78 replies to this topic

[Tesunie]

Vellron2005, on 09 October 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

This would then prohibit some light mech to field unnaturaly large weapons that weigh as much as half the mech or more (somebody mentioned a Kitfox with a gauss riffle which I think is absurd).

So, what you are saying is either:
A. Light mechs shouldn't be able to take heavy/large weapons. (Jackal, Panther and Hollander may wish to disagree with you here.)

- Or -

B. Light mechs would be the only thing affected. (Which are already one of the least played mech types in the game, as well as one of the lowest rewarded mechs as well.)


For A, I'd say, "why not"? Light mechs in lore got some very heavy weapons of all types. Why restrict their creation now? I don't mind if mechs are just "different skins" we can place the weapons we want (within some reason) into.

For B, I do feel that any hard point size restriction would probably hit the light mechs hardest. They already are considered in a poor spot. This would either make them near unplayable, or wouldn't affect them anyway. (How many SPLs would a Firestarter still be able to take again? Would a Spider typically still be able to take that ERPPC or ERLL to give it that little boost in firepower?)

Then again, my opinion on sized hard points should have already been made rather clear.

Edited by Tesunie, 09 October 2015 - 07:38 AM.

[DerMaulwurf]

I support this idea. But I would want to see the AC5 moved to the large ballistics groups. Jagermechs and the Marauder should be allowed to upgrade to larger guns.

Restricting hard points allows to preserve the character of a mech chassis. For example as it stands now, the Warhammer can and likely will be transformed from a energy based mech, into a ballistics platform, just because it has two Machine Guns in its stock config.

This way you can have some idea what you are facing as soon as you get visuals. It could also help to limit the spread of meta-builds to make all the mechs the same. Admittedly it's also possible that people will only play meta-capable mechs.

The few limits on customization that we have now, have effectively reduced diversity in mech builds, since most variants can be made into at least some widespread standard. My hope is that limiting it, could force more different builds on the field. Although we also might just see nothing but Timber Wolfs afterwards.

[Ialdabaoth]

Honestly, here's my problem with Ghost Heat, with doubled armor, with the current level of customization, with everything:

I don't want to play a MMO that happens to use giant robots with the same names, and same appearance, as 'mechs in the Battletech universe.

I want to play an MMO in the Battletech universe.

The Battletech universe has many, many sourcebooks describing the 'feel' of that universe. There's rules in the more roleplay-oriented and campaign-oriented sourcebooks for how customizing 'mechs works - what kinds of customizations are easy, what kinds require a factory, and so on. There's rules for how different houses and clans organize their forces. They even describe the differences in their rules of engagement from one faction to another.

That's the game I wanted.

The super-frustrating thing is, that game would be more balanced than this one - and in many ways, easier to code and maintain. But that's repeatedly not the game we get, because balance hack after balance hack after balance hack keep getting duct-taped over the Battletech trappings, until all that's left is a shooter with some vaguely Battletechish aesthetics.

[IraqiWalker]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 09 October 2015 - 05:09 AM, said:

The thing is that you want to play Robocraft, and some of us want to play Battletech.
Did you miss part that there is just very few custom meks in whole Galaxy? So arguing about lore is very missed, as the thing that you really want is Robocraft.
You answered yourself already as well.


But of course is much too late for such a revolution regarding mech lab. Mistake was taken at the very beginning and probably can`t be undone at this state. It would give people a reason to own more meks, resolving in better financial success of game, not to mention just better more diverse game. But we got what we got now.
So our only salvation from this Full Custom thing is Stock Mode, that I believe is still possible.
If we will have Stock Mode, would be impossible for me to care less about your happy Full Custom.

That thing, that you call Atlas would not be an Atlas, but you always can have Atlas skin in MWO.
To portrait maybe better, you can have what ever mek with exactly same load out as in your example, just with different skin and call it what ever you wish. So you take Berserker give it exactly same load as your "Atlas" and what you will have at the end? You really think that you will have Atlas and Berserker?

Using your words, we want to play MECHWARRIOR, you want to play 3025 Battletech.

You just illustrated exactly what this argument really is about. It's not about balance, or anything of the sort, it's about "I don't like how that guy builds this mech"

Not to mention that it really wouldn't give people a reason to own more mechs. In fact, it would immediately do what happens in TT: Render 90% of all mechs, and variants obsolete/useless, and only a very tiny few become the usable ones.

Vellron2005, on 09 October 2015 - 05:24 AM, said:

Sized hardpoints make some sence, but only when it comes to light mechs..

This would then prohibit some light mech to field unnaturaly large weapons that weigh as much as half the mech or more (somebody mentioned a Kitfox with a gauss riffle which I think is absurd).

I think you misunderstand "size" when it comes to weapons. The Pontiac 100 AC 20 fired 25mm bullets. 100 of them, each dealing 0.2 damage, in a 10 second burst,totaling up to 20 damage in a turn.

There is no weapon that can't be mounted on a mech, if it doesn't have the slots, and tonnage for it. People need to understand that. A light mech running around with an AC 20 is not only normal, it's canon. That's literally what one of the Urbie variants was built around.

I'm not sure you're familiar with how the mechs actually worked, or how the weapons did. As far as construction/customization go, we're actually very restricted.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

IraqiWalker, on 10 October 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

Using your words, we want to play MECHWARRIOR, you want to play 3025 Battletech.

You just illustrated exactly what this argument really is about. It's not about balance, or anything of the sort, it's about "I don't like how that guy builds this mech"

Not to mention that it really wouldn't give people a reason to own more mechs. In fact, it would immediately do what happens in TT: Render 90% of all mechs, and variants obsolete/useless, and only a very tiny few become the usable ones.

Sized Hard Points is not something that was invented by Battletech, but exactly by Mechwarrior games.
Of course is not about balance directly, but about flavor of mechs, yet it still help with overall balance, as Stock games exactly shows.
Not sure what myths about TT you heard, but its not even close.
Again Stock Mode shows that assumption like this are simply missed and are not covered by our game play experience.
In Stock Mode 98% of meks are perfectly playable and maybe even more important, each one offer different game play experience.
Thing that you describe you can find in Full Custom, where 10% are playable. And even this 10% don`t offer different game experience as are load with same setup.
So knowing how things go in Stock Mode, I have no doubts that more restricted lab rules would be better for more diverse and interesting game.

[Tesunie]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 11 October 2015 - 09:52 AM, said:

Sized Hard Points is not something that was invented by Battletech, but exactly by Mechwarrior games.
Of course is not about balance directly, but about flavor of mechs, yet it still help with overall balance, as Stock games exactly shows.
Not sure what myths about TT you heard, but its not even close.
Again Stock Mode shows that assumption like this are simply missed and are not covered by our game play experience.
In Stock Mode 98% of meks are perfectly playable and maybe even more important, each one offer different game play experience.
Thing that you describe you can find in Full Custom, where 10% are playable. And even this 10% don`t offer different game experience as are load with same setup.
So knowing how things go in Stock Mode, I have no doubts that more restricted lab rules would be better for more diverse and interesting game.

Do recall that our stock mech data is tech level 1 vs tech level 1. As soon as you add in tech level 2/clan tech into the equation, 90% of the tech level 1 mechs become obsolete and near useless (depending upon how they are played, of course), and we had o give Clan teams a reduction in tonnage for it to feel fair.


I don't feel that hard point sizes would really do much for balance. I don't think it would do much for the game. I see what it could do and help with, but I don't think it would work. Not to mention, I never liked the hard point sizes in other games anyway.

I wouldn't be opposed to some changes to Mechlab, but hard point sizes I am opposed to. (My opinion of course.)

[CDLord HHGD]

IraqiWalker, on 06 October 2015 - 03:35 PM, said:

Sorry Cdlord, I love most of your posts, but this is one thing I am adamantly against. Give me one good reason why I can't have the AC 20 on a mech that has the tonnage, and slots for it? What arbitrary reason is there to say that this mech can't carry that weapon?

I want to address this.

I want you to be able to do whatever you want.

The problem lies in allowing everyone to do that as well. The outcome is the meta and when a new mech is released, there is an obligatory "DOA" thread because it can't meta like a previous mech. You also get mechs that never see the light of day because it can't meta like it's other variants. My system would give some of those mechs that would have a large hardpoint a tantalizing reason to take.

It's for the health of the game and the community. PGI has given us all the rope we could reasonable ask for and here we are hanging ourselves.

If your dual gauss or laservomit build was fringe and a rare instance, something that you found a way to tame that not everyone has, then we wouldn't need to discuss this. But everyone is doing it and it's driving people away.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Tesunie, on 11 October 2015 - 03:24 PM, said:

Do recall that our stock mech data is tech level 1 vs tech level 1. As soon as you add in tech level 2/clan tech into the equation, 90% of the tech level 1 mechs become obsolete and near useless (depending upon how they are played, of course), and we had o give Clan teams a reduction in tonnage for it to feel fair.

Not sure Tesuni from where come desire to mix techs and BT eras in you, same you did with Stock Petition Document preparation.
We did enough tech lvl 2 event as well, and IS tech lvl 2 vs Clans. Maybe you did not participated in those.

[Tesunie]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 12 October 2015 - 09:49 AM, said:

Not sure Tesuni from where come desire to mix techs and BT eras in you, same you did with Stock Petition Document preparation.
We did enough tech lvl 2 event as well, and IS tech lvl 2 vs Clans. Maybe you did not participated in those.

I did, in my 4J when I could. I also recall the IS having to have more tonnage over clan mechs when played stock. I also recall a lot of complaints about balancing tech levels, and how tech level 2 mechs made a lot of tech level 1 mechs obsolete.

I don't have any fascination with mixed tech, but I'm also not afraid (or maybe stupid enough) to bring level 1 tech against clans.

However, this game is set in 3050. The Clans are in the game, as well as level 2 tech. This game needs to find a way to get systems to work with mixed tech. That is why I've always stressed on any proposal to PGI that we have to find some way to include mixed tech, because it's part of the game. We can't exclude things because "it isn't tech level 1".

Now, if this game was 3025, all tech level 1 gear, then yes. A lot of balancing suggestions would be more viable. Stock mode would be easier to establish, and we probably would see more diverse builds and longer time to kill. However, it isn't.


As far as Hard Point Sizes, I've seen it done before. I did not like it then. It also didn't help balance anything in the game and made certain mechs "take or go home" in PvP. As this game is PvP only (currently), we have to consider that. Sure, the mechs individually carried more flavor and felt closer to lore (until you couldn't make a lore proper variant on the chassis), but it wasn't of much use to balance. (I recall MW4 being assault Novacat's with max CERLLs or die trying.)

Maybe I'm wrong here, but that was my experience with the proposed system as it was previously implemented. It was not a fun system. I don't support it.

[Makenzie71]

No. I love running around with a gauss...you start making it so that some of my mechs can't run a gauss then I'll simply find less to enjoy with the game. At which point I'll likely stop playing in favor of something else...which is a real shame considering how much time and money I've invested in it.

However, I do like the idea of stock fighting. Stock fights would actually make me break my K2 back into my play cycle.

[Tesunie]

Makenzie71, on 12 October 2015 - 10:02 AM, said:

No. I love running around with a gauss...you start making it so that some of my mechs can't run a gauss then I'll simply find less to enjoy with the game. At which point I'll likely stop playing in favor of something else...which is a real shame considering how much time and money I've invested in it.

However, I do like the idea of stock fighting. Stock fights would actually make me break my K2 back into my play cycle.

Stock Mech Mondays. Was a thing. Don't know if it still goes on, as I've been unable to attend for some time.

[Makenzie71]

I love that idea. I like the idea of niche gameplay.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Tesunie, on 12 October 2015 - 10:01 AM, said:

I did, in my 4J when I could. I also recall the IS having to have more tonnage over clan mechs when played stock. I also recall a lot of complaints about balancing tech levels, and how tech level 2 mechs made a lot of tech level 1 mechs obsolete.

I don't have any fascination with mixed tech, but I'm also not afraid (or maybe stupid enough) to bring level 1 tech against clans.

However, this game is set in 3050. The Clans are in the game, as well as level 2 tech. This game needs to find a way to get systems to work with mixed tech. That is why I've always stressed on any proposal to PGI that we have to find some way to include mixed tech, because it's part of the game. We can't exclude things because "it isn't tech level 1".

Now, if this game was 3025, all tech level 1 gear, then yes. A lot of balancing suggestions would be more viable. Stock mode would be easier to establish, and we probably would see more diverse builds and longer time to kill. However, it isn't.

Once balanced properly I don`t recall complaints. What did you expect? To balance 1 to 1, clan vs IS in Stock? Did you expect to balance tech2 and tech1 as equals? Those are not intended to work like that.
You simply can not have all oranges and peaches in one basket Tesuni, here is why your logic path is mistaken and you simply admit as well that is impossible to do, yet you still going out with it from time to time.

[Tesunie]

Jaeger Gonzo, on 12 October 2015 - 11:30 AM, said:

Once balanced properly I don`t recall complaints. What did you expect? To balance 1 to 1, clan vs IS in Stock? Did you expect to balance tech2 and tech1 as equals? Those are not intended to work like that.
You simply can not have all oranges and peaches in one basket Tesuni, here is why your logic path is mistaken and you simply admit as well that is impossible to do, yet you still going out with it from time to time.

So. According to you, we need to create a special MM just for Stock mode that restricts mech options based on tech level, if not even have weight restrictions (give the non-clan side more tonnage) added in as well.

I'm not so sure limiting stock MM would be very viable. Yes, Tech 1 is not "balanced" to tech 2 or clan tech. However, in this game tech 2 and clan tech are in it. You wouldn't be able to limit the MM (which is a lot of coding, work, and would split up queuing options even more) into special tech level buckets.

We have tech level 2. We have Clan tech. Each are in the game on stock mechs. I'm not saying it's all balanced, but if a stock mode was added in, some kind of system would have to be in place so no mech would be restricted.


This has started to wonder off the topic of sized hardpoints though. If you wish to continue this, we should probably make a new thread about it so we don't derail this thread and it's ideals.

[Jaeger Gonzo]

Yes, creating Stock Mode would require some tweaks to MM, what about it? Stock IS vs Clan would require numbers on IS side, not just tonnage as you have now.
Right now you got 3 quenes that are just same. Those could be just merged like in other similar games, to leave a place for additional 2 buckets that would bring something new, all techs in, all meks in, then.
Yeah codding MM would take just few weeks as they already mention about it.
Yeah codding, terrifying to actually put some real work in to game.

[Karl Streiger]

IraqiWalker, on 10 October 2015 - 07:04 PM, said:

I think you misunderstand "size" when it comes to weapons. The Pontiac 100 AC 20 fired 25mm bullets. 100 of them, each dealing 0.2 damage, in a 10 second burst,totaling up to 20 damage in a turn.

There is no weapon that can't be mounted on a mech, if it doesn't have the slots, and tonnage for it. People need to understand that. A light mech running around with an AC 20 is not only normal, it's canon. That's literally what one of the Urbie variants was built around.

I'm not sure you're familiar with how the mechs actually worked, or how the weapons did. As far as construction/customization go, we're actually very restricted.

Well two things - about the "calibers" of the autocannons. Its a common question and i got finally an explanation why it is "useless" - if you don't know it: "Armored Tears" has tanks with "main guns" that are not called by caliber bur by "kinetic energy" - same should be the rule for BattleTech weapons - not the damage, kaliber, rate of fire is important but the energy delivered in a time sequence.
I know it is not something new but if you think about it every weapon could need some "tweaking"

Anyhow - yes you are right the UrbanMech has a AC 20 - but it is not a field modification. and given the "lore" of the YLW the Pontiac100 was chosen to fit into the sleek armored sleve of the Luxor C.

And given the "reality" we already have some kind of "hardpoint sizes" - or are you able to mount a AC 20 into a Wolverine fist, or a CLBX 20 into the torso of this lame MadKatz?

I would gladly take the Strategic Operations Modifications rule for the current system: Because I want to have a Catapult with a ER-PPC in one and a LRM in the other ear.
So all of the hps on the Catapult but the K2 should be missile/energy limited by sizes (MWLL - style with min and max size) (2x 4 crits and 4x1 Crit for the C1)
So you can have ALRM15 - but not any other missiles system - or you can have 2 SRM 6 and 4 SRM4s - but not 6 LRM5s....

It would also allow the K2 - to have energy/ballistic mounts - if you like even a Gauss (although i think the UAC 5 should be enough)

TL;DR
ok i got to far: you can have a kind of hardpoint limited mech lab that keeps the flair of a mech, allows players more freedom and would look even more aesthetic.
But it would not be propper tool for balancing

Edited by Karl Streiger, 13 October 2015 - 04:23 AM.

[Lugh]

Khobai, on 05 October 2015 - 09:15 AM, said:

sized hardpoints arnt necessary

firing multiple large weapons is already restricted heavily by ghost heat

the majority of balance problems come from boating small weapons like CERMLs in conjunction with Gauss

They are a no nonsense way of taking the 'need' for ghost heat out of the equation completely.

[Ialdabaoth]

Karl Streiger, on 13 October 2015 - 04:19 AM, said:

I would gladly take the Strategic Operations Modifications rule for the current system: Because I want to have a Catapult with a ER-PPC in one and a LRM in the other ear.
So all of the hps on the Catapult but the K2 should be missile/energy limited by sizes (MWLL - style with min and max size) (2x 4 crits and 4x1 Crit for the C1)
So you can have ALRM15 - but not any other missiles system - or you can have 2 SRM 6 and 4 SRM4s - but not 6 LRM5s....

It would also allow the K2 - to have energy/ballistic mounts - if you like even a Gauss (although i think the UAC 5 should be enough)

YES. Strategic Operation's modifications rules would be perfect, especially combined with Repair and Rearm.

Here is what I'd ACTUALLY like to see:

1. Ditch this "you need 3 variants of the same chassis before you can Elte a mech" BS; let players Elite anything they want.

2. Have no base "Hero" mechs; instead, ANY mech can be unlockable into a "Hero" mech via a massive amount of XP, or a modest amount of MC, or unlocked from the beginning if you buy the mech with MC or cash instead of C-bills.

3. "Hero" mechs are moddable, following the Strategic Operations rules. Each "Hero" mech has a unique name, chosen by the pilot. Instead of "Boar's Head" or "Pretty Baby", targeting the 'mech causes you to see the name that that player chose for their mech, prepended with the base chassis type in parenthesis - so if you targeted my KGC-0000, you'd see "KGC-Pinch2Deth".

4. Modifications should need a shakedown run, with randomized and hidden negative quirks applied to the new parts when you attempt the modification. Once you take the mech out onto the battlefield, you get to see what quirks were applied, and spend c-bills to fix them (or strip the mech back down to stock and try again).

[Khobai]

Lugh, on 13 October 2015 - 11:52 AM, said:

They are a no nonsense way of taking the 'need' for ghost heat out of the equation completely.

Except then NOTHING would balance spamming of small weapons. Basically by adding hardpoint sizes and removing ghost heat youd be destroying whatever tiny semblance of balance the game has left.

Believe me I hate ghost heat. And would love to be done with it. But hardpoint sizes dont work towards achieving that goal...

Hardpoint sizes dont solve any of the games fundamental problems with boating small/medium lasers or convergence. Adding new game mechanics that dont solve core balance problems is a waste of time.

Edited by Khobai, 13 October 2015 - 12:04 PM.

[Tesunie]

Ialdabaoth, on 13 October 2015 - 11:54 AM, said:

3. "Hero" mechs are moddable, following the Strategic Operations rules. Each "Hero" mech has a unique name, chosen by the pilot. Instead of "Boar's Head" or "Pretty Baby", targeting the 'mech causes you to see the name that that player chose for their mech, prepended with the base chassis type in parenthesis - so if you targeted my KGC-0000, you'd see "KGC-Pinch2Deth".

I disagree with a player named chassis for a couple of reasons, but the biggest one is the possibility of profanity. Sure, it sounds cool to have your personal name of your mech displayed for all to see, but some people will abuse this to create some "interesting" names. I see it with pilot names sometimes too as it is.

As I said though, it would be cool. I just don't think it would be "wise" or "safe" to do so. (Though I would love to have an upgrade purchase to make it so any mech could get the 30% (or could be a lower % even). Maybe one mech per player could be "customized" with that upgrade? And it would be for MCs.)