336 replies to this topic

[Why Run]

BUT WE DON"T HAVE THAT RIGHT NOW! We have a collection of metas and a whole pile of unused weapons! It's so freaking boring out there. You don't actually get choice, you get which ever effective meta is least nerf in the latest round of QQing. Be it the pre-nerf TBR-C variant with laser spam, or the Victor-DS ppcs/ac5s. There is no real choice. We use to have the Ac2 meta, which was probably before you starting playing at this point. It was interesting, not really all that powerful, but it paralyzed you pretty quickly if you didn't know how to get away, but that too was nerf by wicked ghost heat.

[Almond Brown]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:19 AM, said:

Remember though Almond, you get the AC5 boat, but there are tradeoffs, You're not carrying as much ammo, and you're not carrying backup weapons because of weight. That puts a premium on accuracy. You get your 2x range AC5, probably increase speed back up a bit, and you can decide if it's competitive. You'd probably find an unnerfed AC2 works better in that combination, no heat, dakka dakka dakka away plus probably 2 usable MLs or SLs as backup.

Why do you think it wouldn't be hot? It would still generate a ton of heat, it's 12 mls. It's a paper mech, it was never a real threat anyway, but now it's completely useless. The 12 CERML Nova was a casualty of the other nerfs, not the cause of the problem.

Never said it wouldn't be HOT! The one I have now works just great. I doesn't carry 12 ML's because even without GH, as you noted, the thing would be a brawling nightmare, without breaking down the 12 into 3-4 sets of 3 or 4 ML's that would control that heat arrangement. Funny enough, that is what I do now, I just reduced the number of needed groups, and control heat issues that way. The exact same way I do it for all my Mechs and not surprisingly, would be the exact way it would be done even without GH.

You want to really curb the BIG guns? Just keeping adding more and more Heat to the offenders. The AC20 is quite HOT. It also has a solid punch but with 2 the restriction needed are already brutal.

When was the last time you drove an AC20 K2? Try one and keep that trigger down...

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 October 2014 - 07:30 AM.

[Why Run]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 07:22 AM, said:

That is understood. BUT, like anything else I may buy, be it a Mech, a Car, whatever, When the seller "tells" me that is it, like or lump, then I will and have gone elsewhere to spend my money.

Just did that with a new car actually. Only one dealer gave me what I wanted, and with some effort as well. The others just said no. That dealer who gave me what I wanted made a nice chunk of change, the others, missed a dip into my money pot.

I hope PGI does not prevent further dips into my money pot is the point I guess.

UnsafePilot, on 09 October 2014 - 07:27 AM, said:

That doesn't address my point at all. If the victor 9s was locked into hard points that people didn't prefer I'm saying they'd simply stop using it. The net result there isn't a decrease in the weapons you don't like, just a decrease in the variety of mechs you'll see.

Why? victor with acs + lasers + SRMs wouldn't get insta-killed by PP/FLD meta mechs, because there wouldn't be any of them! 4 ac5s is viable now, you never see it, because it's not effective! In the current game, if you want to kill stuff, there are a couple viable combinations out of about 3-4 chassis per weight class. Everything else is cannon fodder.

[Almond Brown]

SgtKinCaiD, on 09 October 2014 - 07:20 AM, said:

Oh yeah a "build" choice : the same meta-compliant build on every mech that can fit it. Talk about choice and diversity ...

It was likely you are speaking for yourself. Sadly, I feel sorry for you. You should try and diversify. It can be a lot of FUN. But FUN is not what your after is it? You sound like a K/D type. Each to their own right?

[Why Run]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

Never said it wouldn't be HOT! The one I have now works just great. I doesn't carry 12 ML's because even without GH, as you noted, the thing would be a brawling nightmare, without breaking down the 12 into 3-4 sets of 3 or 4 ML's that would control that heat arrangement. Funny enough, that is what I do now, I just reduced the number of needed groups, and control heat issues that way. The exact same way I do it for all my Mechs and not surprisingly, would be the exact way it would be done even without GH.

You want to really curb the BIG guns? Just keeping adding more and more Heat to the offenders. The AC20 is quite HOT. It also has a solid punch but with 2 the restriction needed are already brutal.

When was the last time you drove an AC20 K2? Try one and keep that trigger down...

I have 60+ mechs and have owned plenty more since this game started. The ac20 JMS is responsible for the AC20 heat and its general lack of effectiveness when used as intended (Atlas or Hunchback and a couple others) in the current game. It use to be insane because it always came in pairs. Come to think of it, I almost never see the AC20 anymore, gauss is just so superior right now.

But Gauss-a-pult is awesome, Shouldn't be possible, but awesome. You're forgetting weight still dictates builds. The thing is, most meta mechs are not weight dependent. Ac5/PPC combo weight was a nonfactor in a victor. TBRs, weight is a non factor. Heck I'm pretty sure the Gauss-a-pult has no real weight issue but admittedly I haven't build it up in awhile.

[UnsafePilot]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

Why? victor with acs + lasers + SRMs wouldn't get insta-killed by PP/FLD meta mechs, because there wouldn't be any of them! 4 ac5s is viable now, you never see it, because it's not effective! In the current game, if you want to kill stuff, there are a couple viable combinations out of about 3-4 chassis per weight class. Everything else is cannon fodder.

If there are weapons that are perceived as better people will use them. If there are mechs that can mount those weapons those are the mechs that people will pilot. Limiting the amount of mechs that can mount those weapons won't change either of those facts.

So does the proposed restriction system simply not have any mechs that can field pp/fld weapons? Or does it include restricting which chassis people can drop in? Without one of those two I predict that you'll still see a lot of the weapons that are upsetting you.

[Almond Brown]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

Why? victor with acs + lasers + SRMs wouldn't get insta-killed by PP/FLD meta mechs, because there wouldn't be any of them! 4 ac5s is viable now, you never see it, because it's not effective! In the current game, if you want to kill stuff, there are a couple viable combinations out of about 3-4 chassis per weight class. Everything else is cannon fodder.

Again you said it. Even if there were a Locked-"flexible"-hard-point system, it would boil down, and quite quickly, to those few chassis that would conform to whatever the Meta was deemed to be by those who create it.

How does creating "more" bad chassis fix anything. I can build a bad Mech now (based against the Meta). At least now it is my choice to do so. This other system will absolutely "force" that decision on way to many chassis.

They tried and "force" the game mode by vote ffs. That did not go well. Why would "forcing" chassis builds be received any better?

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 October 2014 - 07:41 AM.

[Tastian]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 07:09 AM, said:

Ok then wise guy. Take Russ up on his challenge. Present the Community 20 Mechs that all have different locked hard points that is true to the TT/BT system, or even a system that totally prevents what you see as an issue on any Mech.

I think Russ said to take one mech with lots of variants and see how the hard point restrictions limit that one mech.

And the hardpoint restrictions would not eliminate quirks; just ghost heat. As many have pointed out, hardpoint size restrictions would still shift around the meta and quirks would still be needed.

[Why Run]

UnsafePilot, on 09 October 2014 - 07:38 AM, said:

If there are weapons that are perceived as better people will use them. If there are mechs that can mount those weapons those are the mechs that people will pilot. Limiting the amount of mechs that can mount those weapons won't change either of those facts.

So does the proposed restriction system simply not have any mechs that can field pp/fld weapons? Or does it include restricting which chassis people can drop in? Without one of those two I predict that you'll still see a lot of the weapons that are upsetting you.

PP/FLD weapons are current a problem because of the combinations of mechs that can use them in certain combinations, exclusive of pretty much anything else. Heavy/Assault? Gauss+PPC is still probably most effective, with some certain other builds following up. Medium? Shadow or the new Griffin, or the ECM Cicada poker. Lights, well right now its the ERLL raven meta and the laser spam FS (which incidentally wouldn't really be altered much).

[IceSerpent]

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 05:41 AM, said:

Having read said Threads many of the proposed restrictions are made by players who see it "their" way or the highway. That does not assume anything but the obvious as is always the case around here.

It is about what "they" want and not what is "best" for MWO in the long term, big picture kind of way, sadly.

There's not a whole lot of a difference between those proposals - the end result would be very similar in virtually all cases. Besides, what makes you think that "what they want" is not what's best for MWO? I mean, do you have a specific objection to using sized hardpoints instead of ghost heat?

[Almond Brown]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:35 AM, said:

I have 60+ mechs and have owned plenty more since this game started. The ac20 JMS is responsible for the AC20 heat and its general lack of effectiveness when used as intended (Atlas or Hunchback and a couple others) in the current game. It use to be insane because it always came in pairs. Come to think of it, I almost never see the AC20 anymore, gauss is just so superior right now.

But Gauss-a-pult is awesome, Shouldn't be possible, but awesome. You're forgetting weight still dictates builds. The thing is, most meta mechs are not weight dependent. Ac5/PPC combo weight was a nonfactor in a victor. TBRs, weight is a non factor. Heck I'm pretty sure the Gauss-a-pult has no real weight issue but admittedly I haven't build it up in awhile.

So your requirement for MWO at this point is to prevent the 30 point Alpha build possibility? You do realize that even under a restricted system, dual Gauss Mechs builds will and have to exist. Dual AC20's as well.

Stock builds will always be the base template. You change that and we are no longer playing MechWarrior aka BattleTech. No thanks. I will eat 30/40 points at a time and when it kills me, it will either be my fault, or the enemy made a good shot at a good time.

I don't wish to NERF either of those outcomes...

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 October 2014 - 07:46 AM.

[Why Run]

Tastian, on 09 October 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

I think Russ said to take one mech with lots of variants and see how the hard point restrictions limit that one mech.

And the hardpoint restrictions would not eliminate quirks; just ghost heat. As many have pointed out, hardpoint size restrictions would still shift around the meta and quirks would still be needed.

Instead of buffing the Awesome because the PPC meta was too strong, there would be less mechs BOATING them. Sure, you could run a PPC + SRMs + other smaller energy or a ballistic or two, but only the awesome would have 3ppcs. Ok, but not game breaking because you still can't Alpha 3 ppcs over and over. Maybe twice ,for a whopping 30 damage per assuming direct hit. But we already have that in the 2ppc gauss meta, and thats far more dangerous.

Hell, 6 mls at 5 damage would be a viable counter too, balanced (and maybe more effective), and different, but you could also get a combo of LLs and LRMs or LLs and SRMs, or LLs and a ballistic, without silly ghost head issues. You'd see MORE comparable combinations. Now, perhaps the laser beam will be decreased, but the recycle rate nudged up to make sure the DPS remains in relative line, but you'd have viable options to deliver damage, without the convoluted ghost heat mechanic.

Basically this game is full of bandaids, and extremely convoluted, because of a few choice builds.

Almond Brown, on 09 October 2014 - 07:45 AM, said:

So your requirement for MWO at this point is to prevent the 30 point Alpha build possibility? You do realize that even under a restricted system, dual Gauss Mechs builds will and have to exist. Dual AC20's as well.

Stock builds will always be the base template. You change that and we are no longer playing MechWarrior aka BattleTech. No thanks. I will eat 30/40 points at a time and when it kills me, it will either be my fault, or the enemy made a good shot at a good time.

I don't wish to NERF either of those outcomes...

Show me the stock dual gauss builds among our current mechs.

[Cygone]

Biggest issue with changing the design of 'Mechs so drastically is the issue of MC = 'Mechs.

In this game you can directly buy 'Mechs with your C/Card, that makes the purchase legally binding. Other games get around this by using your C/Card to purchase in-game currency then using that currency to buy your product.

PGI don't want to have to issue a load of refunds because of a complete design re-think.

[UnsafePilot]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

PP/FLD weapons are current a problem because of the combinations of mechs that can use them in certain combinations, exclusive of pretty much anything else. Heavy/Assault? Gauss+PPC is still probably most effective, with some certain other builds following up. Medium? Shadow or the new Griffin, or the ECM Cicada poker. Lights, well right now its the ERLL raven meta and the laser spam FS (which incidentally wouldn't really be altered much).

Agreeable enough; How does a fixed hard point system address any of that?

Currently people use the mechs that can field the meta weapons, which is most of them, so we see mech variety and a lot of meta weapons.

With fixed hard points we'd see people using the mechs that can field the meta weapons, which would only be a handful of them so we'd see the same few mechs over and over again and a lot of meta weapons.

I'm just not seeing how that's going to address the stated problems.

[Almond Brown]

Tastian, on 09 October 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

I think Russ said to take one mech with lots of variants and see how the hard point restrictions limit that one mech.

And the hardpoint restrictions would not eliminate quirks; just ghost heat. As many have pointed out, hardpoint size restrictions would still shift around the meta and quirks would still be needed.

I think Russ said it that way because they have looked into it and 1 chassis with even a moderate # of variants shows how totally flawed any locked system would be.

Did that gentlemen that was doing a "system" finish up yet? He said he was working on it as of 2 days ago? How long to do 1 Mech and 4-5 variants? MWO system will require 100's of Mechs and many many variants.

[Why Run]

The problem is BOATING. BOATING. BOATING. how many times does that need to be stated. Boating of 2 ppcs and 2 ac5s. or 2 ppcs and 2 gauss, or ANY COMBINATION THEREOF! THE GAUSS IS HUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE. Hell there is a mech in lore, the Hollander designed for the sole purpose of carrying JUST ONE OF THEM. NO MORE BOAT = DIVERSITY!

[Almond Brown]

IceSerpent, on 09 October 2014 - 07:42 AM, said:

There's not a whole lot of a difference between those proposals - the end result would be very similar in virtually all cases. Besides, what makes you think that "what they want" is not what's best for MWO? I mean, do you have a specific objection to using sized hardpoints instead of ghost heat?

None, other than I read that even if a HP system was tried, GH is not going away. I guess confirmation of either one by PGI is needed for anything but further one sided discourse to continue.

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:47 AM, said:

Instead of buffing the Awesome because the PPC meta was too strong, there would be less mechs BOATING them. Sure, you could run a PPC + SRMs + other smaller energy or a ballistic or two, but only the awesome would have 3ppcs. Ok, but not game breaking because you still can't Alpha 3 ppcs over and over. Maybe twice ,for a whopping 30 damage per assuming direct hit. But we already have that in the 2ppc gauss meta, and thats far more dangerous.

Hell, 6 mls at 5 damage would be a viable counter too, balanced (and maybe more effective), and different, but you could also get a combo of LLs and LRMs or LLs and SRMs, or LLs and a ballistic, without silly ghost head issues. You'd see MORE comparable combinations. Now, perhaps the laser beam will be decreased, but the recycle rate nudged up to make sure the DPS remains in relative line, but you'd have viable options to deliver damage, without the convoluted ghost heat mechanic.

Basically this game is full of bandaids, and extremely convoluted, because of a few choice builds.

Show me the stock dual gauss builds among our current mechs.

So this Locked hard-point system will have NO future Mechs included then? We are done building new chassis?

[UnsafePilot]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

The problem is BOATING. BOATING. BOATING. how many times does that need to be stated. Boating of 2 ppcs and 2 ac5s. or 2 ppcs and 2 gauss, or ANY COMBINATION THEREOF! THE GAUSS IS HUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE. Hell there is a mech in lore, the Hollander designed for the sole purpose of carrying JUST ONE OF THEM. NO MORE BOAT = DIVERSITY!

Ghost heat addresses boating and is already developed. If 2xppc/gauss combos need to be adjusted it would be a lot simpler and create a lot less grief to the playerbase to just increase those combo's ghost heat than to redo the entire load out creation system.

[Why Run]

Please describe what you think the "locked" hardpoint system means? I think we're talking past each other

[Almond Brown]

Why Run, on 09 October 2014 - 07:55 AM, said:

The problem is BOATING. BOATING. BOATING. how many times does that need to be stated. Boating of 2 ppcs and 2 ac5s. or 2 ppcs and 2 gauss, or ANY COMBINATION THEREOF! THE GAUSS IS HUGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGE. Hell there is a mech in lore, the Hollander designed for the sole purpose of carrying JUST ONE OF THEM. NO MORE BOAT = DIVERSITY!

I guess what we need now, if we are to keep going forward, is a definition of BOAT.

2PPC's and 2 AC5's under the current MWO weapon stats is not even CLOSE to a BOAT.

Now, 12 ML's (60 Alpha) on one chassis. That may fit the bill as a Boat...

Edited by Almond Brown, 09 October 2014 - 08:03 AM.