336 replies to this topic

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

1453 R, on 09 October 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ab#i=11&l=stock

There ya go. Now you should understand just fine.

Great point! It would be impossible for individual mechs to have balance passes which would reevaluate the size or number of hard points and change them to make a mech more useful.

[Lykaon]

Josef Nader, on 08 October 2014 - 05:46 PM, said:

I made this thread as I've already argued this fight again and again and again. I figured it'd be easier to just make one blanket thread this time around rather than trying to put out all the annoying little brushfires.

Saying that sized hardpoints does anything but remove 90-95% of the mechs from the game as viable choices is delusional. Right now, I can salvage bad mechs by putting good loadouts on them. I can tweak, pluck, pick, and modify the bottom of the barrel mechs until they suit my playstyle and I figure out something that I like with them.

For example, my DRG-1C? It could never exist if it's stock loadout dictated it's hardpoints. I'm not really sure what -could- exist on a 1C, given it's incredibly limited hardpoints already.

Well, you say, they could just give the 1C bigger, better hardpoints!

Well then, what's the bloody point and/or difference with what we have now?

Another example, my BLR-1D. One of my favorite assaults, cruelly murdered by a completely pointless hardpoint restriction. Is the Battlemaster so overpowered that it needs to be reigned in in such a way?

What about mechs like the Shadow Hawk, famed for it's versatility and usefulness? If you restrict those hardpoints to anywhere near stock values, that entire mech just drops off the map. Useless 1 slot hardpoints, none of them big enough to do anything interesting with, and not enough of them to boat any serious weaponry.

It's a completely meaningless and useless addition to the system that solves no problems and decimates three quarters of our mech roster out of usability.

I'm completely lost as to how it will improve the game in any way.

Using "stock" as the guide for what hardpoint is suited for what weapons should be extremely flexable.The main objective is to prevent monstrosities like 4+ PPC stalkers,Gauss + 3x PPC highlanders,and other exploitive builds that take advantage of the limited armor mechanics in MWo.

Would a Dragon 1C with it's one ballistic hardpoint that could hold a gauss rifle instead of it's AC2 break the game? nope it wouldn't.

If I was charged with designing a Dragon C1 hardpoint limits with the assumtion that the hardpoint system in use was limited by slots and not some small medium and large B.S. it would look like...



Right arm: 1 Ballistic hardpoint 9 crit slots open (all available in that arm)
Left Arm: 1 Energy hardpoint 2 crit slots max
1 Energy Hardpoint 1 crit slot max
Left torso: 1 energy hardpoint 3 crit slots max
1 energy hardpoint 2 crit slots max
Right torso: 1 AMS
C Torso: 1 missile hardpoint 2 crits max (all available slots in that location)

This dragon will be fully capable of using your build but,will not be capable of fitting a gauss rifle and 3+ PPCs that would be the problem that this system would address.

As for shadowhawks? same deal at least one hardpoint would be set with a high crit space value to accomidate ONE huge cannon but,you should not have energy hardpoints that also allow for several PPCs (just one )

But what about mechs that have stock configurations with huge pinpoint alpha potentials?

This is a frequently used counter argument for hardpoint restrictions and is frequently laboring under the assumption that a single game mechanic should be left to function in a bubble.

Well that's just bad game design!

So how do we fix mechs like the soon to arrive kingcrab with it's twin AC20 stock loadout? or what if we ever see Annihilators with 4 AC10s? What about the...

CHASSIS QUIRKS!

Maybe that Kingcrab is limited to 300 engines,Maybe it don't turn so quick,maybe it accelerates and decellerates like a rollerskate full of concrete.

But,honestly the time to have instituted any sort of hardpoint limitation was way back in closed beta the first time someone jammed twin gauss rifles into machinegun ports.

That ship has sailed unfortunatley.

Edited by Lykaon, 10 October 2014 - 01:02 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

While i think quirks could indeed be a option - for limiting a Mech - it won't work. Still there will be people that make the moonwalk right in front of a Gauszilla....even if that thing needs 10min to turn for 360°.

Its a thin line between a "abusive" build and a acceptable build.
And the usage of quirks makes the line thinner.

[Vassago Rain]

Lykaon, on 10 October 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

Using "stock" as the guide for what hardpoint is suited for what weapons should be extremely flexable.The main objective is to prevent monstrosities like 4+ PPC stalkers,Gauss + 3x PPC highlanders,and other exploitive builds that take advantage of the limited armor mechanics in MWo.

Would a Dragon 1C with it's one ballistic hardpoint that could hold a gauss rifle instead of it's AC2 break the game? nope it wouldn't.

If I was charged with designing a Dragon C1 hardpoint limits with the assumtion that the hardpoint system in use was limited by slots and not some small medium and large B.S. it would look like...



Right arm: 1 Ballistic hardpoint 9 crit slots open (all available in that arm)
Left Arm: 1 Energy hardpoint 2 crit slots max
1 Energy Hardpoint 1 crit slot max
Left torso: 1 energy hardpoint 3 crit slots max
1 energy hardpoint 2 crit slots max
Right torso: 1 AMS
C Torso: 1 missile hardpoint 2 crits max (all available slots in that location)

This dragon will be fully capable of using your build but,will not be capable of fitting a gauss rifle and 3+ PPCs that would be the problem that this system would address.

As for shadowhawks? same deal at least one hardpoint would be set with a high crit space value to accomidate ONE huge cannon but,you should not have energy hardpoints that also allow for several PPCs (just one )

But what about mechs that have stock configurations with huge pinpoint alpha potentials?

This is a frequently used counter argument for hardpoint restrictions and is frequently laboring under the assumption that a single game mechanic should be left to function in a bubble.

Well that's just bad game design!

So how do we fix mechs like the soon to arrive kingcrab with it's twin AC20 stock loadout? or what if we ever see Annihilators with 4 AC10s? What about the...

CHASSIS QUIRKS!

Maybe that Kingcrab is limited to 300 engines,Maybe it don't turn so quick,maybe it accelerates and decellerates like a rollerskate full of concrete.

But,honestly the time to have instituted any sort of hardpoint limitation was way back in closed beta the first time someone jammed twin gauss rifles into machinegun ports.

That ship has sailed unfortunatley.

Agreed.

[Galenit]

Lykaon, on 10 October 2014 - 12:59 AM, said:

But,honestly the time to have instituted any sort of hardpoint limitation was way back in closed beta the first time someone jammed twin gauss rifles into machinegun ports.

That ship has sailed unfortunatley.

We had this discussion over more then a year or two?

The k2 should not mount a 2x gauss, but it should have be one of the few mechs that can mount 2x pccs.
Sure, the aws is not the best hitbox, but if you want to use 3x ppcs, you need to use it, there is no other mech that can mount 3 pccs. No ghostheat needed, you pay for the barn if you want to use the 3 ppcs.

2x AC20 KingCrab is the mech for the 2x AC20 mech, but its the only one that can mount it and its on the devs to make its own advantage for it, like the aws barn-hitbox that it counts for using 3x pccs. Or the hunchback, it can have a ac20 or 9 mls on a medium, but it has also the big hunch that is easy to destroy as disadvantage.
Allowing all mechs to have all weapons removes the build in advantages and disadvantages of the chassis, if you can have 3 ppcs on every mech with 3 energypoints, why do you want to take a aws?

Maybe they have the balls to change it?

[Celthora]

[Thecure]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 05:48 AM, said:

Point. But you can exceed any limitations GH places on your machine. That makes it a conscious "choice" and you have to deal with it. The Locked Hard-point systems does not allow that choice. There is no out of the Box thinking allowed then. (bad bad bad)

Only choice left then is "which is the best Locked hard-point Mech" per weight class that offers something similar to what you had before.

Look either I have the space and freedom to place six PPCs on my mech and fire them in any way I see fit, or I got 2 large hardpoints for my PPCs, two mediums for my LL/MLs and two small for my SLs. Then again I could choose to place medium weapons in my large slots. The idea of being able to mount lots of weapons that I can't fire is ridiculous. Maby too much Alpha is bad, on the other hand ppl must know that peaking over the ridge in a slow assault is bad. And especially the light pilots need to learn that they need to flank heavier mechs, thake their shots and bug out. In the way the game works now, a light pilot spots an assault and runs towards it. And we got no collisions anymore. I took the time to flank the enemy team in an assault but couldn't produce enough dps to be rewarded. Finally on top of all these ballancing desisions the devs have to make, there is this unstable netcode. Maby some of them should take a trip to Greece or Australia and try to play their game. See how they like it.

PS. I never talked about Locked hardpoint. Just Sized ones.

Edited by Thecure, 10 October 2014 - 05:51 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Woo! Nobody read beyond the first page! Around we go again!

If the stock weapons loadouts doesn't determine hard point sizes, explain to me why it isn't a completely arbitrary system that leaves the devs playing "whack-a-mole" with problem builds rather than actually balancing the weapons.

If the devs have to implement additional restrictions to deal with mechs that mount "abusive" stock loadouts, how is that different to what is happening right this second? How would sizing the hard points be better than what they're already doing?

How would sized hard points improve the balance of the game when there are a number of mechs that can mount the abusive loadouts stock that -also- have great hitboxes and handling characteristics?

There's all this talk of taking out specific loadouts while completely oblivious to the fact that no matter what systems you put in place competitive players will find a way to break it over their knee and field exploitative builds. Creating sized weapon hard points narrows the field drastically, as I can no longer pack good weapons onto a bad mech to make a passable mech.

For example, let's say that the Jäger could no longer mount PPPFLD Gauss Rifles, but you allowed my Dragon 1C build to carry them. I don't know if you noticed, but the Jäger has pretty terrible hitboxes, and its only redeeming factor is its hard points. What would stop competitive players from jumping over to the Dragon and abandoning the now useless Jäger to the trash heap? We would still have fast moving PPC/Gauss snipers, and now there would be a much smaller field of mechs that could mount PPCs and Gauss rifles to counter it.

If only the Dragon can zip around in the heavy chassis putting out heat efficient PPFLD, would it not be dominant? If you took away the Dragon's ability to mount those weapons and restricted its mounts to weapons akin to what it has mounted already, would it not disappear? Why can the Dragon's AC2 arm support a Gauss Rifle, but not the Jäger's AC2/AC5 arm? There is zero logic or consistency here.

Why are quirks simply not a better system for encouraging mechs to be played a certain way without kneecapping customization?

I'm sure there's more I'm missing. I haven't even had coffee yet.

Edited by Josef Nader, 10 October 2014 - 05:51 AM.

[3rdworld]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 12:38 AM, said:

Great point! It would be impossible for individual mechs to have balance passes which would reevaluate the size or number of hard points and change them to make a mech more useful.

But aren't you basically saying "PGI can't balance the game, so lets use sized hardpoints that PGI would need to balance"?

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

3rdworld, on 10 October 2014 - 05:55 AM, said:

But aren't you basically saying "PGI can't balance the game, so lets use sized hardpoints that PGI would need to balance"?

I did not say pgi can not balance this game, I am saying that currently we have more than half the mechs useless because of a vague hardpoints system which obsoletes any mech that has suboptimal hit boxes because current hard points are generic. There is no reason outside of collecting to use the majority of the mechs in mwo currently.

[Tuefel Hunden]

I didn't play MW4 because of hard point restrictions. I am totally against the idea of sized hard points.

[3rdworld]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

I did not say pgi can not balance this game, I am saying that currently we have more than half the mechs useless because of a vague hardpoints system which obsoletes any mech that has suboptimal hit boxes because current hard points are generic. There is no reason outside of collecting to use the majority of the mechs in mwo currently.

And a hardpoint system would change that how? Unless you are selectively governing which mechs get good hardpoint inflation and which get bad hardpoint inflation, that isn't going to change. And in that case we can substitute the word hardpoint for quirk and reach the same conclusion without removing options or choice.


Here is an example:

HBK-4G while equipped with an AC/20 its handling (twist, acceleration, stopping) is increased 20-50%.

Now it is a sick brawler with the ability to get in and out of firing lanes faster than any non-light. And on certain maps it could be preferable to a 20 hawk without removing the option of the 20 hawk all together.

Edited by 3rdworld, 10 October 2014 - 06:09 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 06:01 AM, said:

I did not say pgi can not balance this game, I am saying that currently we have more than half the mechs useless because of a vague hardpoints system which obsoletes any mech that has suboptimal hit boxes because current hard points are generic. There is no reason outside of collecting to use the majority of the mechs in mwo currently.

And there's no reason outside of collecting to use the majority of the heroes in League of Legends, or DOTA, or most of the gear sets in any competitive MMO ever, or most of the guns in any competitive shooter ever, or most of the units in any competitive strategy game ever.

Welcome to PvP. The tiniest imbalance, real or perceived makes or breaks the usefulness of something, and the only way to counter that is to make everything identical.

Edited by Josef Nader, 10 October 2014 - 06:09 AM.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

3rdworld, on 10 October 2014 - 06:05 AM, said:

And a hardpoint system would change that how? Unless you are selectively governing which mechs get good hardpoint inflation and which get bad hardpoint inflation, that isn't going to change. And in that case we can substitute the word hardpoint for quirk and reach the same conclusion without removing options or choice.

Yes, I am sure quirks like 5% leg armor boost will bring swarms of players to play chassis like the trebuchet. Way more than if it had an unique ability such as being one of the only medium mechs able to carry as many missiles as an assault mech.

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 06:06 AM, said:

Welcome to PvP. The tiniest imbalance, real or perceived makes or breaks the usefulness of something, and the only way to counter that is to make everything identical.

Or maybe by making things different and unique?

I guess you are right, the game is much more interesting when everyone who plays just uses the same three weapons and chassis out of several hundred.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 06:11 AM, said:

Yes, I am sure quirks like 5% leg armor boost will bring swarms of players to play chassis like the trebuchet. Way more than if it had an unique ability such as being one of the only medium mechs able to carry as many missiles as an assault mech.

Except the quirks we're getting are going to be along the lined of:

25% reduction in LRM15 and 20 cool down.
-2 heat from LRM 15/20
25% tighter groupings on LRM15/20s

PGI agrees that little 5% buffs here and there aren't enough. That's why they're going to give massive buffs to low tier mechs to try and bring them in line.

[Gerhardt Jorgensson]

Cool, quirks that promote Lrm 70 builds. That will help with the crowd who thinks ttk is too low, like Russ bullock claimed.

[Shredhead]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 12:38 AM, said:

Great point! It would be impossible for individual mechs to have balance passes which would reevaluate the size or number of hard points and change them to make a mech more useful.

Yeah, exactly! I like how you hp size proponents wail and fuss about weapons balance, but are willing to throw in a 3rd layer of balance issues on top of the two (weapons and mech geometry) that are already in game!
Because making **** more complicated helps balancing it, yo!

[Ultimax]

Josef Nader, on 10 October 2014 - 05:50 AM, said:

Woo! Nobody read beyond the first page! Around we go again!

If the stock weapons loadouts doesn't determine hard point sizes, explain to me why it isn't a completely arbitrary system that leaves the devs playing "whack-a-mole" with problem builds rather than actually balancing the weapons.

If the devs have to implement additional restrictions to deal with mechs that mount "abusive" stock loadouts, how is that different to what is happening right this second? How would sizing the hard points be better than what they're already doing?

How would sized hard points improve the balance of the game when there are a number of mechs that can mount the abusive loadouts stock that -also- have great hitboxes and handling characteristics?

There's all this talk of taking out specific loadouts while completely oblivious to the fact that no matter what systems you put in place competitive players will find a way to break it over their knee and field exploitative builds. Creating sized weapon hard points narrows the field drastically, as I can no longer pack good weapons onto a bad mech to make a passable mech.

For example, let's say that the Jäger could no longer mount PPPFLD Gauss Rifles, but you allowed my Dragon 1C build to carry them. I don't know if you noticed, but the Jäger has pretty terrible hitboxes, and its only redeeming factor is its hard points. What would stop competitive players from jumping over to the Dragon and abandoning the now useless Jäger to the trash heap? We would still have fast moving PPC/Gauss snipers, and now there would be a much smaller field of mechs that could mount PPCs and Gauss rifles to counter it.

If only the Dragon can zip around in the heavy chassis putting out heat efficient PPFLD, would it not be dominant? If you took away the Dragon's ability to mount those weapons and restricted its mounts to weapons akin to what it has mounted already, would it not disappear? Why can the Dragon's AC2 arm support a Gauss Rifle, but not the Jäger's AC2/AC5 arm? There is zero logic or consistency here.

Why are quirks simply not a better system for encouraging mechs to be played a certain way without kneecapping customization?

I'm sure there's more I'm missing. I haven't even had coffee yet.

This one's on me.

[Josef Nader]

Gerhardt Jorgensson, on 10 October 2014 - 06:17 AM, said:

Cool, quirks that promote Lrm 70 builds. That will help with the crowd who thinks ttk is too low, like Russ bullock claimed.

Good luck building an LRM70 on a 50 ton mech that is actually viable in the slightest way! Be sure to record that gameplay video. I want to see it!

[Jun Watarase]

1453 R, on 09 October 2014 - 10:49 PM, said:

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...ab#i=11&l=stock

There ya go. Now you should understand just fine.

I never said they would be limited to stock.

In your example what i would do would be to limit the dragon to a light AC (up to AC5) but give that AC massive boosts via quirks.

This would be better than having everyone go "oh dragon? its ****, just use a jagermech instead!".