76 replies to this topic

[oldradagast]

Nevermind - confirmed that they won't be fiddling with the hardpoints, so the rest of this is just discussion about balance, etc.

In the most recent Townhall, it was noted that they are going to be re-balancing everything, and then went on to talk about mech hardpoints and such. Now, maybe the hardpoints won't change - or maybe they will - but if such changes are on the table, I am concerned.

What I'd like to see:

1) Minor balancing based on video game reality: For example, high-mounted hardpoints are better than low ones, and multiple hardpoints of the same type in the same location are better than scattered hardpoints. Mechs that lack these types of hardpoints are generally weaker than others, so this could be fixed.

2) An end to missile-tube madness: This system (I think only on IS mechs) where missile tube limits can force larger missile launchers to fire in volleys needs to end. It is documented almost nowhere - last I checked, it wasn't even in the game, and it produces nutty situations like having to worry about the order in which one adds missile launchers to a location to get the tubes to pair up right with the launchers. It also produces useless hardpoints, like missile tubes on assault mechs that can only fire 2 missiles at a time (Awesome 9M.)

A perfect example of a mech hamstrung by the above limits is the Pretty Baby. It has a scattered mess of singular, low-mounted hardpoint locations, and the one location with more than one hardpoint (left arm) is limited by under-sized missile launchers. This mech could benefit greatly from hardpoint improvements following the above rules.

What I don't want to see:

1) Vast changes to mechs: I don't care if the changes are "Lore-based" or not, people bought they mechs they have for a reason. Changing them into something else will render those purchases useless and kill any trust remaining that future mechs won't morph into something else after time and money is spent on them.

2) Ever-changing hardpoints - monthly meta: I could easily see shifting hardpoints replacing shifting Quirks as a way of keeping people off-balance and spending money. Except what'll really happen is that people will get ticked off because everything keeps changing - by the time 3 variants are leveled, the mech might be something else - and will instead just stop spending money on it at all. People buy mechs for a reason - don't keep changing those reasons unless you want them to stop buying.

Edited by oldradagast, 26 June 2015 - 01:54 PM.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Err be more clear

Wolverine 6k is a great example, do you really want it to be limited to 4E weapons in 1 arm, there's not high mounted hard point option, how would you fix it then?

Are you against them adding Missile pods to it?

Are you against them spreading out the 4E hardpoints?

[oldradagast]

shad0w4life, on 26 June 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Err be more clear

Wolverine 6k is a great example, do you really want it to be limited to 4E weapons in 1 arm, there's not high mounted hard point option, how would you fix it then?

Are you against them adding Missile pods to it?

Are you against them spreading out the 4E hardpoints?

Gladly:

1) Adding more hardpoints for mechs that badly need it is one thing. Adding it others... eh... could just reduce Time to Kill, so I'm not sure if that's a good idea, though empty hardpoints that aren't used won't tick off a player who bought a mech for a specific reason.

2) Moving hardpoints around: That will tick players off in nearly all cases. For every player who'd like those hardpoints to be scattered between torso and arms for durability, there's surely another player who wants to keep all the hardpoints in the arm for convergence and range of motion.

While one can scatter extra hardpoints around on every mech in the game, that seems like a waste of time in most cases since doing so doesn't change the tonnage the mech has.

Long story short: don't change how a mech currently works unless it doesn't work at all, and only fix what is broken, missile tubes being a great example of something that doesn't work right.

The Pretty Baby I'm using as the gold standard for a mech that badly needs a hardpoint adjustment - and missile tube fixes - that brings it in-line with what is required for a mech to be useful in this game. There are no doubt others, but probably less than a dozen overall. I'm just concerned that this "balance" is going to be used as an excuse to "reimagine" the game and most mechs in it. And, quite frankly, I don't have the time or desire to go back and re-level a completely different set of mechs because somebody decided that the ones I have should be something else.

[N a p e s]

shad0w4life, on 26 June 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Err be more clear

Wolverine 6k is a great example, do you really want it to be limited to 4E weapons in 1 arm, there's not high mounted hard point option, how would you fix it then?

Are you against them adding Missile pods to it?

Are you against them spreading out the 4E hardpoints?

The powerglove is a powerful weapon. Please do no change it.

On-topic, some mechs that immediately come to mind that could benefit from having 1 or 2 extra hardpoints are the Vindicators, the Spider-5V and the Pretty Baby. That being said, OP is right in that these should be adjustments and not huge sweeping changes.

[CDLord HHGD]

Hardpoint locations should not change. I would support some thoughtful deflation of the number of hardpoints though. It promotes bad habits and gameplay.

[FupDup]

I think they should break the mold and add an extra energy to each of the Spider 5V's side torsos, because having just 2 CT lasers is so craptastic.

Vindicators should get the extra missile that all of them have in the game files.

[ProfessorD]

I agree. Shorter form:

== If we don't have a solid consensus that it's broken and useless, don't change it's hardpoints.

== Commit (for real, PGI) to only revising hardpoints THIS ONE TIME and never do it again.

cdlord, on 26 June 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

... I would support some thoughtful deflation of the number of hardpoints though. It promotes bad habits and gameplay.

NO!!

== ABSOLUTELY DON'T REMOVE HARDPOINTS EVER!!!

[C E Dwyer]

if it makes better play, and stops power creep, and creates sensible IS builds, which removes ghost heat I shall be all for it.

People getting panties in a bunch before its happened helps none.

P.G.I will do as they think is best, unless they put out the changes to votes, which if going by the champion changes is very new user hostile, full of XL engines and hot builds, so they are not inclusive of making bad judgements

Edited by Cathy, 26 June 2015 - 09:50 AM.

[CDLord HHGD]

ProfessorD, on 26 June 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

I agree. Shorter form:

== If we don't have a solid consensus that it's broken and useless, don't change it's hardpoints.

== Commit (for real, PGI) to only revising hardpoints THIS ONE TIME and never do it again.



NO!!

== ABSOLUTELY DON'T REMOVE HARDPOINTS EVER!!!

Meh....

Not sure if you misunderstood me in your spasm or just over-reacting to someone's opinion.

If something had 4 ballistic when the TT model only has 1 weapon, then I support reducing the number to 2 or 3. That's all. Unless you're so attached to your meta that you can't play otherwise.....

[EvilCow]

I am wondering if they are considering sized hardpoints? that would be fantastic.

Even just two sizes would do it (large and normal).

Large would only be: xPPCs, LPLs, xAC20, Gauss.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Hmm maybe they will alter it so that you need 2/3E hardpoints to mount a LL etc....aka interim Sized Hardpoints.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

cdlord, on 26 June 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

Meh....

Not sure if you misunderstood me in your spasm or just over-reacting to someone's opinion.

If something had 4 ballistic when the TT model only has 1 weapon, then I support reducing the number to 2 or 3. That's all. Unless you're so attached to your meta that you can't play otherwise.....

Because 4 ballistic is so overpowered. /sarcasm
Considering some of the most powerful mechs did not get hardpoint inflation, your point that the inflation wasn't necessary is somewhat invalid. Not that I wouldn't be against removing some inflation that is somewhat pointless considering quirks (like the HBK-4G's 3 ballistic hardpoints) to try and keep some variety but doing it to try and reduce the meta is lol-fully misplaced.

[Zordicron]

shad0w4life, on 26 June 2015 - 09:17 AM, said:

Err be more clear

Wolverine 6k is a great example, do you really want it to be limited to 4E weapons in 1 arm, there's not high mounted hard point option, how would you fix it then?

Are you against them adding Missile pods to it?

Are you against them spreading out the 4E hardpoints?

Best not divide my 4LL arm up over the whole mech lest I get pissed my shield side is gone. Pretty sure the Wang does fine with most of its firepower in the right arm.

There are SOME mechs that could use a little help. Vindicators(St' Ive's) Pretty baby, that type of thing, where the mech itself would be plausible if it could mount a decent loadout.

There are MANY mechs people here are quick to **** on, that are actually just fine but don;t fit into some stupid ass cookie cutter mantra they spew.

As for "helping" some mechs, if we go back to that Wolverine, if they want to add a B hardpoint to the right arm, or some missiles to the torsos for variety sake and options, fine.

NEVER, EVER, EVER, REMOVE A CURRENTLY POSSIBLE LOADOUT. i want my 4 LL in the right arm. you take that away, I will be here screaming, and I don't get that worked up about video game stuff much. Fundamentally altering a mech's ability to load weapons would be a precedent. harpoint inflation, nope- been there done that. Adding is one thing, removal is a total different animal.


On a side note, I have a gut feeling this news so to speak is strongly related to the HSR fix that was also announced. methinks some of the more boat oriented laser platforms are going to see some nerfs one way or another by the end of summer.

[Mardek]

well, ill love to see the firestarter drop 1-2 E hardpoint in favor of other mechs that really need those


*push anti-flame button*

Edited by Mardek, 26 June 2015 - 10:04 AM.

[oldradagast]

cdlord, on 26 June 2015 - 09:50 AM, said:

Meh....

Not sure if you misunderstood me in your spasm or just over-reacting to someone's opinion.

If something had 4 ballistic when the TT model only has 1 weapon, then I support reducing the number to 2 or 3. That's all. Unless you're so attached to your meta that you can't play otherwise.....

It is not a question of meta:

1) People bought a mech for a certain function. Take that function away, and you have a mech they may not like. Is PGI going to refund me the lost money and XP on those mechs? Are they also going to let me "auto-level" whatever mechs I have to buy to replace the ones they buggered up? It is a dull and frustrating enough grind to get the mechs you like leveled. What happens when you no longer like them because they fundamentally changed them?

2) It starts a dangerous trend. First, Quirks were meant as a way to fix a few crummy mechs. Then, they evolved into a way to keep changing mechs with time to force a shifting meta-game and make people either keep buying new mechs or get left behind. It is not a stretch of the imagination to see this happening with hardpoints, particularly now that we almost have dynamic hardpoints for all mechs in the game.

Edited by oldradagast, 26 June 2015 - 10:04 AM.

[Trev Firestorm]

ProfessorD, on 26 June 2015 - 09:44 AM, said:

I agree. Shorter form:

== If we don't have a solid consensus that it's broken and useless, don't change it's hardpoints.

== Commit (for real, PGI) to only revising hardpoints THIS ONE TIME and never do it again.



NO!!

== ABSOLUTELY DON'T REMOVE HARDPOINTS EVER!!!

Agreed, they tried it once with the catapult K2 (removed 1e from each ear) and it just caused more gaussapults (way back in beta) and less versatility/variety of builds.

As to the AWS missiles, wait for the variable geometry change on the 7th, it'll probably change that up.. which actually saddens me in the case of the cicada x5, srm6 firing from 2 tube launchers is fun and they probably will ugly up the launchers like they did to the poor centurion and catapult

[EgoSlayer]

oldradagast, on 26 June 2015 - 09:12 AM, said:

In the most recent Townhall, it was noted that they are going to be re-evaluating hardpoints - number and location. I'm not sure if much more detail was gone into other than that, but this is a concern. Hardpoints are one of the key reasons people buy mechs, and it's been generally accepted that they do not change, unlike Quirks.So, this is a dangerous path to go down.
<snip>

When exactly was this mentioned in the Town Hall? I just listened to the part of the Town Hall where Russ was talking about redoing the quirk system (About the 45 minute mark in the 2nd video) and there is *NO* mention of redoing the hardpoints or locations on the mechs.

He is talking about building the MWO value system to determine a rating for the mechs - e.g. the mech tiers. This value system must include the weapon hardpoints and locations, because a high mounted Ballistic in the arms of a Jeger is more valuable than low mounted hard points e.g. the Cataphract's arms. Then use these values to determine if/how/where a mech should be quirked.

If it's mentioned somewhere else in the stream that they are revamping the mechs, please let me know when in the stream that takes place as I'd like to hear it straight from the stream.

Edited by EgoSlayer, 26 June 2015 - 10:15 AM.

[ProfessorD]

So, in fairness to cd, there was this word:

cdlord, on 26 June 2015 - 09:28 AM, said:

... thoughtful ...

The problem: I don't trust PGI to be "thoughtful" in their balance changes, so I want them to commit to not starting another trend in constantly shifting mech performance.

oldradagast, on 26 June 2015 - 10:03 AM, said:

...
2) It starts a dangerous trend. First, Quirks were meant as a way to fix a few crummy mechs. Then, they evolved into a way to keep changing mechs with time to force a shifting meta-game and make people either keep buying new mechs or get left behind. It is not a stretch of the imagination to see this happening with hardpoints, particularly now that we almost have dynamic hardpoints for all mechs in the game.

Exactly. This must not happen.

Keep in mind: constantly shifting mech performance is actually far worse for new players than for veterans that are familiar with information sources like Smurfy and know how to optimize. Green players may not immediately understand why their favorite mech suddenly doesn't work like it should. Good optimizers will switch to the new best-mech-for-the-job and keep on stomping.

[ThirtyOughtSix]

I vote adding 1 ballsistic hardpoint per mech location to ever tier 3,4,5 mech. At least that way they can be used as comic relief in the game running around with at least 6 MGs each.

[BARBAR0SSA]

Eldagore, on 26 June 2015 - 09:58 AM, said:

Best not divide my 4LL arm up over the whole mech lest I get pissed my shield side is gone. Pretty sure the Wang does fine with most of its firepower in the right arm.

There are SOME mechs that could use a little help. Vindicators(St' Ive's) Pretty baby, that type of thing, where the mech itself would be plausible if it could mount a decent loadout.

There are MANY mechs people here are quick to **** on, that are actually just fine but don;t fit into some stupid ass cookie cutter mantra they spew.

As for "helping" some mechs, if we go back to that Wolverine, if they want to add a B hardpoint to the right arm, or some missiles to the torsos for variety sake and options, fine.

NEVER, EVER, EVER, REMOVE A CURRENTLY POSSIBLE LOADOUT. i want my 4 LL in the right arm. you take that away, I will be here screaming, and I don't get that worked up about video game stuff much. Fundamentally altering a mech's ability to load weapons would be a precedent. harpoint inflation, nope- been there done that. Adding is one thing, removal is a total different animal.


On a side note, I have a gut feeling this news so to speak is strongly related to the HSR fix that was also announced. methinks some of the more boat oriented laser platforms are going to see some nerfs one way or another by the end of summer.

Did you seriously read my "here's an example of a hardpoint restricted to 1 area mech what would you do to it OP" as "This is what I want to happen"