117 replies to this topic

[Gattsus]

This a a story that I missed. I arrived after the implementation of ghost heat.

I tried looking for it but didn't find the reason why ghost heat was implemented instead of sized hardpoints to limit brokent/op builds?

Anyone with memory or a handy link?

[LordKnightFandragon]

Lol, I think it was to break up firing the same weapons in large groups.

It was a failed experiment, it needs to go and the heat scale needs an overhaul.

[Gattsus]

But why they didn't implement sized hardpoints as an alternative to ghost heat?

It would have been less magical, if so to say.

[wanderer]

Because PGI couldn't into the actual problems- not having actual heat effects and not realizing that the real TTK shorteners was pinpoint, front-loaded damage. All ghost heat did was shift things to ballistic builds being top dog.

[El Bandito]

We do not know the exact reason why they chose GH--aside from the fact that many people think PGI was lazy--but the fact remains that Ghost Heat is an unpopular, convoluted, newbie unfriendly, shoddy mechanic full of holes. And PGI had just began to patch up some of those holes--like the AC2 GH--after almost a year of complete neglect.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 February 2015 - 04:07 AM.

[mike29tw]

Personally i'm not particularly fond of the sized hardpoint idea because it adds another layer of build restriction, but it's going to make a lot more sense the ghost heat that's for sure.

[Alistair Winter]

Well, there's not a lot of people begging for fixed hardpoint size either. It kills customization and people like the ability to replace MGs on a CPLT-K2 with AC20s. We may one day see the death of Ghost Heat, but it won't be in 2015.

[Kaeb Odellas]

I'd prefer soft restrictions, where there are negative quirks associated with exceeding the hardpoint size limit, instead of just prohibiting the player from doing so.

[HARDKOR]

Sized hardpoints were awesome.

[AssaultPig]

it seems likely that ghost heat was simply the easiest solution; relatively simple (if poorly documented) rules that could be applied to all chassis. The idea of sized hardpoints is interesting, but would have required mech-by-mech rebalancing and might not have solved the problem anyway (I mean, is an awesome or stalker only gonna have two PPC-sized hardpoints?)

[mike29tw]

AssaultPig, on 07 February 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

it seems likely that ghost heat was simply the easiest solution; relatively simple (if poorly documented) rules that could be applied to all chassis. The idea of sized hardpoints is interesting, but would have required mech-by-mech rebalancing and might not have solved the problem anyway (I mean, is an awesome or stalker only gonna have two PPC-sized hardpoints?)

Ghost heat is anything but simple. I can pull the whole mech lab restrictions rules anytime from the back of my head and explain the rules to anyone. Nobody can cite the whole ghost heat penalty table with memory, all they can tell you is "2 PPC alpha, good; 3 PPC alpha, bad."

[Ratpoison]

I don't get how sized hardpoints is somehow supposed to be a less arbitrary restriction than ghost heat is. Same problems, slightly shifted meta.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Why not sized hard points?
Why not targeting computer of HomelessBills idea?
Why not asymmetrical balance?
Why not real heat scale?
Why not real critical system?

WHY NOT MORE BATTLETECH IN BATTLETECH GAME?

[YueFei]

Kaeb Odellas, on 07 February 2015 - 12:43 PM, said:

I'd prefer soft restrictions, where there are negative quirks associated with exceeding the hardpoint size limit, instead of just prohibiting the player from doing so.

This could be a really good idea, rather than trying to power-creep all the robots to be increasingly more deadly.

[Serpieri]

Ghost heat has failed - on top of that is severely handicapped mechs that relied on energy hardpoints - PGI's answer to that is was Quirks instead of fixing the core problem and now we have mechs that are lighter/smaller using weapon loadouts that were only found on assault mechs.

The Solution is simple - restrict the size of the hardpoints - control how much damage can be fronted at long, medium and short range.

[Quxudica]

Gattsus, on 07 February 2015 - 12:10 PM, said:

This a a story that I missed. I arrived after the implementation of ghost heat.

I tried looking for it but didn't find the reason why ghost heat was implemented instead of sized hardpoints to limit brokent/op builds?

Anyone with memory or a handy link?

Stubborn refusal to accept that the true problems are inherent to the games heat mechanics and universal convergence. Ghost Heat was always a bandaid, and a rather convoluted one at that.

I've always wished weapons had logical sim-style requirements. What is this magical unit of measurement we call a critical? Why are 14 "criticals" on a Raven the exact same as 14 on an Atlas? Why are PPC's on a Catapult the size of a Ravens torso but on that same Raven they are barely bigger than machine guns? Why does the Hunchback 4G have an enormous weapon cowling on it's shoulder when other mechs can mount that AC/20 without having that bulk?

I would have vastly prefered weapons to have designated set dimensions and require hardpoints that can accomodate them. Yes it limits builds, but thats part of the point. Without some build limitation there's little reason for half of currently existing mechs to exist at all and no reason for some chassis to be designed the way they are.

Weapon Size Limitations do not mean you can't slap a Gauss Rifle on a light if you want to do so, it just means you need to buy a Hollander Artillery Mech and not an Electronic Warfare Raven.

[Black Arachne]

AssaultPig, on 07 February 2015 - 01:07 PM, said:

it seems likely that ghost heat was simply the easiest solution; relatively simple (if poorly documented) rules that could be applied to all chassis. The idea of sized hardpoints is interesting, but would have required mech-by-mech rebalancing and might not have solved the problem anyway (I mean, is an awesome or stalker only gonna have two PPC-sized hardpoints?)

Currently, PGI is re-balancing every mech with quirks - many of which deal with the current heat mechanics. Which is not ideal and requires multiple passes and many are still not right.

How to decide how many hard points a mech gets that will be slated as large, medium, small. Easy,base it of the stock variant, So an Awesome 9m can load 3 large energy weapons, 1 medium energy weapon, 2 medium missile hardpoints. A large can be substituted with 2 mediums or 4 smalls and a medium can substituted with 2 smalls.

Edited by Black Arachne, 07 February 2015 - 01:36 PM.

[Zordicron]

Gets out soap box, blows dirt off-

time to bring this around again, been a few months now at least this time....

here is how to do sized hardpoints in MWO, without having to recode from the ground up, and not restrict loadouts, at least, not restrict them as far as what people can actually put on the mech:

First, let's look at missile weapons. They are, in effect, indirectly limited on any mech they are put on, not by size or tonnage(I mean any more then any other weapon) but by...say it with me.... missile tube count.

that's right, missiles have to follow fire patterns based on how many tubes are on the hardpoint. Put that LRM20 on a 20 tube launcher? MEGABLOB. Now put it in a NARC tube....LRM machine gun one at a time.

See, this was actually quite genius when whoever thought it up, because it allows players to put whatever the **** launcher they want on, but allows PGI to differentiate mechs based on how that mech would fire the different size missle weapons. The, for some reason, this logic wasn't applied to lasers or ballistics.

this is where the idea I have been spouting since early open beta comes back in: actually apply that to the lasers and ballistics- example time!

Your K2 has MG mounts in the torso. you want AC20. OK! you are allowed to put them there. However, we have given the K2 a ballistic "tube size" of AC2. What does that mean? it means anything AC2 or smaller, will be unaffected by the tube size, but anything bigger will have the shot broken up into a burstfire type with multiple shells. just like putting a LRM 20 into a ten tube launcher hardpoint breaks the missile salvo into 2 parts. So, you drop AC20 into the AC2 size spot on that K2, now your AC20 fires 10 shells per shot.

Burst fire exists in the game now with clans. Tube count code for missiles exists. Each variant of each chassis can be customized to "fit the bill" based on popular loadout, expected performance, etc. If AC2 is too small for K2? OK, make them AC5 size instead. maybe make one side AC20 size and one side AC2 size- now we just removed the feared AC40 mech from the ONOZ list, because it no longer can fire 40 pinpoint dmg, BUT IT CAN STILL MOUNT TWO AC20.

lasers could be done the same way, but rather then "number of shells" etc, it could simply be duration, or if that is frowned on, perhaps heat. Large laser in a ML size tube, still possible, but now the large laser takes a duration penalty, OR, it could take a heat penalty. Base it on whatever lore fluff you want, capacitor size limits mean you have to "string out" the duration to prevent failure, heat sink locations mean to big a laser in whatever spot is suboptimal for dissipation and heat side effects occur, whatever.


See, the base logic for the effects has existed, at a minimum, since clan were put in, because busrt fire mechanics are now in the game. When I first proposed this, they werent, and people bawked. There is nothing to bawk at now, duration alterations are already existing in quirks, busrt fire exists, game code for missile tube count and the logic for fireing them based on that exists.

In the end: PGI now has control on a per variant basis of every hardpoint and what they feel is an accaptable pinpoint alpha now becomes tweakable. The idea fits into the existing game mechanics. Player are not restricted on what they put where. Sure, putting an LRM20 into that NARC launcher is not particularily optimal, but you can do it. Putting an AC20 into a MG mount would essentially be the same effect. "ONOZ" you say, "they will take away my loadout!!" NO!! only if your loadout is hella broken would they do that, at worst your AC40 jager might get AC5 size ballistic mounts and you would have 4 shells instead of 1. or maybe they go AC10 size, now you get two shells- etc. it allows PGI to break up the PPFLD based on VARIANTS that can abuse it, not even just chassis, WITHOUT having to mess with the actual weapon values. It would simply b applying quirk style modifiers to lasers, and burstfire modifiers to ballistics.


I know that got long, but please read it carefully(and sorry the spelling, I have retyped this so many times I get in a hurry with it now) and I think you will see there is little to no downside with this system.

P.S.- I support a lower heatscale cap and higher dissipation in conjunction with this change, but I feel this system of per variant weapon modifiers is more important, and would make a much better base to build off of with a revised heatscale/weapon balance overhaul. Removing the worst PPFLD offenders from the game by forcing some dmg spread or using heat "persuasion" would then give a more realistic view of where the weapons actually stand balance wise before adjusting heat values etc.
P.S.S- HSR for ballistic and missiles needs to be brought up to snuff with laser HSR before heatcap revisions also, and even before ghost heat changes IMO.

[AEgg]

The simple answer is that sized hardpoints don't actually solve any problems.

The Nova, Awesome, and Jagermech are prime examples of exacly why sized hardpoints don't solve anything. They just restrict the "good" loadouts to very particular chassis. And that's even more restricting than ghost heat is.

[Knight Magus]

Before I could even get online and play this game my gaming group told me to read up on ghost heat, quirks, check out several links on the so called meta builds and at first glance these mechs were laughable the way they were designed but works with the current rule system here. Oh and the grind is quite terrible as well, I'still can't afford a second mech let alone fully upgrade the first one I purchased. It's starting to feel like a pay wall but that's another topic for another time. Overall though, I goto say MW4 was the better game but I'll give this one a few more days to see if it somehow surprises me.