102 replies to this topic

[Wintersdark]

FupDup, on 31 January 2016 - 11:46 AM, said:

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...

I would assume they'd put cERPPC's and cLPL's into Large hardpoints, because.. well, because.

But even then... Nobody really uses cERPPC's, and certainly not in large numbers. cLPL cap out at 2 for 99% of builds.

More IS mechs would be wrecked, as fewer mechs would be able to use 3 LPL's, but this doesn't really help balance, it just arbitrarily nerfs essentially random mechs.




Yeah, MWO's balance issues all stem from convergence, and Paul. The changes to mech building can certainly improve the game (including sized hardpoints) but generally speaking do not really improve or worsen balance. There are too many limits due to having to maintain the possibility of stock loadouts etc that force poor balance choices in places.

[Felicitatem Parco]

The fact that we can reproduce similar loadouts across multiple Mechs (with current mechlab) means more variety in Mech Variants are fielded compared to a game with a Mechlab that would have sized hardpoints; sized hardpoints would reduce the number of high-performing Mechs (due to mechlab restrictions) and thereby reduce the number of different variants deployed on the field in competitive environments.


Also, sized hardpoints will not stop Boating of small weapons, since they fit into any size of hardpoint.

Edited by Prosperity Park, 31 January 2016 - 12:16 PM.

[FupDup]

Wintersdark, on 31 January 2016 - 12:10 PM, said:

I would assume they'd put cERPPC's and cLPL's into Large hardpoints, because.. well, because.

But even then... Nobody really uses cERPPC's, and certainly not in large numbers. cLPL cap out at 2 for 99% of builds.

More IS mechs would be wrecked, as fewer mechs would be able to use 3 LPL's, but this doesn't really help balance, it just arbitrarily nerfs essentially random mechs.

This brings me to another point...would the system just be based on qualitative arbitrary categories like "Large" or "Small" or whatever?

Or would it be quantitative with a specific slot size, like how everything in MWO already takes up a certain number of critical slots?

I'd argue that basing it on slots makes more sense since practically everything except modules eat up slots anyways.

Edited by FupDup, 31 January 2016 - 12:15 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

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.

Except its not the large weapons creating balance problems. Its the small weapons.

Hardpoint sizes wont fix anything because they wont prevent boating of small weapons.

Quote

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.

It did. But lasers were NOT one of the problems in MW4. They massively nerfed lasers in MW4.

MW4 had problems with PPCs/Gauss mostly

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 12:22 PM.

[MauttyKoray]

That;s sort of true yeah. Take the Atlas for instance and its 4xLRM variants. Realistically if you took LRMs it should actually be limited to a single LRM10 and 3 LRM5 due to the tubes shown. Otherwise with the way I run it (4xLRM15) its able to fire the first volley in a 10-5 spread and all three remaining volleys use a 5-5-5 pattern effectively creating a LRM60 Gatling Atlas with enough ammo to last an entire match and then some.

[Khobai]

Who cares if someone wants to run an LRM60 atlas. Its not like its breaking the game.

Hardpoint sizes do absolutely nothing to fix the problem. All it does is punish a bunch of substandard builds and forces people to meta harder.

[El Bandito]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

It did. But lasers were NOT one of the problems in MW4. They massively nerfed lasers in MW4.

MW4 had problems with PPCs/Gauss mostly

Actually CERLL was used extensively in multiplayer matches. Not only because of the range but also because in MW4, there was no such thing as laser duration. All laser damages were front loaded.

I still prefer power draw system to curb big alphas, combined with sized hardpoints.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 January 2016 - 12:29 PM.

[kapusta11]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 12:16 PM, said:

Except its not the large weapons creating balance problems. Its the small weapons.

Hardpoint sizes wont fix anything because they wont prevent boating of small weapons.

It has nothing to do with weapon size be it large or small. Yes small weapons create imbalance in Puglandia and to some extent in group queue and CW, but comp players use ERLLs, LLs and LPLs iirc.

It's all about how well weapons sync with each other because nothing stops you from allocating all damage to one component. Gauss/AC/PPC meta of old consisted of only 3-4 big weapons and once projectile speed of said weapons was both reduced and made different for each weapon that meta ceased to exist.

Edited by kapusta11, 31 January 2016 - 12:38 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

It has nothing to do with weapon size be it large or small. Yes small weapons create imbalance in Puglandia and to some extent in group queue and CW, but comp players use ERLLs, LLs and LPLs iirc.

hardpoint sizes dont stop people from spamming ERLLs, LLs, and LPLs though. It just forces them to use specific mechs in order to do it, which makes them meta harder.

also hardpoint sizes would punish dozens or even hundreds of legitimate builds that arnt even overpowered and dont need to be fixed in order to try and punish a handful of builds that are overpowered? Thats asinine.

ERLLs, LLs, and LPLs arnt overpowered because the game needs hardpoint sizes. Theyre overpowered because quirks have made them way too strong. Very few people were spamming ERLLs/LLs/LPLs before they were quirked. Its not until after quirks were added that it starting becoming an issue. Quirks are the WHOLE problem.

However I do feel the game could use a mechanic to encourage mechs to use their canon loadouts. And I believe something like signature hardpoints could work in that regard. Where weapons only get quirks if theyre placed in specific hardpoints. So for example, the warhammer would have to put its PPCs in its arms in order to get PPC quirks (which discourages people from putting them in the higher mounted torso hardpoints). Signature hardpoints are just a much better way of largely accomplishing the same thing... because it does it with a carrot instead of a stick.

Edited by Khobai, 31 January 2016 - 12:56 PM.

[kapusta11]

Khobai, on 31 January 2016 - 12:40 PM, said:

hardpoint sizes dont stop people from spamming ERLLs, LLs, and LPLs though. It just forces them to use specific mechs in order to do it, which makes them meta harder.

also hardpoint sizes would punish dozens or even hundreds of legitimate builds that arnt even overpowered and dont need to be fixed in order to try and punish a handful of builds that are overpowered? Thats asinine.

ERLLs, LLs, and LPLs arnt overpowered because the game needs hardpoint sizes. Theyre overpowered because quirks have made them way too strong. Very few people were spamming ERLLs/LLs/LPLs before they were quirked. Its not until after quirks were added that it starting becoming an issue. Quirks are the WHOLE problem.

However I do feel the game could use a mechanic to encourage mechs to use their canon loadouts. And I believe something like signature hardpoints could work in that regard. Where weapons only get quirks if theyre placed in specific hardpoints. So for example, the warhammer would have to put its PPCs in its arms in order to get PPC quirks (which discourages people from putting them in the higher mounted torso hardpoints). Signature hardpoints are just a much better way of largely accomplishing the same thing... because it does it with a carrot instead of a stick.

Yeah, why are you quoting me though? I thought I made myself clear that I don't support the idea of sized hardpoints for the very reasons you've listed.

Edited by kapusta11, 31 January 2016 - 01:12 PM.

[CMDR Sunset Shimmer]

@op

You mean the fact we never balanced the basic 3025 era tech before moving into 3039/3050 era stuff?

Yeah, you're totally right!

[Scyther]

We did this (the OP) to death back in beta, and IIRC there was a very vocal minority who were rabidly dead-set against it.

Also the PGI response at that time, again from memory, was 'we are not even considering this'.

A hybrid system could be implemented, I suppose, that adds a 'maximum crit slots' to the weapons type number, eg:

CPLT-K2: 4E(10), 2B(10)

where the (10)'s are the number of crit slots you can take up using that weapon type.

That would give you more freedom than 'spaced weapon hardpoints', while still allowing them to limit builds in some ways.

Of course, it would also mean you can't put 2 Gauss or 2 AC20's into slots designed for machine guns, which is what had the whole 'unlimited mechlab or death!' crowd up in arms to begin with.

Several years in though, even if this might be a more sensible, flexible, less abusable system; you can't adopt it. Because the guys who are sticking Gauss rifles in machine gun slots and ERPPCs in small laser slots would scream bloody murder.

Edited by MadBadger, 31 January 2016 - 03:22 PM.

[Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood]

MadBadger, on 31 January 2016 - 03:21 PM, said:

We did this (the OP) to death back in beta, and IIRC there was a very vocal minority who were rabidly dead-set against it.

Also the PGI response at that time, again from memory, was 'we are not even considering this'.

A hybrid system could be implemented, I suppose, that adds a 'maximum crit slots' to the weapons type number, eg:

CPLT-K2: 4E(10), 2B(10)

where the (10)'s are the number of crit slots you can take up using that weapon type.

That would give you more freedom than 'spaced weapon hardpoints', while still allowing them to limit builds in some ways.

Of course, it would also mean you can't put 2 Gauss or 2 AC20's into slots designed for machine guns, which is what had the whole 'unlimited mechlab or death!' crowd up in arms to begin with.

Several years in though, even if this might be a more sensible, flexible, less abusable system; you can't adopt it. Because the guys who are sticking Gauss rifles in machine gun slots and ERPPCs in small laser slots would scream bloody murder.

Seeing as we can change our mechs in the first place, something that would require us to have either our own engineering crew or a factory custom building our mechs for us for each game, I think maybe I can tell Karl to go and slap an AC20 on my Raven anytime I please.

[brroleg]

Quote

AC20 on my Raven

Raven should do backflip from AC20's recoil. If you played MW3 you can remember how whole mech twisted to the right when you fire from tiny ac5 in you right hand.

Edited by brroleg, 31 January 2016 - 03:44 PM.

[Mystere]

Games -- or any piece of significant software for that matter -- should not be designed via napkins, an influential cabal, or vocal popularity by the unwashed masses. It should be done via a solid vision, design, and preparation. Doing otherwise results in something very much like MWO.

Edited by Mystere, 31 January 2016 - 03:49 PM.

[Metus regem]

brroleg, on 31 January 2016 - 03:44 PM, said:

Raven should do backflip from AC20's recoil. If you played MW3 you can remember how whole mech twisted to the right when you fire from tiny ac5 in you right hand.

I have fond memories of my Summoner in MW3 pulling to the left as I squeezed off a cUAC/20 I had crammed in there...

[Scyther]

Dakota1000 said:

"Seeing as we can change our mechs in the first place, something that would require us to have either our own engineering crew or a factory custom building our mechs for us for each game, I think maybe I can tell Karl to go and slap an AC20 on my Raven anytime I please."


You sure can. And then you also get to tell Karl to slap on all the ghost heat, JJ nerfs, weapon 'balance' changes, and quirks that were necessary because you wanted an unlimited mechlab.

Edited by MadBadger, 31 January 2016 - 03:50 PM.

[Summon3r]

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 would be nice though, i quite liked the mw4 mech lab

[Wintersdark]

MadBadger, on 31 January 2016 - 03:49 PM, said:

You sure can. And then you also get to tell Karl to slap on all the ghost heat, JJ nerfs, weapon 'balance' changes, and quirks that were necessary because you wanted an unlimited mechlab.

None of which would have been stopped by sized hardpoints.

I love the concept, I'm all for a more limited mechlab, but you're fooling yourself if you think that would have magically fixed balance issues. It just would have made certain mechs DOA (those without the right hardpoint sizes), in almost exactly the same way many clan mechs are trash tier primarily because of poor fixed upgrade/engine choices.

Again, I'm pro-sized hardpoints.... But it would not have fixed any balance issues.

[Metus regem]

Wintersdark, on 31 January 2016 - 04:01 PM, said:

None of which would have been stopped by sized hardpoints.

I love the concept, I'm all for a more limited mechlab, but you're fooling yourself if you think that would have magically fixed balance issues. It just would have made certain mechs DOA (those without the right hardpoint sizes), in almost exactly the same way many clan mechs are trash tier primarily because of poor fixed upgrade/engine choices.

Again, I'm pro-sized hardpoints.... But it would not have fixed any balance issues.

Yup, what we need , as far as I think, is a lack of convergence. Rather we need a larger targeting circle, all of our shots land in that circle, meaning the further away the target, the more of the target under that circle letting shots land anywhere on that Mech in that circle, or missing it completely if a small Mech, like a Locust. Yet to keep our current all damage to one location, just get closer to the target....