To summarize, GH has been anything but "very beneficial". It creates more problems than it solves.

[Josef Nader]

Xarian, on 09 October 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

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.

HBK-4G
SHD-2D

Sorry buddy, these are not the same mech. The Hunchback is faster, it has a 42 degree wider torso twist arc, 8kph of speed, a smaller profile, and smaller hitboxes. Frankly, I'd take my Hunchback over my Shadow Hawk any day. I think it's the better in-fighter, and I like how it handles in CQC a lot more than I like my Shadow Hawk.

There are plenty of factors beyond "jumping/non-jumping" that you're completely ignoring. You're just looking at the mechs on paper, without actually taking them into live competition or factoring in the number of factors in a mech's construction that lie beyond simply what fills up it's tonnage and crit slots.

[Why Run]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

If nothing can mount PPC/Gauss/AC5 combinations any more, people will stop using those combinations and find what the next best problematic build is, and then ruthlessly exploit that. That's what you don't seem to understand. You're so bloody fixated on that small handful of weapons that you're completely ignoring that the meta players don't actually care about those weapons. In the same way that they don't really give a flying Urbanmech about which chassis those weapons are on, they're using those weapons simply because they're the "best" in the current metagame. If you removed their ability to mount those weapons on good chassis, they would simply experiment till they found the next "best" thing and ruthlessly exploit that. Then folks just like yourself would come to these forums a lot like you are right now and complain that something should be done about all those unbalanced builds.

Meanwhile, folks like myself will look forlornly at our shattered garage of useless mechs that we've dumped hundreds, if not thousands of hours into mastering, and take out the tiny handful of mechs that can still mount somewhat viable hardpoints.

Your memory is hilariously short. I remember when the only "competitive" medium mech was the Cicada 3M, and it only showed up in competitions where certain weight class configurations were mandated by the competition. Comp teams just didn't use medium mechs if they didn't have to, and the only reason it showed up was to get another ECM on the field.

I remember when Small Laser boating HBK-4Ps were the top competitive mech, wrestling with the Gaussapult for dominance, and eventually getting killed off by engine caps. I remember when large laser boat assaults and heavies were stomping around kicking everything in the groin, because PPCs were too hot and ACs were useless thanks to hit detection issues, high weight, and slow RoF. I remember when the gauss was king, when it got dethroned by the AC20, when it reclaimed it's throne, and then when it got dethroned by the AC5. I remember when the AC2 had it's short run in the sun as a stupidly powerful earthquake stunlock machine. I remember when the bloody Streak SRM2 was a CT seeking death missile that would core assaults in 3-4 volleys of never-missing missiles.

My point is that people will use whatever they can to get the best advantage. Using weapon size hardpoints to kill a very small selection of builds that you see as problematic will not change this attitude. It will simply change what's on the field. What you're ignoring is the huge volume of unintended casualties that get completely removed from the game by such a system, as they no longer mount hardpoints you can even do anything with.

And why would a competitive player use a less than optimal mech? Because not every match is a live-or-die tournament battle where the outcome has significance and everyone needs to be pulling for absolute victory at all costs. Many good players can take bad mechs and spank the hell out of bad players in good mechs, or even good players in good mechs. Playing with a handicap makes you better when you take the training weights off. Playing with different builds and loadouts makes you more diverse, more flexible, and more likely to stay on top of the game when the meta shifts. You develop a deep understanding of different mechs, playstyles, loadouts, and strategies that you can then take to the competitive field and use to your advantage.

Bad "meta" players use the best mechs as a crutch because they can't win any other way. Good "meta" players step outside of the "meta" when there are no consequences to losing and experiment with vastly different strategies and tactics, gaining the edge against the players in group 1 when they discover a nifty little trick or new optimization they can make to their meta builds that give them the edge. One group of players is using the meta to define their playstyle, while the other group of players is defining the meta through their playstyle.

There will be more optimal combinations. In the last tournament literally only the Victor was used in the heavy class if you wanted to win. PERIOD. And then came the nerf hammer, HARD. That is not fun. That is not diversity, that is NOT mechwarrior. You're right, you'll never eliminate some folk's need to find the "BEST", but when there are many VIABLE best options, diversity follows. Right now we do not have that, not even close, and the fix is not more ghost heat, or more limits on firing combination. Simple logical limits to avoid some abusive weapons configurations that DO NOT result in punishing the rest of us, would go a long way to broaden "the best mechs" into a large group, not the current tier chart which sees 75% below tier 3. Thats all I have to say, this is far too circular and becoming pointless.

[Malcolm Vordermark]

oops, somehow I made it into the wrong thread.

Edited by Rouken, 09 October 2014 - 10:38 AM.

[Tastian]

As much as I am all for hardpoint size restrictions (and I've already started 2 threads about it); I honestly don't see anything changing. I got excited when I saw Russ' challenge, but until PGI steps in a says that they are seriously considering it, starts a poll themselves, or starts commenting/throwing out ideas in one of these threads; I don't think its going to happen.

There are several hardpoint ideas being offered but i'm surprised how many quickly grasp on to ghost heat like a security blanket instead of listening and offering constructive opinions and alternatives.

[1453 R]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 10:25 AM, said:

Bad "meta" players use the best mechs as a crutch because they can't win any other way. Good "meta" players step outside of the "meta" when there are no consequences to losing and experiment with vastly different strategies and tactics, gaining the edge against the players in group 1 when they discover a nifty little trick or new optimization they can make to their meta builds that give them the edge. One group of players is using the meta to define their playstyle, while the other group of players is defining the meta through their playstyle.

If I wasn't at work, I'd be finding a YT video of a large, enthusiastically applauding crowd to put in this post. That sentence up there put a big smile on my face, and you have my regards for putting it there, good sir. It's good to see that some people really, truly get it.

Keep up the fight.

[Josef Nader]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 10:34 AM, said:

There will be more optimal combinations. In the last tournament literally only the Victor was used in the heavy class if you wanted to win. PERIOD. And then came the nerf hammer, HARD. That is not fun. That is not diversity, that is NOT mechwarrior. You're right, you'll never eliminate some folk's need to find the "BEST", but when there are many VIABLE best options, diversity follows. Right now we do not have that, not even close, and the fix is not more ghost heat, or more limits on firing combination. Simple logical limits to avoid some abusive weapons configurations that DO NOT result in punishing the rest of us, would go a long way to broaden "the best mechs" into a large group, not the current tier chart which sees 75% below tier 3. Thats all I have to say, this is far too circular and becoming pointless.

Every single game in the world has top tier weapons/loadouts/characters/builds that are exclusively used at the highest level of play. It's how human psychology works. Any advantage, real or perceived, will be exploited ruthlessly in the effort of winning.

Name me a single game competitive PvP game that does not have a defined meta consisting of a small handful of "tier 1" playstyles that dominate the highest level of competition while a large breadth of the game goes unused. The stratification of playstyles into tiers is not a result of the game, it's a result of human beings, and gamer culture. Nothing PGI does will ever, ever change that.

[IceSerpent]

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 10:19 AM, said:

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.

I don't have a problem with every single boat - i.e. Hunchie 4P can boat 9 MLs all day long, as far as I am concerned.

Quote

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

It's in the original "Russ's challenge" thread, also linked from the second thread I used as an example. Basically, I suggest implementing the ability to limit HP size, but only use it on specific mechs to prevent certain builds (i.e. limit number of PPCs or AC20s on assaults that have enough hardpoints, while still alowing "boating"of smaller weapons).

Quote

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.

Can you give an example of such nasty possibility?

[Josef Nader]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

Can you give an example of such nasty possibility?

Warhawk Prime. 4 CERPPCs fired off at once, giving you a 40 point pinpoint alpha, and dealing 10 points of damage to two adjacent components. Sure, it's hot, but without the ghost heat it can make those shots at 810m, blast a hole in your mech, and disappear to cool down. Plus, with all those heat sinks, it'll have a significantly higher rate of fire AND survivability than the 4x PPC Stalker ever did.

Dire Wolf Prime, 4 ERLL. Drop the 2x MPLas in each arm and you can get up to 6 ERLL, and enough heat sinks to keep that mother cool.

King Crab -000. Twin AC20s all day long.

Nova Prime. 84 damage in less than 2 seconds, retreat to cool off. It was devastating in Tabletop, and it'll be devastating here.

Mad Dog A. 72 damage in a single trigger pull with heat to spare. Splat.

[ApolloKaras]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 10:43 AM, said:

I don't have a problem with every single boat - i.e. Hunchie 4P can boat 9 MLs all day long, as far as I am concerned.




It's in the original "Russ's challenge" thread, also linked from the second thread I used as an example. Basically, I suggest implementing the ability to limit HP size, but only use it on specific mechs to prevent certain builds (i.e. limit number of PPCs or AC20s on assaults that have enough hardpoints, while still alowing "boating"of smaller weapons).



Can you give an example of such nasty possibility?

The IS med lasers heat has been increased also to eliminate boating already, as McGral18 always points out the IS Med laser and IS Med pulse laser are way over the top on heat by default.

Nova, any ER Large build that would arise from a hard point classed sizing, the large ballistic mechs that are in game now but may be in the future, see also any current energy boat for innersphere/clan basically. Even if you do limit the hard points on a lot of these variants they would be moved from er ppc/ppc size to er large/large laser sizes. Timberwolf would be another obstacle to overcome. AC2 DD will definitely come back (not in a competitive scene mind you) know we would hear something about that, even though its just really a troll build. These are just a few off the top of my head.


EDIT:

good call Josef I was stuck on energy boats

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

[1453 R]

Tastian, on 09 October 2014 - 10:40 AM, said:

As much as I am all for hardpoint size restrictions (and I've already started 2 threads about it); I honestly don't see anything changing. I got excited when I saw Russ' challenge, but until PGI steps in a says that they are seriously considering it, starts a poll themselves, or starts commenting/throwing out ideas in one of these threads; I don't think its going to happen.

There are several hardpoint ideas being offered but i'm surprised how many quickly grasp on to ghost heat like a security blanket instead of listening and offering constructive opinions and alternatives.

Ghost Heat is a bad idea and should go away. Sized hardpoints is a worse idea and should never be implemented. I've seen several Ghost Heat Replacement threads with much better, more streamlined and easily communicated systems proposed that I've thrown my support behind. I believe most of them have been developed by Homeless Bill, who should by all rights be working for Piranha at this point.

Failing the ability to exorcise Ghost Heat and replace it with a more reasonable control on alpha strikes without destroying nine out of ten 'Mechs in this game the way a sized hardpoint system would, I see the drastic expansion of the quirk system as our best bet for achieving true diversity of playstyles, by offering specific benefits and cool, unique modifiers to specific chassis that allow players looking for something interesting and outside the norm to experiment, while also allowing room to make sane and necessary chassis-specific nerfs to rein in outliers (without hopefully rendering them garbage for most of their given jobs, a'la the VTR Giganerf).

Example: give the HBK-4G, the classic AC/20 Punchback, a 12.5% ballistic weapon cooldown reduction and a further 12.5% cooldown reduction for the AC/20 specifically, for a total of 25% cooldown reduction for the classic TT AC/20 Punchback. Anyone who's done DPS math for CDR bonuses knows that 25% reduction is a massive DPS increase for a given weapon, and since the Punchback gets it and the SHD doesn't, the Punchback becomes a definitively better choice for aggressive AC/20 DPS at the cost of thin fifty-tonner armor and more fragile, easily targetable Hunchboxes.

This would give players something resembling a meaningful choice - do you go with the increased sturdiness, jump-assisted mobility, and improved backup weapon options of the self-sufficient Shadow Hawk, or do you go with the raw, rampant, but fragile aggression of the much more team-focused Hunchback? It's not "I want an AC/20 (C-bill) medium, I think...WELP, LOOKS LIKE I GOT ONLY ONE CHOICE."

Because that last bit there sounds an awful lot like what already happens these days, dunnit?

Edited by 1453 R, 09 October 2014 - 11:00 AM.

[Why Run]

I just don't get what is so scary about hardpoint limits to reduce the number of boating meta mechs, unless thats your most used mech. It doesn't hinder 90% of the game, it may enable the repeal of ghost heat and using hard points as a transparent limiter instead makes it clear "no dual ppc/gauss for you". It should, in theory enable more transparent comparison across mechs, and

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Warhawk Prime. 4 CERPPCs fired off at once, giving you a 40 point pinpoint alpha, and dealing 10 points of damage to two adjacent components. Sure, it's hot, but without the ghost heat it can make those shots at 810m, blast a hole in your mech, and disappear to cool down. Plus, with all those heat sinks, it'll have a significantly higher rate of fire AND survivability than the 4x PPC Stalker ever did.

Dire Wolf Prime, 4 ERLL. Drop the 2x MPLas in each arm and you can get up to 6 ERLL, and enough heat sinks to keep that mother cool.

King Crab -000. Twin AC20s all day long.

Nova Prime. 84 damage in less than 2 seconds, retreat to cool off. It was devastating in Tabletop, and it'll be devastating here.

Mad Dog A. 72 damage in a single trigger pull with heat to spare. Splat.

Stalker would be more fearsome, if they were all PPC capable slots... (NOT LIKELY)

6LLs in a 100 ton mech? SO? More likely you'd be limited to smaller lasers in the torso, but debateable.

Another 100 ton mech. Tons of space, ammo dependent and a whopping 270 effective range in a slow crawler... YAWN

Nova would still overheat, beam duration mean it's not PP (it was not OP when first introduced, won't be again) and if you have to shoot and retreat, sounds like TTK would plummet. Plus, you'll never get 84 damage on one spot in this MWO. Sorry.

scary heavies? Sure, SRMs? Short range, so how much damage did you take getting there? But there would be lots of viable builds.

Edited by Why Run, 09 October 2014 - 11:01 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 11:01 AM, said:

I just don't get what is so scary about hardpoint limits to reduce the number of boating meta mechs, unless thats your most used mech. It doesn't hinder 90% of the game, it may enable the repeal of ghost heat and using hard points as a transparent limiter instead makes it clear "no dual ppc/gauss for you". It should, in theory enable more transparent comparison across mechs, and

Stalker would be more fearsome, if they were all PPC capable slots... (NOT LIKELY)

6LLs in a 100 ton mech? SO? More likely you'd be limited to smaller lasers in the torso, but debateable.

Another 100 ton mech. Tons of space, ammo dependent and a whopping 270 effective range in a slow crawler... YAWN

Nova would still overheat, beam duration mean it's not PP (it was not OP when first introduced, won't be again) and if you have to shoot and retreat, sounds like TTK would plummet. Plus, you'll never get 84 damage on one spot in this MWO. Sorry.

scary heavies? Sure, SRMs? Short range, so how much damage did you take getting there? But there would be lots of viable builds.

Now you're just nit picking, and this is why nobody takes you seriously.

Those are just the mechs I could think of off of the top of my head.

Saying "oh, but the Stalker is scarier" is completely unfounded as the Stalker has less damage, less heat efficiency, dies to side torso loss, is slower, less manuverable, and has worse turning than the Warhawk. That's complete tosh.

Who said the Wolf would only have 6 ER Large Lasers. No, it'd be able to alpha those lasers and it's stock UAC5s for a 76 point pinpoint alpha, and that's not even factoring in the SRMs. You're talking like this isn't capable of instantly handicapping, if not outright killing any mech below 70 tons.

A 100 ton mech with a low profile that can shoot off 40 point PPFLD alphas every 4 seconds. Right, laugh it off. That's not even using that Large Laser it's got, or swapping out that LRM15 for SRMs.

I have gotten that 84 damage into one spot plenty of times. Insta-killing Dire Wolves from behind is actually something of a hobby of mine, and the source of a great many of my Nova kills. The only difference is that the Dire Wolf has 4-5 seconds to realize that I've just cored his rear CT right now, whereas without ghost heat he would get 1-2.

As far as the heavies, I've got projects to do and don't really feel like referencing the various arbitrary hardpoint limit threads to try and minmax the various mechs on display. Those are just the combinations I've pulled off the top of my head.

[IceSerpent]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Warhawk Prime. 4 CERPPCs fired off at once, giving you a 40 point pinpoint alpha, and dealing 10 points of damage to two adjacent components. Sure, it's hot, but without the ghost heat it can make those shots at 810m, blast a hole in your mech, and disappear to cool down. Plus, with all those heat sinks, it'll have a significantly higher rate of fire AND survivability than the 4x PPC Stalker ever did.

1. You can prevent it from packing quad PPCs via limiting energy harpoints. Question is whether you want to, given that it's one of the stock builds?
2. Given how incredibly bad Warhawk is right now with GH in place, it may not be such a bad thing to have an 85t assault actually pack some punch.

Quote

Dire Wolf Prime, 4 ERLL. Drop the 2x MPLas in each arm and you can get up to 6 ERLL, and enough heat sinks to keep that mother cool.

What would you want it to pack (at max. I mean)? It can do twin gauss + twin ERPPC or 6 ERML + 2 LPL/ERLL right now an not get affected by GH.

Quote

King Crab -000. Twin AC20s all day long.

Same as Warhawk above - can prevent it for packing twin 20s, but do we really want to? Besides, GH doesn't do anything to stop that build, especially on a 100t mech that can mount more than enough heatsinks to compensate for the penalty.

Quote

Nova Prime. 84 damage in less than 2 seconds, retreat to cool off. It was devastating in Tabletop, and it'll be devastating here.

It can do that right now - you can fire those lasers in groups of 6 and do 84 damage in less than 2s.

Quote

Mad Dog A. 72 damage in a single trigger pull with heat to spare. Splat.

Again, missile hardpoints can be limited in size. Same question as above - given that Mad Dog is generally a missile boat stock, how many launchers it should carry?

Saxie, on 09 October 2014 - 10:52 AM, said:

Nova, any ER Large build that would arise from a hard point classed sizing, the large ballistic mechs that are in game now but may be in the future, see also any current energy boat for innersphere/clan basically. Even if you do limit the hard points on a lot of these variants they would be moved from er ppc/ppc size to er large/large laser sizes.

Would it be so bad? We had a few LL boats (4 on K2 and 6 on Stalker come to mind) prior to GH, but those were never considered OP, if I remember correctly.

Quote

AC2 DD will definitely come back (not in a competitive scene mind you) know we would hear something about that, even though its just really a troll build. These are just a few off the top of my head.

Same question - does it really qualify as a "nasty" to be concerned about?

[Josef Nader]

Wait, so now you're talking about taking stock builds out of the game because they break your hardpoint size fantasy?

I recognize the place we've reached. We're done here. This isn't MW4. It should never be MW4. MW4's mechlab was awful. MW4 was a horribly unbalanced mess of laser boating and poptarts, with even fewer viable mechs than MWO. If you want to play MW4, it still exists, and there are still servers you can join. I'm quite happy with a very different experience, thank you.

Edited by Josef Nader, 09 October 2014 - 11:46 AM.

[Why Run]

None of that is OP. It would be more diverse than what we have not, but NONE of that is OP. Sorry, OP was JMS w/ Ac20s pre NERF-SLAM. K2 + PPCs/Gauss (still pretty strong for a 65ter - just replaced by better builds (faster Timber - also heavier). Sorry, nothing you've mentioned is scary or different it's all part of a broader array of viable mechs that results from tweaking a few builds through hardpoint limits and simplifying heat. I guess you can call analysis nitpicking, but meta was JMS at 65t, not a mech 100t heavier with a couple different back up weapons and much slower. Like you said, I"m sure the Crab will take a few to the rear torso too, as it crawls around.... Much like the DeadWolves now... Ac2 troll builds would be back, but they aren't OP, just obnoxious - much like LRM rain.

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 11:45 AM, said:

Wait, so now you're talking about taking stock builds out of the game because they break your hardpoint size fantasy?

I recognize the place we've reached. We're done here. This isn't MW4. It should never be MW4. MW4's mechlab was awful. MW4 was a horribly unbalanced mess of laser boating and poptarts, with even fewer viable mechs than MWO. If you want to play MW4, it still exists, and there are still servers you can join. I'm quite happy with a very different experience, thank you.

What are you talkin about? No way would you limit stock builds. Thats nonsense. PPCS would still be HOT, but running 1 of them would not be game breaking because of mechs running 6 of them, because there would be none. Running 12 MLs would still be hot as heck, it already is without ghost heat. The point is MOST stock builds are completely USELESS In the game.

[Nicholas Carlyle]

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 05:02 PM, said:

I see a lot of folks posting about a "sized" hardpoint system.

Let me assure you that nobody really wants that. This argument got put to bed in closed beta.

False.

And the people in Closed Beta did not do a good enough job fighting with PGI, which is why we are where are now.