336 replies to this topic

[Why Run]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 08:43 AM, said:

You're making specific concessions to preserve a build on a mech you don't see as problematic. Why should the AC2 of the Dragon allowed to be a Gauss rifle, but not the AC2 of the Jägermech? Why should the medium laser of the Dragon be allowed to be a PPC, but not the medium laser of the Victor? There is no consistency here. You're simply playing whack-a-mole with mechs that you don't like while ignoring mechs you don't consider a problem. The system we have now solves the same issues while not being anywhere near as arbitrary.



I play all these mechs quite successfully within the current meta. Unlike a lot of folks, I actually spent my time practicing the mechs I like and learning how to play what I wanted in the current metagame rather than coming to the forum to shoot blood out of my lower orifices about how there is only one working mech.

My AC20 Hunchback hasn't changed since they introduced Endo/Ferro/DHS, and it works just as well now as it did back then. I need to keep an eye out for a few more threats, sure, but my Hunchback never got worse than it was.

And for the vast majority, their game play wouldn't be affected, but for those that abuse the boating meta, the gameplay would change. I don't see how thats not clear...

[Josef Nader]

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

I can agree with you here and I'm glad I'm not the only one to see that.

But to counter, I ask that you consider the following:
The Blackjack can be copied across 3 out of 5 variants. What's so unique about that?
The Hunchback can be copied across 3 out of 6 variants. Again, what reason might you have to want two different Hunchbacks if both can run the same build in exactly the same way?
The Shadowhawks... 4 (don't count [c] variants) out of 5 variants can run exactly the same build.

This brings forth a big question: Why use any other variant?
That's what sized hardpoints is hoping to address.

Also consider this:
A Spider can do everything an Urban mech can do but better, being skinnier, faster, etc., etc., etc. Especially since the weapon models on the Spider are so tiny (much like the Firestarter).
Why use an Urban mech?
Because the Urban mech can carry bigger guns, or so it would be with sized hardpoints.
Similar is true of the Panther and Hollander.

Quirks, my friend. This system is already in the tube and heading toward planetfall. They acknowledge that some variants are too similar, so they're going to buff certain variants towards different roles.

There's no reason all these variants -shouldn't- be able to mount those loadouts, but certain variants can be made better at one thing or another without introducing an entirely new system that arbitrarily handicaps mechs left and right.

[ApolloKaras]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

And for the vast majority, their game play wouldn't be affected, but for those that abuse the boating meta, the gameplay would change. I don't see how thats not clear...

Yes but the meta will always find the strongest route. What do you do when the meta changes and everyone starts bringing ER Large to fill up the class 2 hard points that someone suggested in a other thread.

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 08:49 AM.

[Ultimax]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:17 AM, said:

he battlefield would be again filed with a variety of effects, instead of the gauss ping and the ppc flare (and in pug world, the LRM rain!)

The battlefield would end up filled with whatever the new best mechs would be in the new system.

That is all.


Then we'd have the same endless crying of THOSE BUILDS.



The people who don't understand this, either do not understand or wildly underestimate the ability of power gamers to seek out that which is optimal and exploit it without remorse.

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 08:38 AM, said:

This brings forth a big question: Why use any other variant?
That's what sized hardpoints is hoping to address.

No that's what the upcoming IS quirks system is hoping to address.


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

Some variants are just straight upgrades due to being created at a later time period, and some mechs like the silly Urban mech these forums can't seem to get over are designed for an environment that we are not even playing in.

[Why Run]

UnsafePilot, on 09 October 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

Chassis based quirks can address this and don't require reworking as much of that game since they're already an existing system.



My question is under a sized hardpoint's system why use any variant that can't hold the weapons that I do the best with?

If I'm still using the same weapons what's changed on the battle field other than the variety of mechs you'll see me pilot?

The me in all of this is hypothetical btw, I hadly ever use the weapons that are being complained about here; too much skill needed for my sad aim.

YOU DON"T HAVE TO! You dont have to use the variant you don't want. You can continue to use the variant you like, with similar game mechanics. Your option is in mechs. With hundreds of mechs you'll find the one that fits the combinations you like and play it. Meanwhile, you won't be punished for running one variant, because the Victor 9S/DS is rolling the field with a particular combination that should not exist, or with weird mechanics that nerf viable alternatives! Without the limiting mechanics, though, there will be other chassis, that play differently, that can also be used. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO DIVERSITY. There is none. You might play it, but you're a small minority. Stock mechs are a complete joke, and Champions, thankfully for competition's sake, have been less common. It's so freaking boring out there, and to amke things worse, keeping up with the latest bandaid patch is mindnumbing!

[Josef Nader]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

And for the vast majority, their game play wouldn't be affected, but for those that abuse the boating meta, the gameplay would change. I don't see how thats not clear...

Is the stock maurader a boat? Cause that mounts a pair of PPCs and an AC5. What about the King Crab? There's a variant that we're likely to get that has a pair of LB10Xs and a pair of PPCs, stock. Are you saying I couldn't run the meta 2x UAC5s/2x PPCs on that? Are you saying it wouldn't be a problem?

Sized hard points solve nothing and simply cut back on the number of viable mechs in the game. It was the worst part of MW4, and it has no place here.

[Why Run]

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

The battlefield would end up filled with whatever the new best mechs would be in the new system.

That is all.


Then we'd have the same endless crying of THOSE BUILDS.



The people who don't understand this, either do not understand or wildly underestimate the ability of power gamers to seek out that which is optimal and exploit it without remorse.




No that's what the upcoming IS quirks system is hoping to address.


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

Some variants are just straight upgrades due to being created at a later time period, and some mechs like the silly Urban mech these forums can't seem to get over are designed for an environment that we are not even playing in.

So you're solution is an increasingly convoluted system of inexplicable mechanics (ghost heat, charge time, desync, limits on firing certain numbers of weapons at once, etc etc etc) which make this game completely unapproachable for a new player and positively boring to play for any period of time. I"m guessing 90% of your games are in a handful of particular chassis, like me, and everyone else. Because sure it's "fun" to roll with a mech with a couple MLs, SRMs and maybe an Ac5, but thats so ineffective against the current meta, that you don't get to play long.

[UnsafePilot]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

YOU DON"T HAVE TO! You dont have to use the variant you don't want.

Exactly; This is why a fixed hardpoint system won't lower the amount of meta weapons you see on the field. Most people will use the variant's that can carry the most efficient weapons. Just like now but with less mech variety.

[Why Run]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

Is the stock maurader a boat? Cause that mounts a pair of PPCs and an AC5. What about the King Crab? There's a variant that we're likely to get that has a pair of LB10Xs and a pair of PPCs, stock. Are you saying I couldn't run the meta 2x UAC5s/2x PPCs on that? Are you saying it wouldn't be a problem?

Sized hard points solve nothing and simply cut back on the number of viable mechs in the game. It was the worst part of MW4, and it has no place here.

What is scary about 100 ton mechs with 30 point alphas? Tell me again. It's scary on 80 ton fast assaults where the counters are nerfed to the ground, but it isn't scary on the biggest, slowest mechs in the game. Nope, not scared of that...

[ApolloKaras]

Josef Nader, on 09 October 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

Is the stock maurader a boat? Cause that mounts a pair of PPCs and an AC5. What about the King Crab? There's a variant that we're likely to get that has a pair of LB10Xs and a pair of PPCs, stock. Are you saying I couldn't run the meta 2x UAC5s/2x PPCs on that? Are you saying it wouldn't be a problem?

Sized hard points solve nothing and simply cut back on the number of viable mechs in the game. It was the worst part of MW4, and it has no place here.

This :-)

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

Edited by Saxie, 09 October 2014 - 08:56 AM.

[Josef Nader]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:51 AM, said:

YOU DON"T HAVE TO! You dont have to use the variant you don't want. You can continue to use the variant you like, with similar game mechanics. Your option is in mechs. With hundreds of mechs you'll find the one that fits the combinations you like and play it. Meanwhile, you won't be punished for running one variant, because the Victor 9S/DS is rolling the field with a particular combination that should not exist, or with weird mechanics that nerf viable alternatives! Without the limiting mechanics, though, there will be other chassis, that play differently, that can also be used. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE NO DIVERSITY. There is none. You might play it, but you're a small minority. Stock mechs are a complete joke, and Champions, thankfully for competition's sake, have been less common. It's so freaking boring out there, and to amke things worse, keeping up with the latest bandaid patch is mindnumbing!

You should stop dropping with tryhards and practice with non-meta mechs. You'll find that, surprisingly, "meta" mechs offer a much smaller advantage than you'd think and a good pilot in a well built mech he/she's comfortable with is a serious threat no matter what they're fighting.

Weapon balance is closer than it has ever been, and I can put together a viable build on every single mech in the game right now. Sized hard points do nothing to stop the problem builds and simply strangle out my ability to make bad mechs viable.

[cSand]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

I"m guessing 90% of your games are in a handful of particular chassis, like me, and everyone else. Because sure it's "fun" to roll with a mech with a couple MLs, SRMs and maybe an Ac5, but thats so ineffective against the current meta, that you don't get to play long.

The meta-boogeyman strikes again! Poor ******* is a great whipping-boy for those who lack skills

I'll concede that it's much easier to blame some ethereal concept than it is admit you're not as good as you think you are

Edited by cSand, 09 October 2014 - 08:59 AM.

[Why Run]

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?

[Ultimax]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

So you're solution is an increasingly convoluted system of inexplicable mechanics (ghost heat, charge time, desync, limits on firing certain numbers of weapons at once, etc etc etc) which make this game completely unapproachable for a new player and positively boring to play for any period of time.

The word you are looking for is "undocumented" not "inexplicable".

All of those systems are "explicable".

I'd say that "making this game completely unapproachable" for a new player is a ridiculous level of hyperbole. It's so ridiculous I wasn't sure I should even dignify it with a response.


Yes it takes time to learn, no it is not completely unapproachable.

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

Because sure it's "fun" to roll with a mech with a couple MLs, SRMs and maybe an Ac5, but thats so ineffective against the current meta, that you don't get to play long.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that what you think the current meta is, is not actually what the current meta is.

[Koniving]

I agree, quirks can help to address it but only by making the AC/10 for the Urban-mech shoot faster.
That doesn't stop the Spider from having an AC/10 that is 1/5th the size, with a smaller hitbox, and more speed with lower arm actuators.. it ultimately won't do much if anything for the blatant superiority the Spider would have.

UnsafePilot, on 09 October 2014 - 08:46 AM, said:

My question is under a sized hardpoint's system why use any variant that can't hold the weapons that I do the best with?

If I'm still using the same weapons what's changed on the battle field other than the variety of mechs you'll see me pilot?

The me in all of this is hypothetical btw, I hadly ever use the weapons that are being complained about here; too much skill needed for my sad aim.

In either system, you wouldn't keep a variant that can't use what you don't like to use. That's a simple fact of life.
Though PGI's skill system essentially requires that you use at least 3 variants at some point, and if a build can't be copied over then at least it will feel different.

If you're using the same weapons, well that won't mean much because MWO hasn't got much variety in weapons. But at least you're choosing specific variants or specific chassis to use them.

For example you would be using a Hollander (a particularly tall 35 ton mech) to use a Gauss sniper build rather than a Raven 4X or a Firestarter, the 4X having a very tiny front profile and the Firestarter having a tiny side profile and both have incredible body hitboxes that the Hollander might not have.








Now... some of this is just insane. Some of it, well lets just say when there is ECM on a mech there's never a reason to use any other variant. I'd like there to be a reason.

[cSand]

Ultimatum X, on 09 October 2014 - 08:59 AM, said:

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that what you think the current meta is, is not actually what the current meta is.

The current meta is complaining about the current meta

[Josef Nader]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

What is scary about 100 ton mechs with 30 point alphas? Tell me again. It's scary on 80 ton fast assaults where the counters are nerfed to the ground, but it isn't scary on the biggest, slowest mechs in the game. Nope, not scared of that...

So, you're burning down the house to kill a spider. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Why not, say, introduce chassis specific variables that encourage certain styles of play without lock Iocking people out of customization arbitrarily? Some method of improving certain iconic weapons loadouts on certain mechs, giving incentive to use them without imposing arbitrary limitations across the board? Something to male underplayed chassis more desirable without completely throwing out the existing game mechanics?

Hmm...

[Ultimax]

Koniving, on 09 October 2014 - 09:01 AM, said:

That doesn't stop the Spider from having an AC/10 that is 1/5th the size, with a smaller hitbox, and more speed with lower arm actuators.. it ultimately won't do much if anything for the blatant superiority the Spider would have.

1) That has nothing to do with sized hardpoints, and your theory is flawed because the Urban mech's geometry would probably be scaled to be very tiny - if we even ever get this complete joke of a mech.


2) You worry too much about relatively inconsequential things. A spider having smaller hitboxes with an AC 10 has about as much impact on gameplay as a fart in a hurricane.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 09 October 2014 - 09:19 AM.

[Saint Scarlett Johan]

People forget they're wearing rose colored glasses when remembering MW3 and MW4. In MW3, clantech or bust. In MW4, find the mechs with the biggest hardpoints and JJs and boat lasers or PPCs.

I'd rather see a quirk system than a hardpoint size system. It didn't do anything for MW4 NV balance nor will it work here

[1453 R]

IceSerpent, on 08 October 2014 - 05:53 PM, said:

That's because instead of reading the threads about the subject you just assumed that "sized harpoints" means "hardpoints only big enough to hold stock weapons". As people say, assumption is the mother of all screw-ups...

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...

Xarian, on 09 October 2014 - 05:24 AM, said:

If you bothered to read one of the many proposals on hardpoint sizing, you'd know that very few proposals want the sizes restricted to stock loadouts.

However, the SHD is a good example - it makes the HBK completely obsolete. It does the same job, except it has more hardpoints, more available space, and jump jets. Even if you restricted the SHD to near-stock values, it'd still be a great mech - you'd just be stuck with an AC/5 instead of being a HBK with jets.

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."

Edited by 1453 R, 09 October 2014 - 09:26 AM.