102 replies to this topic

[brroleg]

Look at mechlab in Mechwarrior 4



You can see, there is small ballistic and small energy hardpoint in right torso, so you can put there only some small energy and some small ballistic weapon. On left torso there is big missile hardpoint. So in Mechwarrior 4 this mech could not mount PPC or Gauss or even ER Laser. And this is how this mech is balanced. Its speed, its armor, its small size, all of this is balanced with being not able to mount big guns like PPC or Gauss or ER Laser

Now, what will happen when PGI will bring this mech into MWO. It will be able to mount gauss rifle in right torso and ER lasers in each arm. All of this while being small fast and with medium armor. This thing will be OP as hell. So PGI will throw some ridiculous negative quirks on it making it complete garbage, or even nerf gauss and ppc cause this mech will make those weapons OP being able to mount them.

So what im saying. This game will never ever will be balanced until hardpoints will have size, so you could not mount huge weapons in hardpoint where there should be small weapon instead.

Edited by brroleg, 31 January 2016 - 11:09 AM.

[FupDup]

A 45 ton mech like the Hellspawn wouldn't be able to make very good use of PPCs/Gauss anyways, especially if it wants to keep its speed.

I do think sized hardpoints could work as a method of CHASSIS OR VARIANT DIFFERENTIATION, but trying to use them for actually "balancing" the game's mechanics will fail. Their only purpose should be to create differences between mechs and reduce redundancy. That's it. They don't suddenly balance the guns or anything else.

[oldradagast]

There is some truth to what you say; we do reach a saturation point with mechs where all that matters is fitting the best weapons into the highest mounted and most boatable hardpoints on mechs with the best geometry.

Quirks can help to some extent, and I think they've been reasonably successful since there are certainly some mechs that are currently top-tier that would be trash without them. On the other hand, one could argue that they are a band-aid solution to deeper problems.

IMHO, one of the biggest balance issues is pinpoint damage and instant convergence. This encourages weapon boating and forces bad balance decisions where "a bunch" of a given weapon is too good, so the weapon gets nerfed, resulting in running 1 or 2 of them being utterly futile. And then the meta just moves on to the next boatable weapon that can deal tons of nearly instant damage to a single pixel.

[brroleg]

Quote

IMHO, one of the biggest balance issues is pinpoint damage

Mechwarrior 4 had even bigger problems with pinpoint damage feature, cause of laser mechanic when it shoot all damage in point where you clicked regardless of your mouse moving or target running. But game was pretty balanced.

Edited by brroleg, 31 January 2016 - 11:11 AM.

[TexAce]

Without convergence we can't have balance ever.

But actually we cant have balance ever, because balance woud be boring and boring games die pretty quick.

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 31 January 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

A 45 ton mech like the Hellspawn wouldn't be able to make very good use of PPCs/Gauss anyways, especially if it wants to keep its speed.

I do think sized hardpoints could work as a method of CHASSIS OR VARIANT DIFFERENTIATION, but trying to use them for actually "balancing" the game's mechanics will fail. Their only purpose should be to create differences between mechs and reduce redundancy. That's it. They don't suddenly balance the guns or anything else.

This.

I was objectively against sized hardpoints for a long time, but I'm completely on board now. So many arguments with Bishop over this back in beta, and I was so wrong.

But, with that said, sized hardpoints won't really help balance, they'd just reduce redundancy. In my defense, back in those days there was no redundancy because there were so few mechs. Now, we've got LOTS of mechs, and redundancy is an issue.

The problem you run into when you want sized hardpoints to balance things is that you'd basically have to size your hardpoints with original loadouts in mind. This would result in sizes that "made sense" but arbitrarily nerfed bad chassis and effectively buffed already good chassis - it would be like how Clan Omnimechs are currently "balanced" by fixed and unchangable Endosteel/FerroFibrous armor.

You could work around this (and I'd hope they would); and I do agree sized hardpoints would add significant variety to what builds go on what mechs, but what it wouldn't do is impact the Meta at all (though it could change which mechs are good Meta mechs and which just suck).

More restrictions make mech building more interesting. That's a good thing, generally speaking.

But it would not fix balance problems. After all, the most "abused" weapons right now are smaller weapons - small pulse lasers, er medium lasers, etc. The problem certainly isn't lots of large weapons.

TexAce, on 31 January 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

Without convergence we can't have balance ever.

But actually we cant have balance ever, because balance woud be boring and boring games die pretty quick.

"Balance" does not require "Everything Is The Same." That's just the easy way to get balance.

[Mister Blastman]

The problem with MWO is not the mechlab, it is CONVERGENCE.

[shaterbane]

I always hated the hardpoint system in the MW video games. There's nothing like it in TT. But then again, the only truly customizable mechs in TT were omnimechs.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 31 January 2016 - 11:14 AM, said:

This.

I was objectively against sized hardpoints for a long time, but I'm completely on board now. So many arguments with Bishop over this back in beta, and I was so wrong.

But, with that said, sized hardpoints won't really help balance, they'd just reduce redundancy. In my defense, back in those days there was no redundancy because there were so few mechs. Now, we've got LOTS of mechs, and redundancy is an issue.

The problem you run into when you want sized hardpoints to balance things is that you'd basically have to size your hardpoints with original loadouts in mind. This would result in sizes that "made sense" but arbitrarily nerfed bad chassis and effectively buffed already good chassis - it would be like how Clan Omnimechs are currently "balanced" by fixed and unchangable Endosteel/FerroFibrous armor.

You could work around this (and I'd hope they would); and I do agree sized hardpoints would add significant variety to what builds go on what mechs, but what it wouldn't do is impact the Meta at all (though it could change which mechs are good Meta mechs and which just suck).

More restrictions make mech building more interesting. That's a good thing, generally speaking.

But it would not fix balance problems. After all, the most "abused" weapons right now are smaller weapons - small pulse lasers, er medium lasers, etc. The problem certainly isn't lots of large weapons.

In terms of the poopy mechs, I think that we could take a "loose" interpretation of the mech's role instead of just keeping the exact stock weapon size (which would be a disaster). For example, I think that the 4-slot stock AC/5 on a Dragon could be inflated to 7 slots (AC/10 or Gauss) without "perverting" the mech's role. A Catapult K2 should have 5 slots per arm so that it could fit Heavy PPCs + Capacitors if those ever get added. Etc.


I wouldn't classify small pulses in the "abused" weapons category because they have a very big range weakness to keep them in check, and the chassis that make the best use of them (lights) are generally sub-par compared to their fatty overlords. For bigger weapons that are "abused," there is the Clan LPL, maybe the IS LPL to some extent, and the pre-nerf Gauss Rifle...

[Homeskilit]

This would be a way better solution than Ghost Heat and it should not replace weapon balance, it should complement it.

Edited by Homeskilit, 31 January 2016 - 11:27 AM.

[Karamarka]

TexAce, on 31 January 2016 - 11:11 AM, said:

Without convergence we can't have balance ever.

But actually we cant have balance ever, because balance woud be boring and boring games die pretty quick.

Cept for nearly every board game in existence that live forever. High rated games that strive for balance are gods. it's about skill not luck/items

Edited by Karamarka, 31 January 2016 - 11:28 AM.

[oldradagast]

brroleg, on 31 January 2016 - 11:08 AM, said:

Mechwarrior 4 had even bigger problems with pinpoint damage feature, cause of laser mechanic when it shoot all damage in point where you clicked regardless of your mouse moving or target running. But game was pretty balanced.

I never played it, so I can't speak to its balance.

That being said, instant convergence and pinpoint damage is a core problem in the game. Not only for obvious boating reasons, but also since it works against one of the core mechanics of Battletech, which is semi-random hit locations. Without that, a good check of your mech's armor means nothing and we may as well just have hitpoint pools for the whole mech.

A small cone of fire would help alleviate this problem. If done right, it would only really be a factor at longer ranges, but it would help end the laser vomit meta without having to nerf every long range weapon into the ground (Gauss, PPC, etc.)

[Spheroid]

I never liked that mechlab. Equipment placement without respect to crits is so very wrong. MW4 felt very dumbed down in many respects.

Even the massively abused unlimited build system of MW2 allowed you to specify location and crit pad if necessary.

Edited by Spheroid, 31 January 2016 - 11:37 AM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

What I remember most from MW4 was that you'd find whatever mech gets the biggest weapon hardpoints then slap as many small weapons in there as possible.

We actually do have a max weapon limit in this game though, but still you'd probably see some IS guys getting a load of small pulse lasers, avoid ghost heat entirely and have a super high DPS and pinpoint alpha weapon up close that still puts out very low heat. Then probably back it up with a few weapons for poking people at longer ranges.

I don't really see it fixing any problems, mostly just making some mech variants much less desirable than others and promoting excessive boating. But hey, a 16 MG mech wouldn't be too bad, now would it?

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 31 January 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

In terms of the poopy mechs, I think that we could take a "loose" interpretation of the mech's role instead of just keeping the exact stock weapon size (which would be a disaster). For example, I think that the 4-slot stock AC/5 on a Dragon could be inflated to 7 slots (AC/10 or Gauss) without "perverting" the mech's role. A Catapult K2 should have 5 slots per arm so that it could fit Heavy PPCs + Capacitors if those ever get added. Etc.

Yeah,upsizing is fine. The problems start when being unable to go the other way.

A common complaint back a while was dual Gauss/ac20 builds, and them on the Catapult was a large driver for sized hardpoints to stop K2's replacing machine guns with big ballistics. Enter the Jagermech, that has dual Gauss stock builds.

As is so often the case in TT->MWO comparisons, TT chassis simply aren't balanced as it stands (which is why they had BV) and MWO adds considerations that didn't exist for TT (particularly hardpoints locations and geometry).

Thus, sized hardpoints won't bring balance. They WILL bring more variety in mechs and more interesting build optimization, and that's great. But not balance.

Quote

I wouldn't classify small pulses in the "abused" weapons category because they have a very big range weakness to keep them in check, and the chassis that make the best use of them (lights) are generally sub-par compared to their fatty overlords. For bigger weapons that are "abused," there is the Clan LPL, maybe the IS LPL to some extent, and the pre-nerf Gauss Rifle...

I used quotes around abused for a reason

LPL's are the go to Clan weapon no doubt, but sized hardpoints wouldn't help, because typically builds are only using two of them (uh, yay for Ghost heat ) and the only builds running more (Wubhawk?) Would continue to do so anyways.

So, sized hardpoints would just serve to make the occasional mech either unable to mount LPL or force them into sub optimal locations... But because of the problem in the first part of my post, they may just as likely force them into the best positions.

They'd be great for the game, but they'd be bad for balance as often as they're good for balance. They WOULD help keep mechs being what they "should" be, though, or at least moderate analogues of it.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 31 January 2016 - 11:42 AM, said:

LPL's are the go to Clan weapon no doubt, but sized hardpoints wouldn't help, because typically builds are only using two of them (uh, yay for Ghost heat ) and the only builds running more (Wubhawk?) Would continue to do so anyways.

So, sized hardpoints would just serve to make the occasional mech either unable to mount LPL or force them into sub optimal locations... But because of the problem in the first part of my post, they may just as likely force them into the best positions.

They'd be great for the game, but they'd be bad for balance as often as they're good for balance. They WOULD help keep mechs being what they "should" be, though, or at least moderate analogues of it.

For the LPL in particular, its size of only 2 slots means that most mechs would probably still be able to use it anyways lol.

Only "bigger" Clan energy weapons like Heavy Large Lasers (3 slots) could really be "limited" by it, although even then I think just the shear damn heat should be enough (it's like 18 heat in TT lol).

In the grand scheme of things, all of the weapons had damn well better be balanced BEFORE hardpoints get a size requirement, to reduce the amount of collateral damage...

[kapusta11]

OP, you should take a look at Black Knights, EBJ-A and B, Stormcrow Prime and B, TBR-A... sh!t load of mechs can boat weapons that sync well with each other actually.

[El Bandito]

brroleg, on 31 January 2016 - 10:59 AM, said:

Root Of All Balance Problems In Mwo

Paul?

[wanderer]

Sized hardpoints would do nothing except reduce the number of useful chassis, as most "boat" configurations can be pulled off by one or another with ease.

The problem has always far more been being able to put every frickin' gun perfectly and instantly on the exact pixel you want, followed by being able to toss that maximum frontloaded or DPS strike there to render most of the armor on your target meaningless.

I can't count how many times I've seen giant robot donut corpses littering the battlefield with barely a scratch on anything past the LT/RT, if that.

[Wintersdark]

Homeskilit, on 31 January 2016 - 11:27 AM, said:

This would be a way better solution than Ghost Heat and it should not replace weapon balance, it should complement it.

Except it doesn't. It wouldn't replace Ghost Heat at all. It would just reduce the number of mechs that can really abuse it.

That's my point. Sized hardpoints are awesome, but they are NOT replacement for Ghost Heat (as much as I hate it).

Sized hardpoints would be at best a wash with balance, making some chassis better and others worse.

Ironically, the best Clan Chassis would be improved by sized hardpoints instead of GH, not penalized.