76 replies to this topic

[Lugh]

FupDup, on 26 June 2015 - 10:21 AM, said:

Actually, hardpoints don't exist in the lore at all, so having any form of hardpoint system is technically a lore violation.

(However, hardpoints are a violation that I'm okay with).

Technically they did. They simply weren't called such.

And it also depends on which supplements you are looking at:

http://www.sarna.net...tores_Hardpoint

But yes, typically you could add whatever tonnage you wanted within the constraints of the amount available for weapons wherever you wanted to put them. (Had a friend that made a light hunter with nothing by Small machine guns in the legs)It took him forever to do his turn because he had like 30 machine guns to roll.

WM Quicksilver, on 26 June 2015 - 10:51 AM, said:

It wouldn't be to prevent boating period, it would be to prevent boating on particular mechs. Like the old 4 PPC Stalker, it could've been made so that the only 4 PPC boat was the Awesome. Not that it would've saved the Awesome but it would've helped prevent overlapping of builds. To add another dimension of control with regards to weapon loadouts instead of purely it has X number of Hardpoints.

Fupdup's old idea still probably gives the best level of control to keep build diversity and allows better niche mechs without the use of quirks.

But you are still talking like a min max power gamer. If you had lots of AI infantry tanks artillery and planes you would see lots more machine guns to deal with them.

[Gas Guzzler]

I don't think they were talking about changing hardpoints, just evaluating hardpoints and hardpoint locations to determine "MWO Battle Value"

[oldradagast]

Gas Guzzler, on 26 June 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

I don't think they were talking about changing hardpoints, just evaluating hardpoints and hardpoint locations to determine "MWO Battle Value"

That's the impression I get now - if somebody has a Twitter account, I'd love to see that confirmed though.

As I said, I've just lost faith in what's going on in PGI when it comes to balance. The Quirks are bad enough, where you have no idea what mech will be great or terrible depending upon the next Quirk change, and now talk of "rebalancing everything."

I guess the MWO Battle Value will be what determines Quirks? Was that the impression folks got?

Perhaps I over-reacted and read the wrong thing out of their meeting minutes. Still, the absolute childish rage certain people have demonstrated in response is pathetic. Ugh.

Edited by oldradagast, 26 June 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[Deathlike]

Gas Guzzler, on 26 June 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

I don't think they were talking about changing hardpoints, just evaluating hardpoints and hardpoint locations to determine "MWO Battle Value"

That's going to be a failed experiment IMO.

How you do objectively evaluate these thing and yet concisely put that into a #?

In that case, can I just put Vindicators with a BV of 0?

Mist Lynx would get BV of 100 (reduced by 99 pts when arms are removed) and the Spider-5V would get a BV of 69.... because 69.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 June 2015 - 11:06 AM.

[FupDup]

Deathlike, on 26 June 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

That's going to be a failed experiment IMO.

How you do objectively evaluate these thing and yet concisely put that into a #?

In that case, can I just put Vindicators with a BV of 0?

Mist Lynx would get BV of 100 (reduced by 99 pts when arms are removed) and the Spider-5V would get a BV of 69.... because 69.

I think it's PGI's attempt to replace the "1-5 tier system" with something a bit more granular. So, after they determine a mech's "MWO BV," then they use that to determine Ze Quarkz rather than a tier rating.

[Ovion]

Lugh, on 26 June 2015 - 10:46 AM, said:

The point of the sizing would be to fix the weapon types to prevent boating, allowing other size weapons in that single point would defeat the purpose.

To some degree.

But for example, a problem one like the Stalker (using just small / large),
Stalker 5M:
Arms - 1 LE (2SE), 1 SM each
RT - 1 SM
CT - 1 SE
LT - 1 LM (2SM)
- Would either have to be a short range brawler (5SE), or 3 Large Pulse (3LE), rather than the 5LPL it often takes now.

The 3F would go from 6E, 4M to 2LE (4SE), 1SE, 4LM (8SM), which refocuses it as a more missile orientated mech.
And 8xLRM5 would be hilarious.

Pros and cons of each way.

Deathlike, on 26 June 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

That's going to be a failed experiment IMO.

How you do objectively evaluate these thing and yet concisely put that into a #?

In that case, can I just put Vindicators with a BV of 0?

Mist Lynx would get BV of 100 (reduced by 99 pts when arms are removed) and the Spider-5V would get a BV of 69.... because 69.

The base would be along the lines of Weapons (each with its own value based on damage, range, etc), Armour (per point), Speed, heat ability, +/- for quirks, hardpoint location, hardpoint height, weight, etc.

Edited by Ovion, 26 June 2015 - 11:12 AM.

[Deathlike]

FupDup, on 26 June 2015 - 11:08 AM, said:

I think it's PGI's attempt to replace the "1-5 tier system" with something a bit more granular. So, after they determine a mech's "MWO BV," then they use that to determine Ze Quarkz rather than a tier rating.

Yea, but that's would indirectly draw new players to thinking they should get mechs with the best BV, yet fail to understand why or even max out the effectiveness of the mech in question before complaining/questioning the system.

It's going to be tons of fun to see the ratings of mechs, because... I doubt PGI understands their own game well enough.

Edited by Deathlike, 26 June 2015 - 11:14 AM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lugh, on 26 June 2015 - 10:59 AM, said:

But you are still talking like a min max power gamer. If you had lots of AI infantry tanks artillery and planes you would see lots more machine guns to deal with them.

No, you wouldn't, because other guns like lasers are more universal and also don't require you to be within spitting distance of the target. Sorry, but this idea that if we saw other unit types (which we won't, for more than one reason) that weapons like MGs would be suddenly useful is misguided.

[FupDup]

WM Quicksilver, on 26 June 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

No, you wouldn't, because other guns like lasers are more universal and also don't require you to be within spitting distance of the target. Sorry, but this idea that if we saw other unit types (which we won't, for more than one reason) that weapons like MGs would be suddenly useful is misguided.

Step 1: Equip Clan Large Pulse Lasers
Step 2: Repeat Step 1 if needed
Step 3: Be effective against any and all types of targets in Battletech, at all ranges

[Deathlike]

WM Quicksilver, on 26 June 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

No, you wouldn't, because other guns like lasers are more universal and also don't require you to be within spitting distance of the target. Sorry, but this idea that if we saw other unit types (which we won't, for more than one reason) that weapons like MGs would be suddenly useful is misguided.

But...

Firepower increases by a lot when I add MGs and Flamers to my mech!!!!!!!!!11111

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Deathlike, on 26 June 2015 - 11:14 AM, said:

It's going to be tons of fun to see the ratings of mechs, because... I doubt PGI understands their own game well enough.

I don't think those will be released, but could possibly be determined by the amount of quirks a mech gets.

Edit: Fupdup explained it more simply above at what PGI is doing with this "BV".

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 26 June 2015 - 11:30 AM.

[Deathlike]

WM Quicksilver, on 26 June 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

I don't think those will be released, but could possibly be determined by the amount of quirks a mech gets.

From what I heard in the Town Hall, this is simply them trying to determine how much help a mech needs in comparison with other mechs. From there they just give things more quirks (because hardpoints are a precedent yet to be made) and then they apply another balance pass. It isn't used in-game by the MM or anything, just a "tool" for them to determine effectiveness.

Well, I haven't seen in post in ages... but Roland has a pretty good idea on how this would be accomplished.

The idea is the usage of the mech (how often it drops, somewhat relative to popularity) would adjust BV. It would probably involve gathering telemetry (a word PGI doesn't quite understand what it is sometimes) and adjusting as necessary.

Although, I think his idea extended to pricing the mechs, but that wouldn't be optimal (god forbid we make the best mechs more expensive for new players to acquire).

Still, it's not as simple, but he had some of the right idea going with it, but I don't think he plays/posts anymore to care.

[Lugh]

Deathlike, on 26 June 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

That's going to be a failed experiment IMO.

How you do objectively evaluate these thing and yet concisely put that into a #?

In that case, can I just put Vindicators with a BV of 0?

Mist Lynx would get BV of 100 (reduced by 99 pts when arms are removed) and the Spider-5V would get a BV of 69.... because 69.

each hardpoint gets a base BV Say 5 for energy 4 for ballistics 3 for missles, then add points based on the damage the weapons slotted in does.

So 1 E hard point on Clan is 20 points for clan er ppc and 18points for LPL on IS side it would be BV 15 for ppc and 16 for LPL
Etc.

Each tier of speed point breaks would be another BV 5 point increments for each 20kph? JJs bv would be static but set to what?

WM Quicksilver, on 26 June 2015 - 11:20 AM, said:

No, you wouldn't, because other guns like lasers are more universal and also don't require you to be within spitting distance of the target. Sorry, but this idea that if we saw other unit types (which we won't, for more than one reason) that weapons like MGs would be suddenly useful is misguided.

Yes because you are NEVER on the verge of overheating and need to take out a small target with no heat cost...riiiiight...

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Lugh, on 26 June 2015 - 11:33 AM, said:

Yes because you are NEVER on the verge of overheating and need to take out a small target with no heat cost...riiiiight...

Lifeboat situation.

Also, a single Medium Laser or SRM4 would be better placed to take out a small target even on the verge of overheating. Hell a Small Laser would be better placed, because MGs are seriously that bad.

Edited by WM Quicksilver, 26 June 2015 - 11:41 AM.

[Kristov Kerensky]

Deathlike, on 26 June 2015 - 11:06 AM, said:

That's going to be a failed experiment IMO.

How you do objectively evaluate these thing and yet concisely put that into a #?

In that case, can I just put Vindicators with a BV of 0?

Mist Lynx would get BV of 100 (reduced by 99 pts when arms are removed) and the Spider-5V would get a BV of 69.... because 69.

Russ explained it, somewhat, in the TH, I would suggest you listen to it so you can get the full message without my mucking it up, but here goes...

They are looking at each and every Mech, it's physical size,hitboxes, hitbox sizes, hardpoints, hardpoint locations, agility, twist, twist speed, turn speed, armor, internal structure, and more, and they are creating an inhouse BV sort of system based on the information. Then they will look at the Mechs and decide how to requirk them based on that information. Essentially they are creating their own BV system based on the physical dimensions and layout of the Mech combined with all the locomotion properties of the Mech then adding in the weapons, JJ, etc and creating the BV they'll be using for this process. It's not JUST assigning a base BV to a chassis based on it's tonnage and adding to that by the weapons and equipment added as BTech uses, it's a lot more indepth and covers things BTech never touched upon like agility.

It actually sounds quite interesting and it may finally give us a good unbiased baseline, something we've never had before as the Tier system was based on input from users, all of which was biased and based on personal feelings, not objective data.

And the best part, we'll be part of the testing for this, they'll be doing it on the PTS in stages, so WE have the chance to actually help with the process.

[Alistair Winter]

So... CPLT-K2 with 2 energy hardpoints in each arm?

RVN-4X with 4 ballistic hardpoints in the left arm?

LCT-1V with 3 ballistic hardpoints in the arms?

CDA-3C with 2 energy hardpoints instead of 1?

[Midax]

He wasn't talking about dropping hardpoints or moving them to entirly new locations. More like moving location on the same body part. The Exe filling slots from hardpoints top down moving lasers to the top of hands. I think he even meant to go as far as moving Pretty Babys arm energy slots up to its shoulders and moving all of the novas lasers to the elbow. Gotta go, just had something fall on me out of no where while sitting under the oak tree, have to let everyone know.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2015 - 11:42 AM, said:

CDA-3C with 2 energy hardpoints instead of 1?

This thing would be better if we simply had larger energy weapons than the LPL or PPC. The 3C wants Blazers and Heavy PPCs to be a thing, as does the VND-1X.

[FupDup]

Alistair Winter, on 26 June 2015 - 11:42 AM, said:

LCT-1V with 3 ballistic hardpoints in the arms?

That would have a very devastating effect on the back of an Atlas, however, so you would have to get negative quirks.

[bad arcade kitty]

hardpoint shifting looks as a very very terrible idea