30 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

So the following is an analysis on sized hardpoints and why I believe them to be beneficial to this game.

First, let's look at the purposes of a sized hardpoint system.
1) Reduce the number of powerful weapons a mech can mount unless called for by canon.
2) Reduce overlap of both mechs and omnipods to put the emphasis not just on quantity of hardpoints, but quality as well.

tl;dr - It does what it sets out to do

So first, let's examine purpose 1, which is to reduce the number of mechs that can boat powerful weapons. I will preface this with the fact, yes there are in fact many boats/specialized designs within the BT universe, and that is not necessarily a problem, as a majority suffer from heat problems even without ghost heat. The problem is when they are allowed to boat many powerful weapons without consequence which ghost heat does not solve. So let's take a look at an example, the Dire Wolf:
So currently the Dire Wolf can take Gauss and a bunch of lasers that allows it not only have a nice pinpoint alpha with the Gauss, but vomit almost twice that much damage within 1.6 seconds which even with spread is a lot. So let's take a look at the hardpoints after size is added to them. For quick reference and to keep things simple for this explanation, we will use the vanilla MW4 sizes (SRM2/SRM4/LRM5/LRM10/MG/AC2/AC5/SL/SPL/ML/MPL = 1 'unit', SRM6/LRM15/LRM20/LL/LPL/Flamer/AC10 = 2 'units', PPC/AC20/Gauss = 3 'units').
Dire Wolf Prime
RA/LA = {B:1, E:2, E:2, E:1, E:1}
RT = {}
LT = {M:3}
CT = {}

Dire Wolf A
RA = {E:2, E:2, E:2}
LA = {B:3}
RT = {}
LT = {M:2, M:2}
CT = {}

Dire Wolf B
RA = {B:3}
LA = {E:3, E:3, E:1, E:1}
RT/LT = {B:1, B:1}
CT = {E:1}

So let's take a look at what all is possible now, the most PPCs this can mount is 2 thanks to the DW B's LA. With that LA though, it can only mount a Gauss if it uses the B's RA. Meaning the Giga Spike Dire Wolf is no longer possible, nor is the Direstar. Even if Ghost Heat was in place, you couldn't mount enough PPCs to trigger it. Dual Gauss is also only possible if you sacrifice the numerous energy hardpoints in both arms (because the B's torsos can't mount them). It can still run dakka (though with my micro slot suggestion, that could and probably should be changed), but it can only run 6 UAC2/UAC5s at most. Now let's look at the laser perspective, which this thing can mount numerous, with the capability to run 5 ERLLs if you wanted to. Even without ghost heat, this generates a lot of heat (50 per alpha), and has it spread over 1.6s which does hinder it quite a bit. It certainly isn't doing as much damage as it is now with the laser vomit build (which is helped massively by those Gauss), not to mention, the only other thing it can mount is some backup missiles and 2 ERML. The best build here seems to be using the Prime arms and mounting close to the current laser vomit build, just replacing 2 ERML with 2 ERLL, and replacing the Gauss (since it can't mount Gauss in those arms) with UAC5s. The damage potential is still massive for this mech, but it loses its pinpoint damage meaning it is just a massive DPS machine. Looking at a Dire Wolf is no longer a death sentence unless you stare at it long enough, it gives you a chance to manuever away from it without losing a section. All without nerfing a weapon system (hurting all non-boats) and removing the mech from play completely.

So that leads us to purpose 2, the Dire's new largest PPFLD alpha would be 2 ERPPCs and a Gauss (which is 35 points to one section). Another Clan assault happens to be able to do that loadout comfortably as well, with about as many backup weapons as the Dire, and with more speed/manueverability and that is the Warhawk. Suddenly the Warhawk would have a place because it could fulfill the PPFLD role slightly better than the Dire without being overpowered. This is what I mean by overlap, some mechs (the Stalker vs Awesome is another example) can perform the same roles thanks to quantity of hardpoints being the only thing that matters currently, whereas with sized hardpoints, certain mechs are restricted from using them which makes these mechs that able to perform these roles suddenly important, even if given the hardpoints, the other mech could do them better. This is an attempt to curtail the power of good hitboxes combined with numerous hardpoints which has allowed many mechs to reign over others even though the difference between them may be miniscule.



Now as I mentioned earlier, I would not run with MW4 sizes simply because they didn't allow for differences as much between systems like LRM15/LRM20s or AC2/AC5s. The HC mod for MW4 introduced the 'microslot' system which in general, multiplied all size values of weapons by 3. This made weapons like the Large Laser 6 'units' whereas the Medium Laser was 3 'units', this is important because it allows wiggle room, because now you could make the Large Pulse 7 'units' and the PPC '8 units' allowing you to further restrict the weapons capable of being mounted. This just takes the hardpoint concept further, which mind you is the entire purpose, to restrict mechs from simply boating the best weapon even though you can mount whatever you want. I say this because if there were no hardpoint limitations, the game would lack diversity, but so too would the game if the hardpoint limitations were too restrictive, the trick is finding a happy medium, and it is a happy medium which has not been found imo with the current hardpoint system, thus the point of this post.

Discuss.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 07 October 2014 - 01:46 PM.

[Herr Vorragend]

I like your idea. We could get rid of ghost heat (and the gauss charge as well )

Edited by Herr Vorragend, 07 October 2014 - 01:51 PM.

[Rebas Kradd]

The Dire Wolf already has a happy medium - its extremely slow, extremely fat, and extremely prone. I see dual gauss Dire Wolves bite it within the first three minutes of a match all the time. Same with dual gauss Jagers. Other boats have weaknesses of a different kind, most notably the inability to defend yourself at close range because you've min-maxed.

The sized hardpoints thing strikes me as making mountains out of molehills - revamping the game (it IS a significant revamp) to address a handful of builds. Not a good design decision.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Rebas Kradd, on 07 October 2014 - 01:51 PM, said:

The Dire Wolf already has a happy medium - its extremely slow, extremely fat, and extremely prone. I see dual gauss Dire Wolves bite it within the first three minutes of a match all the time. Same with dual gauss Jagers. Other boats have weaknesses of a different kind, most notably the inability to defend yourself at close range because you've min-maxed.

The sized hardpoints thing strikes me as making mountains out of molehills - revamping the game (it IS a significant revamp) to address a handful of builds. Not a good design decision.

The Dire Wolf is currently THE assault mech, which tells me it isn't really a happy medium, but that is just one example. I'm sure I could just bring up the Stalker vs Awesome as a more in-depth comparison that is very much not a happy medium. Keeping in mind that the MW4 Nova Cat had some of the worst hitboxes in the game (Mauler had THE worst imo) and yet was powerful because it could mount more ERLL than any other mech, and ERLL were just that good.

As for revamping, yep, it is not something that can be done in one sitting. But it is a great design decision because it REQUIRES you to give every mech some purpose rather than just slapping some hardpoints on it and hoping it fits within the grand scheme of things. Its a great design decision, just maybe not a smart business/project decision, depends on how well it improves the game and whether it helps draw more people into it for the long haul.

[Ultimax]

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

So that leads us to purpose 2, the Dire's new largest PPFLD alpha would be 2 ERPPCs and a Gauss (which is 35 points to one

I added 5 DHS.

Now tell me what you are supposed to do with the other eightteen tons of space?

Do I start stuffing lasers in there, so we have a laser vomit + CERPPCs + Gauss alpha?

Do I take LRMs even though I don't want them?



This mech was specifically designed to boat 50+ tons of weapons and destroy the hell out of things, that's why it's 100 tons with a bad engine.



Here is a totally legitimate build using the badly thought out hardpoint restrictions by that other poster.

http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1f4e2c0ab2ba6c2


Tell me what rules that breaks? Answer = none.


Yet it does 20 DPS at peaks, can probably sustain that for a solid 12s (240 damage) - enough to core any mech in the game in a blaze - better yet all those mechs will probably be more limited on viable builds to fight back.



The sized hardpoint system is a failure of an idea, and so far I have not seen anyone propose a viable set of rules that allows build freedom, maintains many of the "non-problem" builds, and deals with builds that come loaded stock as problem builds.


Because a change like this would see me show up in a Dual Gauss King Crab using hardpoints that are that large stock, and just wreck all the crappy goofball builds everyone else has been forced into that can no longer even remotely compete with it.

[Ultimax]

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 02:11 PM, said:

The Dire Wolf is currently THE assault mech, which tells me it isn't really a happy medium,

Of course it's not a happy medium. It's not supposed to be a happy medium.

It has OVER FIFTY TONS of pod space on purpose.

It could have been given a 400 Clan XL, move at 71kph like the Warhawk and also have as much tonnage to play with as a Warhawk.


Not everything has to be a happy medium, not every game is checkers.

Is the Queen a happy medium in chess? No. It's the most powerful piece in the game.





But contrary to this silly theory that sized hardpoints promotes uniqueness, the Dire Wolf is unique right now

Instead of giving it a 400 XL and making it a larger Warhawk, it goes extremely slow. It is the definition of ponderous and in return it gets 50+ tons of killing potential.


As long as this game doesn't allow 12 Direwolves on each side in the public queue, it's OK that some mechs have armageddon level firepower, and continental drift levels of speed.

[terrycloth]

I think sized hardpoints are a wrong-headed idea. It's great to say 'you can have more chassis that are functionally different' but what you're really doing is cutting down on the number of choices a player has. Unless what they want is the cookie-cutter build that one chassis or another is designed for, they're out of luck.

To some extent even typed hardpoints have that problem, but you usually have options to switch weapons around to emphasize one or the other of the hardpoints to get some wiggle room. If your choices are between a medium laser and a medium pulse laser, or nothing, or worse than nothing (flamer, small laser), that wiggle room evaporates and you're essentially locked in.

God forbid someone wants to try out a new weapon loadout. They'll have to spend millions of c-bills on a whole new mech and some real-life money getting mechbays. If you're one of the collectors who already has every mech I'm sure this isn't a problem for you, but seriously. Having every mech should not be a requirement.

[Eddrick]

It has it's good and bad parts.

It does nothing to fix the root cause of most of MWO's problems (Instant Pinpoint Convergence). It just covers it up. Like Ghost Heat does.

Brings Mechs back to their intended role and allows for more variants to be added (Because, you don't have as many overlapping). Also, allows for critical slot splitting without much worry of it being terribly broken (The original form of the King Crab requires critical slot splitting. Because, not enough room in the arms for the AC/20s, hand actuator, and lower arm actuator).

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

I added 5 DHS.

Now tell me what you are supposed to do with the other eightteen tons of space?

Do I start stuffing lasers in there, so we have a laser vomit + CERPPCs + Gauss alpha?

Do I take LRMs even though I don't want them?

Yep, pretty much, it leaves you without the ability to optimize, that is the point. The whole point of hardpoints was in fact to keep everything from spamming the most brutally efficiency weapon that happened to come about because of balance changes. Limitations can infact be beneficial to diversity in this point just as how the number of hardpoints actually forces people to use Large Lasers, because if given a choice, I would always take 5 ML over LL. See my point, there really isn't a choice unless the Large Laser is worth 5 ML in some way, which I assure you even currently it is not.

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

This mech was specifically designed to boat 50+ tons of weapons and destroy the hell out of things, that's why it's 100 tons with a bad engine.

Here is a totally legitimate build using the badly thought out hardpoint restrictions by that other poster.
http://mwo.smurfy-ne...1f4e2c0ab2ba6c2
Tell me what rules that breaks? Answer = none.

Yet it does 20 DPS at peaks, can probably sustain that for a solid 12s (240 damage) - enough to core any mech in the game in a blaze - better yet all those mechs will probably be more limited on viable builds to fight back.

Yep, you are correct, it would be possible. Two questions though, will it actually be dangerous, considering there would still be decent PPFLD damage mechs available, and how is that a slight bit better than the current Dakka Wolves which also have no competition other than other Dakka Wolves and a few others?

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

The sized hardpoint system is a failure of an idea, and so far I have not seen anyone propose a viable set of rules that allows build freedom, maintains many of the "non-problem" builds, and deals with builds that come loaded stock as problem builds.

Does it restrict loadouts and a certain amount of freedom with PARTICULAR chassis (you could still do similar loadouts on other mechs), yes.
Does it remove problem builds, like the PPC Stalker (4 and the boogeyman that is 6) as well as the reduce the efficiency of certain mechs that have numerous hardpoints to play with, yes.
Does it deal with problem builds that come stock, no, because what stock mechs are you worried about out of curiosity?

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 02:25 PM, said:

Because a change like this would see me show up in a Dual Gauss King Crab using hardpoints that are that large stock, and just wreck all the crappy goofball builds everyone else has been forced into that can no longer even remotely compete with it.

Speculation, not only on a mech that isn't out, but on a system you have no idea on what limitations would be imposed. As I pointed out, the Dire Wolf would still be capable of 4 ERLL, 4 ERML, and 2 UAC5 which is hardly anything to scoff at, even the King Crab would be wary of poking out to something that can do 92 points of damage however un-concentrated. Now of course you may use the excuse that this is still a high alpha that this was meant to keep at bay, and to a degree you are correct. The two problems with this is that this build now lacks any decent PPFLD weapons and is a little bit hotter than previous build which are two huge problems with this. I played MW4 with the microslot system, and we certainly saw more diversity in gameplay and we even had 70+ PPFLD alphas within the game. It was just limited to a select few and they came with their own penalties.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 02:32 PM, said:

Of course it's not a happy medium. It's not supposed to be a happy medium.

It has OVER FIFTY TONS of pod space on purpose.

It could have been given a 400 Clan XL, move at 71kph like the Warhawk and also have as much tonnage to play with as a Warhawk.

Not everything has to be a happy medium, not every game is checkers.

Is the Queen a happy medium in chess? No. It's the most powerful piece in the game.

But contrary to this silly theory that sized hardpoints promotes uniqueness, the Dire Wolf is unique right now

Instead of giving it a 400 XL and making it a larger Warhawk, it goes extremely slow. It is the definition of ponderous and in return it gets 50+ tons of killing potential.

As long as this game doesn't allow 12 Direwolves on each side in the public queue, it's OK that some mechs have armageddon level firepower, and continental drift levels of speed.

Chess is also a game that is mechanical enough that is was the first game that an AI was able to beat someone who had spent years playing it (I could go more in-depth if needed). Do you honestly want the game to have a mechanical feel to it?

Sorry, but I want a mech game that gives us mechs that have inherent value within the game so that the game doesn't have to have some arbitrary limit on the number of powerful mechs you can take to stop the game from being an arms race, because it already is an arms race and it has been exacerbated since the days ECM was introduced.

[Ultimax]

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Yep, pretty much, it leaves you without the ability to optimize...

No it forces you to make bad choices.

It forces you fill your mech up with things you don't actually want or need.

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Yep, you are correct, it would be possible. Two questions though, will it actually be dangerous, considering there would still be decent PPFLD damage mechs available

Of course it would be dangerous, we're also reducing the number of potent builds that can stand up to it at the same time.

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Does it restrict loadouts and a certain amount of freedom with PARTICULAR chassis (you could still do similar loadouts on other mechs), yes.
Does it remove problem builds, like the PPC Stalker (4 and the boogeyman that is 6) as well as the reduce the efficiency of certain mechs that have numerous hardpoints to play with, yes.
Does it deal with problem builds that come stock, no, because what stock mechs are you worried about out of curiosity?

I don't think you get Russ' challenge.

You have to show that you deal with the supposed "problem builds" but that we are left with more choices than less.

For starters, that is actually impossible with Clan mechs due to the Omni-pod system - you will always have less choices, and less available builds for players to explore.

The onus is on you to solve that riddle, you can dream about sized hardpoints all you like but if you or others can't prove that overall more value would be added then you fail the challenge.

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 02:55 PM, said:

Speculation, not only on a mech that isn't out, but on a system you have no idea on what limitations would be imposed.

Ah yes this is the crux of it isn't it?

You want to return mechs to their intended role, except when that role is killing the hell out of things.

King Crab will come with Dual AC 20s. Even if I can't slot Dual Gauss because of some apparently other nerf that might get dreamed up, I can still AC 40 core you.

Or do we nerf that too? Do we nerf everything - even stock load outs - that we fell are "problematic" and keep pretending all these exemptions and arbitrary limitations are actually better than ghost heat?


That's really just bad logic there.

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 03:00 PM, said:

Chess is also a game that is mechanical enough that

It was a metaphor, not a literal 1:1 example on every single level.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM.

[Jolly Llama]

WM Quicksilver, on 07 October 2014 - 01:38 PM, said:

So the following is an analysis on sized hardpoints and why I believe them to be beneficial to this game.

First, let's look at the purposes of a sized hardpoint system.
1) Reduce the number of powerful weapons a mech can mount unless called for by canon.
2) Reduce overlap of both mechs and omnipods to put the emphasis not just on quantity of hardpoints, but quality as well.

tl;dr - It does what it sets out to do

So first, let's examine purpose 1, which is to reduce the number of mechs that can boat powerful weapons. I will preface this with the fact, yes there are in fact many boats/specialized designs within the BT universe, and that is not necessarily a problem, as a majority suffer from heat problems even without ghost heat. The problem is when they are allowed to boat many powerful weapons without consequence which ghost heat does not solve. So let's take a look at an example, the Dire Wolf:
So currently the Dire Wolf can take Gauss and a bunch of lasers that allows it not only have a nice pinpoint alpha with the Gauss, but vomit almost twice that much damage within 1.6 seconds which even with spread is a lot. So let's take a look at the hardpoints after size is added to them. For quick reference and to keep things simple for this explanation, we will use the vanilla MW4 sizes (SRM2/SRM4/LRM5/LRM10/MG/AC2/AC5/SL/SPL/ML/MPL = 1 'unit', SRM6/LRM15/LRM20/LL/LPL/Flamer/AC10 = 2 'units', PPC/AC20/Gauss = 3 'units').
Dire Wolf Prime
RA/LA = {B:1, E:2, E:2, E:1, E:1}
RT = {}
LT = {M:3}
CT = {}

Dire Wolf A
RA = {E:2, E:2, E:2}
LA = {B:3}
RT = {}
LT = {M:2, M:2}
CT = {}

Dire Wolf B
RA = {B:3}
LA = {E:3, E:3, E:1, E:1}
RT/LT = {B:1, B:1}
CT = {E:1}

So let's take a look at what all is possible now, the most PPCs this can mount is 2 thanks to the DW B's LA. With that LA though, it can only mount a Gauss if it uses the B's RA. Meaning the Giga Spike Dire Wolf is no longer possible, nor is the Direstar. Even if Ghost Heat was in place, you couldn't mount enough PPCs to trigger it. Dual Gauss is also only possible if you sacrifice the numerous energy hardpoints in both arms (because the B's torsos can't mount them). It can still run dakka (though with my micro slot suggestion, that could and probably should be changed), but it can only run 6 UAC2/UAC5s at most. Now let's look at the laser perspective, which this thing can mount numerous, with the capability to run 5 ERLLs if you wanted to. Even without ghost heat, this generates a lot of heat (50 per alpha), and has it spread over 1.6s which does hinder it quite a bit. It certainly isn't doing as much damage as it is now with the laser vomit build (which is helped massively by those Gauss), not to mention, the only other thing it can mount is some backup missiles and 2 ERML. The best build here seems to be using the Prime arms and mounting close to the current laser vomit build, just replacing 2 ERML with 2 ERLL, and replacing the Gauss (since it can't mount Gauss in those arms) with UAC5s. The damage potential is still massive for this mech, but it loses its pinpoint damage meaning it is just a massive DPS machine. Looking at a Dire Wolf is no longer a death sentence unless you stare at it long enough, it gives you a chance to manuever away from it without losing a section. All without nerfing a weapon system (hurting all non-boats) and removing the mech from play completely.

So that leads us to purpose 2, the Dire's new largest PPFLD alpha would be 2 ERPPCs and a Gauss (which is 35 points to one section). Another Clan assault happens to be able to do that loadout comfortably as well, with about as many backup weapons as the Dire, and with more speed/manueverability and that is the Warhawk. Suddenly the Warhawk would have a place because it could fulfill the PPFLD role slightly better than the Dire without being overpowered. This is what I mean by overlap, some mechs (the Stalker vs Awesome is another example) can perform the same roles thanks to quantity of hardpoints being the only thing that matters currently, whereas with sized hardpoints, certain mechs are restricted from using them which makes these mechs that able to perform these roles suddenly important, even if given the hardpoints, the other mech could do them better. This is an attempt to curtail the power of good hitboxes combined with numerous hardpoints which has allowed many mechs to reign over others even though the difference between them may be miniscule.



Now as I mentioned earlier, I would not run with MW4 sizes simply because they didn't allow for differences as much between systems like LRM15/LRM20s or AC2/AC5s. The HC mod for MW4 introduced the 'microslot' system which in general, multiplied all size values of weapons by 3. This made weapons like the Large Laser 6 'units' whereas the Medium Laser was 3 'units', this is important because it allows wiggle room, because now you could make the Large Pulse 7 'units' and the PPC '8 units' allowing you to further restrict the weapons capable of being mounted. This just takes the hardpoint concept further, which mind you is the entire purpose, to restrict mechs from simply boating the best weapon even though you can mount whatever you want. I say this because if there were no hardpoint limitations, the game would lack diversity, but so too would the game if the hardpoint limitations were too restrictive, the trick is finding a happy medium, and it is a happy medium which has not been found imo with the current hardpoint system, thus the point of this post.

Discuss.

No.

[kapusta11]

So instead of loadout based meta we'll have chassis based one, and that helps how?

Edited by kapusta11, 07 October 2014 - 03:11 PM.

[Ultimax]

kapusta11, on 07 October 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

So instead of loadout based meta we'll have chassis based one, and that helps how?

It doesn't, the proponents of this titanic nerf really haven't thought it out that far.

That's where my vehemence comes from on this topic.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

No it forces you to make bad choices.

It forces you fill your mech up with things you don't actually want or need.

Oh, kinda like those omni restrictions huh?
That is beside the point though, the game isn't forcing you to use that mech for that build, so that bad choice is simply the player's.

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

Of course it would be dangerous, we're also reducing the number of potent builds that can stand up to it at the same time.

Maybe reducing the outliers, but hardly its competitors. Mechs like the Warhawk or Banshee would be pretty much unaffected by this change, and those are hardly worthless. Not to mention anything that has decent enough speed to make it a lot harder for a Dire to stay on target and do something about it rather than just accept the fate that your f*****.

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

I don't think you get Russ' challenge.

You have to show that you deal with the supposed "problem builds" but that we are left with more choices than less.

For starters, that is actually impossible with Clan mechs due to the Omni-pod system - you will always have less choices, and less available builds for players to explore.

Actually it wouldn't affect the omnipods that much since NONE of them are inflated, not to mention it would give some use to the omnipods with only one hardpoint without giving them insane quirks.

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

The onus is on you to solve that riddle, you can dream about sized hardpoints all you like but if you or others can't prove that overall more value would be added then you fail the challenge.

It was a loaded challenge to begin with, the only way to increase choice is to remove hardpoints all together or to create something even more convoluted than Ghost Heat, I'm sure someone with more experience in math than me could even prove that what he stated is impossible (sized hardpoints allowing for more choice that is). It is also hardly the point, the point is what is healthier for the game, heavier restrictions than what we have now, or freedom (or maybe even more).

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

Ah yes this is the crux of it isn't it?

You want to return mechs to their intended role, except when that role is killing the hell out of things.

King Crab will come with Dual AC 20s. Even if I can't slot Dual Gauss because of some apparently other nerf that might get dreamed up, I can still AC 40 core you.

Or do we nerf that too? Do we nerf everything - even stock load outs - that we fell are "problematic" and keep pretending all these exemptions and arbitrary limitations are actually better than ghost heat?

Here we go again with strawmen, especially the last part, no where did I suggest or assume the need to nerf everything or nerf stock loadouts WHEN WE DO THAT ALREADY. In fact that is kinda the point of hardpoint restrictions, to avoid nerfing weapon systems because of outlier loadouts.

As for AC40 on a 100 ton Assault mech, honestly I see no problem with the King Crab, you are right it is dangerous but it isn't the end all Assault mech nor is it without some problems.

As for roles, yep killing things is the name of the game, but the game is more than that. What range are you most effective at killing things more than the other guy, how efficiently can you kill the other guy, etc. That is what the difference between mechs, no mech should be better at all things than a mech designed for a similar role and of similar weight (even though the Dire Wolf IS the perfect assault mech in TT).

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

That's really just bad logic there.

It was a metaphor, not a literal 1:1 example on every single level.

It was bad logic on yours as well, because it was a strawman (just like mine was ).

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 07 October 2014 - 03:32 PM.

[Scratx]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:16 PM, said:

It doesn't, the proponents of this titanic nerf really haven't thought it out that far.

That's where my vehemence comes from on this topic.

Pretty much, plus we have...

Herr Vorragend, on 07 October 2014 - 01:50 PM, said:

I like your idea. We could get rid of ghost heat (and the gauss charge as well )

...people like this who have absolutely no understanding of the actual issues at hand and think that sized hardpoints will do **** to the problem Ghost Heat is designed to fight.

It feels to me like a macabre spectacle, funny yet very much not. Very... black humour.

Seriously, they can't even come up with a way to deal with the Stock Nova Prime without inventing specific mechanics to nerf it, just as odious as Ghost Heat itself is. Such delicious irony.

So, I'll basically sum it up. Ghost Heat is designed as a brake to "IMMAFIRINALLMALAZORS!!" (aka, fire everything at once), which is rightly considered a problem because that typically results in landing all the damage in a single component on the target. While the root issue is probably Convergence, that does not seem to be something PGI is interested in touching, so the alternative is to deal with the consequences of it. Sized Hardpoints, however, doesn't actually do anything to this. All it restricts is what weapons you can use, not when you can use them. Thus, people will be free to FIRE EVERYTHING if Ghost Heat is removed.

This is why removing Ghost Heat in order to use Sized Hardpoints is macabre humour.

And in the process probably half or more of the entire player base's mechs get a big, fat, red "INVALID" plastered on them. *claps*

[Quicksilver Aberration]

kapusta11, on 07 October 2014 - 03:10 PM, said:

So instead of loadout based meta we'll have chassis based one, and that helps how?

You'll always have a meta, the question is how diverse it is both in the variety of mechs AND loadouts used.
Currently, we have neither a diversity in mechs, or loadouts. Having played in a league that surrounded the MW4 mod I mention, I can say the microslot hardpoint system worked fairly well at that, granted there were a few other factors in play with that, but I digress....

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Scratx, on 07 October 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

Seriously, they can't even come up with a way to deal with the Stock Nova Prime without inventing specific mechanics to nerf it, just as odious as Ghost Heat itself is.

Other than hinting at quirks, no where did I suggest any specific mechanics to nerf it, but nice try.

Scratx, on 07 October 2014 - 03:36 PM, said:

Thus, people will be free to FIRE EVERYTHING if Ghost Heat is removed.

Hyperbolic.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 07 October 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[Spades Kincaid]

Ultimatum X, on 07 October 2014 - 03:05 PM, said:

I don't think you get Russ' challenge.

You have to show that you deal with the supposed "problem builds" but that we are left with more choices than less.

For starters, that is actually impossible with Clan mechs due to the Omni-pod system - you will always have less choices, and less available builds for players to explore.

The onus is on you to solve that riddle, you can dream about sized hardpoints all you like but if you or others can't prove that overall more value would be added then you fail the challenge.

I already made this point in the other thread. Go read it again. Russ' challenge says nothing about showing being left with more choices. In fact, it doesn't say anything about proving added value either.

It simply asks for an outline of how the hardpoints would look on a chassis with several variants and then an audit of what builds would still exist and what current ones no longer would. Which will include builds that aren't "problems". (I'll agree I've seen little of that last part done.)

Argue your position on hardpoint restriction changes as vehemently as you like. Point out any failures to address the builds that will be lost, if someone hasn't. Just stop using the false and misleading assertions of what is 'required' please. No proof of any improvement was asked for by Russ at all. The Challenge was to do a full audit, including looking at non-problem builds that would no longer be possible, not to prove anything.

[Ultimax]

Spades Kincaid, on 07 October 2014 - 04:06 PM, said:

and then an audit of what builds would still exist and what current ones no longer would. Which will include builds that aren't "problems". (I'll agree I've seen little of that last part done.)

I've seen none of it done.


Hence the failure on the part of the proponents.



They recognize very clearly that if they begin posting all of the potential builds that would no longer exist in their convoluted and unfun system, it would suddenly lose support from other players who also aren't clearly thinking things through.


Like one player who was advocating sized hardpoints, but seemed convinced his K2 would somehow get to keep it's 4x ERLLAS build.


I haven't seen anything but more convoluted restrictions, a half dozen or more "special cases" mechs designed to boat weapons reduced to builds that are literally garbage on purpose, etc.


This is a terrible idea, and PGI was right all that time ago not listening to the handful of players advocating it. They would do well to not listen to them now either.

Edited by Ultimatum X, 07 October 2014 - 04:55 PM.