232 replies to this topic

[DivineEvil]

Quote

all that would accomplish is making dual gauss outright superior to everything else. because dual gauss would be the only way to still achieve high pinpoint damage for minimal heat. Say you lowered heat capacity by half and doubled heat dissipation. So now people cant alphastrike large amounts of weapons... what are people going to do in response? Theyre just going to group dual gauss with low tonnage lasers. The amount of pinpoint damage will still be abusive and all the same problems will still exist. So congratulations youve just made any mech that cant dual gauss completely obsolete with your new heat system. At least before we had choices.

These dual-gauss loadouts are already in practice. My suggestion is in no way going to make it any more viable as it already is. It might only affect the effectiveness of these "low-tonnage lasers". You're simply ignoring the fact, that Gauss has certain drawbacks that balances them out. Gauss is the heaviest weapon there is, which is extremely easy to knock out, have a charge-up mechanic, and only select few mechs can run dual-gauss effectively if at all. Gauss has no realistic heat dependency, thus no changes to heat will affect the efficiency of them, but only the weapons, that often supplement them.

Making a very specific mechs with very specific loadouts "more favourable" does not mean all other mech will suddenly become useless. Situation with Gauss Rifles is incomparable to present situation with Lasers in general, where the value of a mech is generally dependant on the amount of energy hardpoints for lasers and quirks for them, and where a Clan mech, that cannot boat a lot of Lasers, is considered to be a subpar or unviable by definition. Comparing dual gauss rifles to a bunch of medium lasers is, in my opinion, a quite bizarre approach, and Gauss Rifle balance has no relevance to the topic.

[Serpieri]

IraqiWalker, on 17 August 2015 - 08:17 PM, said:

The problem is that you don't penalize boating builds. They are absolutely unaffected. So the ones accused of being the biggest offenders, are not hurt by it.

Or are you going to give me 3 hardpoints, and not enough slots to use all 3?

Only builds I can think of would get hurt are ballistic builds. Everything else will still be fine.

No disrespect, and I do not intend any of my posts to be condescending, but I've seen this discussion play out many times before. I have yet to see one mech design, that can make a solid argument for why sized hardpoints should be used.

Sure, you'd be able to stop an Orion variant, and one Atlas variant from packing 2 LBX 10s in the Right Torso, not that anyone does that as anything more than a joke build; but I don't see that harming the 8SPL Firestarter. Or the 7 MPL Timberwolf, or literally any other high alpha build, that relies on boating.

2xAC20 builds will probably get even rarer, until someone makes enough fuss about how there are only 3 mechs in the game that can do it, so they should increase ballistic sized hardpoint slots, because there aren't any ballistic boating builds out there, to begin with, other than the Dakkawolf, or the 3xUAC5 jager.

All sized hardpoints will do, is harm unconventional builds, like the aforementioned AC 20 raven, or the 2 ERLL Urbanmech.

Basically, I have not seen a single example that corroborates the claim that sized hardpoints will do anything to the game other than reduce the number of viable mechs, and encourage boating.


Common or not, if you had the C-Bills, and time, you could make a 20 medium laser Atlas, with an XL 400, MASC, and TSM, plus a lot of other things.

which was his point.

Boating isn't the problem over boating is - only a few mechs in Battletech had 8-12 lasers (Komodo, Nova), 10-14 Ballistics (Kraken) and only those mechs should be allowed to do so. Mechs like the Awesome should have the capacity to fire its 3PPC's but a thunderbolt should be limited to two. This is a problem we have light mechs carrying the firepower of mediums, mediums with the firepower of heavies and heavies with the firepower of assaults...and ASSAULTS runnings 6-9 ERPPCS/Lasers/AC's etc...

Examples of Sized Weapons
XL: Guass Rifle, ERPPC, AC 20, LRM 20
L: Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, ER Large Laser, AC 10, LBX10. LRM 15
M: Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, AC5, LRM10
S: Machine Gun, Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, LRM5

The Firestarter woudn't have 8 spls because some of those slots are supposed to be for medium and large weapons. Same goes for the Timberwolf.

And no not every mech chasis should be able to have 2 AC20's or 3UAC5'sor or 3PPC's or what ever - there is a reason why certain mechs in battletech are known as PPC Platforms, AC and missile boats. It's the role they were built to fill. You want to fire tons of PPC's then you pilot an Awesome, you want to rip mechs apart with AC shells then you pilot a Jaeger, and so on.

A Raven shouldn't be running around with an AC20 that role belongs to mechs like the Urbnamech and Hollander. And the urbanmech shouldn't be taking on a fire support role which belongs to mechs like Hussar, Panther, Wolfdhound. This is why people on the forums say we don't need another 35 ton mech or 50 ton or 75 ton because we can take away a mechs role/build and slap it on another.

Edited by Serpieri, 17 August 2015 - 09:34 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Serpieri, on 17 August 2015 - 08:03 PM, said:

The lore and rulebook would be a completely open system. Mechs in battletech did not have hard points, a mech can be stripped and rebuilt from the ground up - heck you can even build your own new design. In MWO we are already restricted by slots and reducing what can be put into them would help alleviate how much damage a mech can alpha which in this game is a problem since we can all front load this damage directly to a mechs center torso.

But you don't need sized hard-points to do that. The size and weight of the weapons are supposed to perform the exact function that all you pro-sized-hardpoints people are talking about, it's just that the weapons are too good for the resources they require.

[Johnny Z]

Sized hard points for some weapons like the gauss, ppc's, cannons may be an idea as well the large missile racks. Maybe leave lasers as is?

I really like the sized hard points idea for the sim mostly.

[IraqiWalker]

Serpieri, on 17 August 2015 - 09:31 PM, said:

Boating isn't the problem over boating is - only a few mechs in Battletech had 8-12 lasers (Komodo, Nova), 10-14 Ballistics (Kraken) and only those mechs should be allowed to do so. Mechs like the Awesome should have the capacity to fire its 3PPC's but a thunderbolt should be limited to two. This is a problem we have light mechs carrying the firepower of mediums, mediums with the firepower of heavies and heavies with the firepower of assaults...and ASSAULTS runnings 6-9 ERPPCS/Lasers/AC's etc...

Examples of Sized Weapons
XL: Guass Rifle, ERPPC, AC 20, LRM 20
L: Large Laser, Large Pulse Laser, ER Large Laser, AC 10, LBX10. LRM 15
M: Medium Laser, Medium Pulse Laser, AC5, LRM10
S: Machine Gun, Small Laser, Small Pulse Laser, LRM5

The Firestarter woudn't have 8 spls because some of those slots are supposed to be for medium and large weapons. Same goes for the Timberwolf.

And no not every mech chasis should be able to have 2 AC20's or 3UAC5'sor or 3PPC's or what ever - there is a reason why certain mechs in battletech are known as PPC Platforms, AC and missile boats. It's the role they were built to fill. You want to fire tons of PPC's then you pilot an Awesome, you want to rip mechs apart with AC shells then you pilot a Jaeger, and so on.

A Raven shouldn't be running around with an AC20 that role belongs to mechs like the Urbnamech and Hollander. And the urbanmech shouldn't be taking on a fire support role which belongs to mechs like Hussar, Panther, Wolfdhound. This is why people on the forums say we don't need another 35 ton mech or 50 ton or 75 ton because we can take away a mechs role/build and slap it on another.

Look, there is a difference between the stock mechs, and mechs being able to use certain weapons. I challenge you find me a single shred of evidence that I can't have a 20 ML Atlas. Go right ahead.

Your version is even worse than the regular sized hardpoint suggestions, because it removes even the choice of not mounting that specific weapon. You think people complained about quirks pigeonholing mechs into specific builds? At least quirks allowed me the option to ignore them.


Stock mode belongs in private queue, and stock mech mondays. That's not the only way to do battletech.

Also, there is no reason imaginable that I can't put 2 AC 20s on an Awesome. PGI limited us enough as is by specific hardpoints. Now you're limiting us not by the size of the weapons we can put in there, but which weapons?

Edited by IraqiWalker, 17 August 2015 - 09:46 PM.

[Lykaon]

cdlord, on 17 August 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

No specific mechs, no specific faction, no specific side, no specific laser, no specific quirk; as it should be.

Lasers across the board need substantial nerfs.

When I see 90% of mechs in matches run laserboats, there's something wrong. Had the honor of getting stomped by a well known comp group and guess what, they were all running laserboats. Nary a missile or AC among them.

And a nerf doesn't even have to apply to a laser, could be a general heat rescale.

#bringthehatred

This is really funny to me having been here since closed beta back when hit reg was spotty at best and the name of the game was pinpoint front loaded damage.

ACs and PPCs where the way to go and lasers were secondary systems for AC boats to have as backup weapons when/if ammo was exspended.

Then several weapon systems were nerfed + ghost heat then HSR and improved hit reg then clantech lasers and now we have nerf calls for lasers!

Wow what a ride it's been.

[Matthias Malthias]

DivineEvil, on 17 August 2015 - 07:11 AM, said:

I think we just need a reduction to the basic heat capacity. It seems that laser alpha-strikes are way too easy to use across the board, and also that the number of heatsinks doesn't affect the heat efficiency compared to tonnage they take. This makes the game way too alpha-strike oriented, based on that 30 heat cap basis.

If that change would make a game way too slow, then we should have SHS to have 1.4 efficiencies, and DHS to get true 2.0 efficiencies. That would make SHS a little bit better and will drive game into more brawly, heat-control encouraging environment.

http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__4115579

Start with reducing maximum heat capacity - baseline to be determined by playtesting. 30 seems acceptable, but 20 is probably guaranteed to enforce chainfiring.
Give SHS a role by increasing dissipation to 0.15-0.2 HPS or higher while also increasing heat capacity by a small amount (+1 heatcap)
Give DHS a role by increasing dissipation to 0.3 HPS but take away its contribution to heat capacity.
Give Clan DHS the same dissipation. Extra Clan DHS outside the engine gain +0.5 heatcap.
Add heat penalties to agility (torso twist rate, arm slewing, acceleration/deceleration, UI flickering) at 60-80% heat capacity to penalise alpha striking and make it a last resort tactic instead of du jour play.

Now everyone has to chainfire lasers; Autocannons are much more powerful, and the high pin-point and range of Gauss is less significant since everyone is firing a lot more often.
Stock SHS mechs are no longer ovens, and in fact approach heat neutrality. The SHS Awesome should be rightly feared; without the need for quirks.
DHS mechs are deadly brawly machines.
IS ACs are more significant, but packing enough heatsinks also allows brawling with lasers if heat is managed well.
Clan mechs allow for greater build diversity since their dissipation/capacity sit in between the IS SHS/DHS role dichotomy, but will need slot investment to groupfire Clan lasers

Role warfare emerges; in the form of an SHS backline and DHS frontline for the IS.

A fundamental refactoring of the heat system will achieve more in a single stroke than years of bandaid quirks and clan nerfs. After that, pinpoint convergence can and should be looked at, but if damage is already spread everywhere due to enforced chainfiring then it becomes less of a contributor to low TTK.
Actually useful SHS also removes a "noob trap" from the game, potentially improving player retention.

[Khobai]

Quote

the high pin-point and range of Gauss is less significant since everyone is firing a lot more often.

No. pinpoint beats DPS. It always has. Thats simply the nature of the game.

DPS weapons require you to stand in the open while pinpoint weapons let you hide in cover between cooldowns. Its why IS Autocannons are superior to Clan autocannons.

Again... all this accomplishes is the rise of dual Gauss. Any mech that cant use dual Gauss becomes totally useless.

Quote

These dual-gauss loadouts are already in practice. My suggestion is in no way going to make it any more viable as it already is. It might only affect the effectiveness of these "low-tonnage lasers". You're simply ignoring the fact, that Gauss has certain drawbacks that balances them out. Gauss is the heaviest weapon there is, which is extremely easy to knock out, have a charge-up mechanic, and only select few mechs can run dual-gauss effectively if at all. Gauss has no realistic heat dependency, thus no changes to heat will affect the efficiency of them, but only the weapons, that often supplement them.

yes dual gauss is already good. by lowering the max heat cap you make it even better. because everything that generates heat, namely everything thats not dual gauss, becomes inherently worse.

Quote

Making a very specific mechs with very specific loadouts "more favourable" does not mean all other mech will suddenly become useless. Situation with Gauss Rifles is incomparable to present situation with Lasers in general, where the value of a mech is generally dependant on the amount of energy hardpoints for lasers and quirks for them, and where a Clan mech, that cannot boat a lot of Lasers, is considered to be a subpar or unviable by definition. Comparing dual gauss rifles to a bunch of medium lasers is, in my opinion, a quite bizarre approach, and Gauss Rifle balance has no relevance to the topic.

Of course it does. Thats why meta mechs exist and why they dominate non-meta mechs.

dual gauss will become outright better than anything else and mechs that cant use dual gauss will be considered useless by general population.

the heat system we have now is highly flawed but at least it gives us some different choices... your oppressive low capacity heat system would be even worse because it removes virtually every option but gauss as a viable choice. And as a result any mech that cant use dual gauss ceases to be a choice too.

Edited by Khobai, 18 August 2015 - 12:37 AM.

[IraqiWalker]

Khobai, on 18 August 2015 - 12:24 AM, said:

dual gauss will become outright better than anything else and mechs that cant use dual gauss will be considered useless by general non-casual population.

[Lily from animove]

Spleenslitta, on 17 August 2015 - 08:58 AM, said:

Why not make some kinda mechanic that forces players to use a more flexible loadout? You could even get rid of Ghost Heat while you're at it.
For example a reactor energy bar. Everything consumes energy that has to be recharged by the mech engine.
The faster you move the more energy you use, using JJ's, ECM and weapons consume energy. Lasers use more energy than ballistics and so on.
Cooling down consumes energy too since heatsinks need energy to work. The hotter you are the more energy it takes to get rid of 1 point of heat.

Unforgiving mechanic and hard for newcomers to learn? So what....Then we would have fewer boats, longer Time To Kill and the game would take more skill to master.
More skill to master means more fun instead of simple click to shoot....wait.....click again.

you realise, heat is exactly this, instead of a energy depleting, it is heattreshold depleting.

The issue is, the heattreshold we have is too plenty

Khobai, on 17 August 2015 - 08:09 PM, said:

all that would accomplish is making dual gauss outright superior to everything else. because dual gauss would be the only way to still achieve high pinpoint damage for minimal heat.

No, because first, not even many mechs can dual gauss, second, lasers can still achive volleys as they currently do, they just can't spam them all the time as they do. Dualgauss does not even have a good dps, a lot builds could outplay the dualgass easily by pushign into it. And pushing would be more common because you don't have to fear 30 laseralpshaspams comign at you when pushing. because the reduced heattreshold prevents this.

Especially given that dualgauss + laser do not synchronise very well. So your example is quite a bad one. Also name all the mechs that even can dualgauss + sufficient ammo + backuplasers.to a high alpha degree? that aren'T even much. Especially considering that laserboating now would require a proper DHS amount to diserse heat. Such a mehc would have a shot moment of burstfire followed by quite along time required to cooldown sufficient heat.

Important is a lower ad fixed heattreshold will give mechs of sizes more individuality. a FS9 with 6 ML will have the same punch as a heavy with 6 ML. yet it won't have tonnage for the same cooling. Or it will not have the ability to tak further cooler bakcupwepaons. So lights will paly differnetly in future. They get more the harassers with fire and retreat if takign high alpha builds, or they take soem srm's nd lasers and make dps builds. They now don't have to fear being instagibbed b most builds which can throw by 4 successive alphas being thrown at them within 4-6 seconds.

Pinpoint onyl betas dps because we can throw out too many PP alpahs in a row. if DPS will efficiency wise exceed pinpoint dp's people will run into the battles and keep firing constantly.


Make engine not ehat up the emch, as MW3 had. make a 30 heatreshold fixed, not allowed to be increaed by pilot skills. make DHS true dubs without pilto skill able to increase the dispersion and see how it turns out. Make exceeding the heattreshold a instant shutdown. give exeeding the heattreshold by 105% deal significant damage. 1 damage to CTper % exceeded.. make exceeding the heatreshold by 130% an instant explosion.

Now people will lern to heat management. and not to make the weird and crazy stuff MWO allows.

Edited by Lily from animove, 18 August 2015 - 01:38 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

cdlord, on 17 August 2015 - 06:39 AM, said:

No specific mechs, no specific faction, no specific side, no specific laser, no specific quirk; as it should be.

Lasers across the board need substantial nerfs.

When I see 90% of mechs in matches run laserboats, there's something wrong. Had the honor of getting stomped by a well known comp group and guess what, they were all running laserboats. Nary a missile or AC among them.

And a nerf doesn't even have to apply to a laser, could be a general heat rescale.

#bringthehatred

I really don't wanna go here, but Lasers are the go to weapon in almost every TRO. (3085 excluded That is a swamp of various PPCs)

[The Basilisk]

As some others said the problem isn't with lasers but with the boating philosophy harrassing every mechwarrior game since the beginning.

Stop those universal customaziablility of mechs that shouldn't be that customizable at all and we are fine.

[Lightfoot]

No, the other weapons need to work. That removes the laser-boats by forcing mixed load-outs and diversification. PGI just nerfed PPC's, LRMs, and Gauss Rifles too much. I suppose if you want Lasers nerfed working PPC's, LRMs, and Gauss Rifles doesn't sound like it offers any respite, but it does. It's Battle Tech balance.

[Black Arachne]

IraqiWalker, on 17 August 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

Look, there is a difference between the stock mechs, and mechs being able to use certain weapons. I challenge you find me a single shred of evidence that I can't have a 20 ML Atlas. Go right ahead.

Your version is even worse than the regular sized hardpoint suggestions, because it removes even the choice of not mounting that specific weapon. You think people complained about quirks pigeonholing mechs into specific builds? At least quirks allowed me the option to ignore them.


Stock mode belongs in private queue, and stock mech mondays. That's not the only way to do battletech.

Also, there is no reason imaginable that I can't put 2 AC 20s on an Awesome. PGI limited us enough as is by specific hardpoints. Now you're limiting us not by the size of the weapons we can put in there, but which weapons?

There is no rule that says what weapon can be put on a mech but the fact is that MWO does restrict what we can put on a mech. And in Battltetech an Atlas with 20 medium lasers isn't a problem but in mechwarrior online it is..BECAUSE we can all aim for the center torso and this is why we need to restrict not hamper how much firepower a mech can release.

Also Sized Hardpoints would still allow for variety to switch among the various weapons but would control how much each mech can alpha. Weapons like ERPPC would be useable again because it wouldn't have to be nerfed to the ground because mechs wouldn't be able to fit 4 or more of them on a chassis and this applies to all weapons.

You want dual AC20's then pilot a mech that comes with that configuration - the Awesome is a fire support mech not a brawler.

[Serpieri]

IraqiWalker, on 17 August 2015 - 09:43 PM, said:

Look, there is a difference between the stock mechs, and mechs being able to use certain weapons. I challenge you find me a single shred of evidence that I can't have a 20 ML Atlas. Go right ahead.

Your version is even worse than the regular sized hardpoint suggestions, because it removes even the choice of not mounting that specific weapon. You think people complained about quirks pigeonholing mechs into specific builds? At least quirks allowed me the option to ignore them.


Stock mode belongs in private queue, and stock mech mondays. That's not the only way to do battletech.

Also, there is no reason imaginable that I can't put 2 AC 20s on an Awesome. PGI limited us enough as is by specific hardpoints. Now you're limiting us not by the size of the weapons we can put in there, but which weapons?

Your missing the point - the restrictions are needed not to curtail your freedom but to limit how much can be alpha'd because we can all aim for the center torso where in Battletech hit locations were random. This is why people are over boating so that they can core a mech as quickly as possible.

My version, you must be mistaken it's based on what has been seen in the past. The mechs in battletech already have their builds and roles, what you want is the ability to min/max a build which wouldn't be that much of a problem if we couldn't pinpoint all weapon fire on a specific location.

Stock Mode is great but it still needs a way to balance mechs based on it's capabilities because not every mech is even.

The reason you can't put AC20's on the awesome is because the factory wasn't tooled for it and would have changed the Awesome from a fire support mech to a brawler which was not the goal of Technicron manufacturing. The goal was to produce a new fire support mech to replace the aging striker. However, in Battletech nothing stopped you from building a mech from the ground up or even refitting a battlemech but that option is not available in Mechwarrior online. If it was than certain bad mechs could be made viable but then you would have the mix/maxers making the so called competitiive mechs even better unless this was restricted to mechs that needed the refits only.

[IraqiWalker]

Black Arachne, on 18 August 2015 - 04:33 PM, said:

There is no rule that says what weapon can be put on a mech but the fact is that MWO does restrict what we can put on a mech. And in Battltetech an Atlas with 20 medium lasers isn't a problem but in mechwarrior online it is..BECAUSE we can all aim for the center torso and this is why we need to restrict not hamper how much firepower a mech can release.

Also Sized Hardpoints would still allow for variety to switch among the various weapons but would control how much each mech can alpha. Weapons like ERPPC would be useable again because it wouldn't have to be nerfed to the ground because mechs wouldn't be able to fit 4 or more of them on a chassis and this applies to all weapons.

You want dual AC20's then pilot a mech that comes with that configuration - the Awesome is a fire support mech not a brawler.

Last I checked, the Awesome can be whatever the hell it wants to be. Give it brawling weapons, and a big enough engine, and it's a brawler. Again: get out of the stock mech mentality.

Why do people not understand that stock mechs are just suggestions, and guidelines. They are working examples, not the only variants ever made. I can have an Awesome with SRMs, 18 MGs, an LBX 10, and whatever else I want. There is literally nothing that says the awesome has to be a support mech. Especially considering that the mech was used primarily in vanguard formations, and breaching action. Which part of being a spear tip mech makes it a support mech?

The rest of my answer is down below.

Serpieri, on 18 August 2015 - 05:05 PM, said:

Your missing the point - the restrictions are needed not to curtail your freedom but to limit how much can be alpha'd because we can all aim for the center torso where in Battletech hit locations were random. This is why people are over boating so that they can core a mech as quickly as possible.

My version, you must be mistaken it's based on what has been seen in the past. The mechs in battletech already have their builds and roles, what you want is the ability to min/max a build which wouldn't be that much of a problem if we couldn't pinpoint all weapon fire on a specific location.

Stock Mode is great but it still needs a way to balance mechs based on it's capabilities because not every mech is even.

The reason you can't put AC20's on the awesome is because the factory wasn't tooled for it and would have changed the Awesome from a fire support mech to a brawler which was not the goal of Technicron manufacturing. The goal was to produce a new fire support mech to replace the aging striker. However, in Battletech nothing stopped you from building a mech from the ground up or even refitting a battlemech but that option is not available in Mechwarrior online. If it was than certain bad mechs could be made viable but then you would have the mix/maxers making the so called competitiive mechs even better unless this was restricted to mechs that needed the refits only.

This is where both of you are wrong:

You're seeing a problem, in this case we'll go with the example of a broken leg, and instead of putting a cast, and giving the patient crutches, you decide it's best to sew two extra legs on the guy so he can walk without losing balance.

It's an illogical solution that doesn't address the problem.

Instant pinpoint convergence is a problem. One that you will NOT fix with sized hardpoints. Hell, you still don't address any alpha strike problems. Your set up doesn't limit alpha strikes at all. A solution using engine energy for example, would have been better.

Oh, and by the way, there is NO reason you can't put an AC 20 on the awesome. Last I checked, there are custom variants all over the place, even in lore. On top of that, even when running tourneys in gen con and other conventions, custom mechs are still used.


Look, you want weapon variety? balancing the weapons is a better solution, faster to implement, easier to use, and doesn't break lore, or the game, including stock builds.

You want to curtail high damage alphas? adjusting the heat scale is a better solution, again, faster to implement, easier to use, and doesn't break the game

You want to fix instant pinpoint convergence? scaled convergence should be re-introduced. Again: faster, easier, and better.

Hell, your suggestion doesn't even address pinpoint convergence, which apparently, is the main motive for you leaning towards sized hardpoints.

They already curtailed our alpha strike ability, and our damage potential, by making us adhere to the hardpoint system. Which, so long as customization was allowed, should have been frowned upon.

Also, neither one of you managed to present a single mech where you can use the sized hardpoint argument without breaking the stock build, while still curtailing boating, and now even instant pinpoint convergence.

ERPPCs are not unusable right now because of any function of aiming mechanics. ERPPCs are inefficient, because it's 15 heat for 10 damage. While a PPC is 10 heat for 10 damage. Their velocity is not that different. They weigh the same, and take up the same amount of space. Do you see how it's not difficult to realize why people gravitate towards regular PPCs?

I'm not even going to challenge you to show why sized hardpoints can help ERPPCs be used more often than PPCs. There's no way to do that, by limiting hardpoint sizes.


Look, here's what sized hardpoints boils down to:

"I think you should build this mech in THIS particular way."

It has less to do with curtailing alpha strikes so much as forcing variable weapon loadouts on mechs, despite the weapons being scrap right now.

It doesn't address the problem, it just strong-arms people into building things they hate. That's not fun.

[CDLord HHGD]

@IraqiWalker

Normally I agree with a lot of your viewpoints, but you've got sized hardpoints all wrong. At this stage, anything to curtail the min/maxer metawarriors is a good thing. So far quirks and nerfs are a failure and TTK is still too low.

Sized Hardpoints
Two categories, Large and Small. Large HPs can equip weapons in the Small category but Small HPs cannot equip weapons in the Large category.
Small: TAG, SL, ML, MG, AC2, AC5, NARC, SRM2, SRM4, LRM5, LRM10.
Large: LL, PPC, AC10, AC20, Gauss, SRM6, LRM15, LRM20.
These include the variations of the weapons, ER/Pulse/UAC/Streak/Artemis.

Challenge
Go to Smurphy's and build a mech that isn't meta and that would be ruined by this. Seriously, I've done the math but I'm not the only brain in the pool. I want to see what you come up with and I want to compare.
Message me the link (so we don't keep adding to this thread for this specific activity). I'll update this post with your handle and submission and my response.
======================================================================

Edited by cdlord, 19 August 2015 - 04:41 AM.

[xXBagheeraXx]

Ascaloth, on 17 August 2015 - 06:55 AM, said:

Then you use dakka, do endless screen shake and ppl call you "cheesy", and if it's an I.S. mech "quirks op pl0x nerf".

Then you use LRMs, do endless rain of death, and ppl call you "noob usar of a no aim crutch & useless weapon".

Then you use PPCs on a quirked mech (the only ones worth it) and ppl scream "nerf pl0x quirks op".

I'll never understand this player base.

There is nothing to understand.

NOTHING in games like this is allowed to be "Good"

Madcat good. Not overpowering, just dammed good for its tonnage. It gets nerfed.

Ballistics where really good at one point. They got nerfed.

Victors, highlanders, Splat-cats. The list is endless of mechs and builds that where fun/good and got beat to death with a nerfbat.

[Mazzyplz]

large pulse damage was excellent and fair at 10.5;

out of the blue pgi raised it to 11 (doesn't seem like much but this is the reason we have a quadrillion pulse boats)

10.5 was perfect; why would you buff it anyways? there was no need.

you made this metagame with your own hand; willing or not

[Mazzyplz]

you know who did this now, and when (check the patch notes for a pulse laser buff)
why? who knows, maybe russ was strolling around in his pulse boat and all of a sudden 12 players jump him at once and shoot erppc. so in a knee jerk, he goes to the development build and changes the number;

that seems like what really happened the more i think about it