336 replies to this topic

[Josef Nader]

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. It solves nothing and takes away from the creativity we can apply to our loadouts.

You have solved the problem properly; by balancing the weapons in question and bringing under or overperforming mechs into line on a case-by-case basis.

Don't throw out all of your balancing changes to adopt the absolute worst feature of MW4. You have a much more elegant solution in mind with the Quirks, and you seem to be getting closer and closer to achieving solid balance.

Please, ignore the rash of threads insisting that sized hardpoints would somehow improve this game or deal with problematic builds. I want to chew my own beard off every time I see one, and the implementation of such a system will assuredly make me take my fat whale dollars elsewhere.

I know that you haven't officially made any moves to implement such a system. I'm just heading this thing off before you get an unrealistic idea of how many people truly want such a system.

[Xarian]

Yes, because one random guy somehow outweighs the many, many people asking for similar systems (that's sarcasm). You could've chosen to post in one of those many threads in an attempt to actually discuss the issue; instead you decided to make one of these obnoxious and banal "Dear PGI" threads that (let me assure you) nobody likes or appreciates. See what I did there?

Quirks were never going to be thrown out in favor of this hypothetical system, so your straw man is a particularly bad one. PGI brought up the issue as a possibility to supplement the quirk system. And you also need to face one major fact - quirks to buff weaponry in certain variants (e.g. PPCs) decreases TTK. If you want people to increase or maintain TTK (something that many, many people want), then you need to restrict weaponry. This comes in two forms: either nerf the weapon in general then rely on quirks to bring the TTK (using a particular variant) back to its normal level, or keep the weapons as they are and restrict some chassis from using them.

I like the sized hardpoint thing for more than just a gameplay balance issue. First, it injects some verisimilitude (that is, realism): big weapons can't be jammed into places that won't fit them. Second, it forces chassis diversity: right now you just take the "optimal" weapon build and jam it into a chassis that has as many bells and whistles as you can fit on it. For example, the CTF-3D has high energy hardpoints and jump jets, meaning that it is a better overall chassis than something that has neither of those features. Even if you were to give a lesser chassis without JJs and without the high-mounted energy hardpoints a straight-up 20% damage boost with PPCs, the CTF-3D would still do PPC jump sniping better. All this means is that mechs get divided into a "nope" class that includes essentially everything without jump jets or high-mounted hardpoints, and the only way that quirks could make up for that difference would be to make the quirks so incredibly powerful that you'd be dramatically decreasing TTK.

[Zordicron]

http://mwomercs.com/...zed-hardpoints/

No restrictions on hardpoints/loadouts, possible to remove ghost heat, breaks up PPFLD trouble loadouts, adjustable on a per variant basis. Alteration effects already seen on clan AC's and lasers.

[Josef Nader]

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.

[IceSerpent]

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

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

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...

[Xanquil]

I agree sized hardpoints just won't do anything good for the game at this point. Adding a more restrictive hardpoint system to what we already have wouldn't get rid of ghost heat, and wouldn't fix the alpha strike problem.

[Lokesh]

/signed

Sized hard points is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist. It will unnecessaryily curtail creativity and restrict people to a narrow set of fits.

[Eddrick]

Sized Hardpoints doesn't really fix anything that was a problem.

It restricts what people can use, like Ghost Heat.

Diversity isn't a good reason. Diversity thrives during times of balance. It happens on its own when it is allowed to thrive. Forcing diversity doesn't work. 3/3/3/3 proved that.

Edited by Eddrick, 09 October 2014 - 12:09 AM.

[Salvag3]

Size based hard points is a horrid plan of action. I understand that this is not TT battletech. I get it I really do. But it's one thing to not follow more to make the game playable it's another thing to change the lore so much that it's not even battletech any more.

hard points are not even battle tech in many ways, they were for the omni mechs, getting any farther away from TT crit space and tonnage would ruin so much of the fun in this game, one could say that building your own load outs is half the fun in MWOL and to tie people's hands will just be dumb what you will find is that all your left with is mechs that have a correct build. It will be the one build that you see all players use because that is the only viable weapon/equipment load out for a mech due to having so few choices. It will drive so many people away from the game and kill our already small player base.

I really feel like a over haul to the match maker using a system like TT's Battle value would be a much better fix for balanced matchs. Cause right now if I drop in my DW loaded with only small lasers the MM is going to fill a slot on the other team with a DW with a real load out and call it balanced and we all know that's just dumb. A point value for each weapon, mech, equipment and armor would go a long way to have much more fair matchs.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Xanquil, on 08 October 2014 - 05:57 PM, said:

I agree sized hardpoints just won't do anything good for the game at this point. Adding a more restrictive hardpoint system to what we already have wouldn't get rid of ghost heat, and wouldn't fix the alpha strike problem.

Yes thats not a point of sized hard points.
You guys just lack of foreseeing. Dont look at one particular mek, but at a game. Some meks will lost some ridicule builds, like gaussputa, but that lost will give count less meks reason to exist like hunchback, trebuchet, catapult, panther, thunder hawk, hollander etc. etc. and at the end better more interesting gameplay. The point is to give meks some special flavor and by that to give you some reason to bay more meks. Its that hard to get it?

[Blue Shadow]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 09 October 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

Yes thats not a point of sized hard points.
You guys just lack of foreseeing. Dont look at one particular mek, but at a game. Some meks will lost some ridicule builds, like gaussputa, but that lost will give count less meks reason to exist like hunchback, trebuchet, catapult, panther, thunder hawk, hollander etc. etc. and at the end better more interesting gameplay. The point is to give meks some special flavor and by that to give you some reason to bay more meks. Its that hard to get it?

That special flavor is done by mech quirks just fine, and will be given a boost soon. No need to restrict player choice with a new system that will create new problems.

[Thecure]

Blue Shadow, on 09 October 2014 - 02:58 AM, said:

That special flavor is done by mech quirks just fine, and will be given a boost soon. No need to restrict player choice with a new system that will create new problems.

They are already resticting my choices with ghost heat.

[Xanquil]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 09 October 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

Yes thats not a point of sized hard points.
You guys just lack of foreseeing. Dont look at one particular mek, but at a game. Some meks will lost some ridicule builds, like gaussputa, but that lost will give count less meks reason to exist like hunchback, trebuchet, catapult, panther, thunder hawk, hollander etc. etc. and at the end better more interesting gameplay. The point is to give meks some special flavor and by that to give you some reason to bay more meks. Its that hard to get it?

Foresight is the major reason I know sized hardpoints won't work. I for one want as many of the classic mechs as possible in the game. Some of the ones that can be in the game soon mount two ac20s, or multiple Gauss Rifles, or even quad PPCs stock. These stock mechs are going to be an issue even with ghost heat, and sized hard points won't do anything to curb them.


Sized hardpoints actually will not give more incentive to buy more mechs at this time, it will actually reduce the number that people will want to buy.


I want more mechs to be viable, I want more interesting gameplay. The only way that is ever going to happen is to fix the core problem making so many mechs "useless", and not by continuing to avoid the problem with systems that only shift the problem to different mechs/weapons.

[Sybreed]

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. It solves nothing and takes away from the creativity we can apply to our loadouts.

You have solved the problem properly; by balancing the weapons in question and bringing under or overperforming mechs into line on a case-by-case basis.

Don't throw out all of your balancing changes to adopt the absolute worst feature of MW4. You have a much more elegant solution in mind with the Quirks, and you seem to be getting closer and closer to achieving solid balance.

Please, ignore the rash of threads insisting that sized hardpoints would somehow improve this game or deal with problematic builds. I want to chew my own beard off every time I see one, and the implementation of such a system will assuredly make me take my fat whale dollars elsewhere.

I know that you haven't officially made any moves to implement such a system. I'm just heading this thing off before you get an unrealistic idea of how many people truly want such a system.

agreed. I would even add that PGI should just remove hardpoints altogether and simply go with the slot/tonnage system just like in Battletech. I cannot believe how limiting the current mechlab is. If I want to use 20 mgs on my Dragon, I should be able to do so, because I'm creative.

[Tastian]

Sybreed, on 09 October 2014 - 05:02 AM, said:

agreed. I would even add that PGI should just remove hardpoints altogether and simply go with the slot/tonnage system just like in Battletech. I cannot believe how limiting the current mechlab is. If I want to use 20 mgs on my Dragon, I should be able to do so, because I'm creative.

"like in Battletech". In Battletech, you use stock loadouts. period. That's why Innersphere had variants. Otherwise whats the difference between the Jagermech A, DD, S, and Firebrand. All Hero mechs in MWO would be useless. And why master 3 variants if they are identical? Omnimechs in Battletech allowed limited customization because full customization didn't exist. Oh, sure it would be fun to build a 20x LRM5 mech; but our field would be nothing but outrageous boats.

[Xarian]

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.

[Ultimax]

I agree completely.

Sized hard points is a direction I want nothing to do with.

PGI is Already working on a quirk system to promote under performers.

This is a much better direction to add differentiation to mech variants, and rather than take away things people have now - it instead creates new options and incentives.

[Almond Brown]

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...

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.

[Jonny Taco]

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

This argument got put to bed in closed beta.

Which is clearly why it's popped up hundreds and hundreds of times since then. The argument has never been put to bed, and probably never will be.

[Almond Brown]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 09 October 2014 - 01:10 AM, said:

Yes thats not a point of sized hard points.
You guys just lack of foreseeing. Dont look at one particular mek, but at a game. Some meks will lost some ridicule builds, like gaussputa, but that lost will give count less meks reason to exist like hunchback, trebuchet, catapult, panther, thunder hawk, hollander etc. etc. and at the end better more interesting gameplay. The point is to give meks some special flavor and by that to give you some reason to bay more meks. Its that hard to get it?

As with real life. One mans flavor is another mans garbage. Same as now...