51 replies to this topic

[MeiSooHaityu]

Alistair Winter, on 19 April 2016 - 04:14 AM, said:

I'm not saying that I'm against hardpoint inflation. I don't really mind if the K2 can equip 2 MPLs in each side torso, for example. I just think that sized hardpoints would both provide more variety and keep the mechs more true to lore. I think it's a shame that people play both the CPLT-K2 and the Warhammer as laserboats with AC10s instead of MGs, for example.

2 PPCs and 2 MPLasees make no real difference. You are creating a heavy mech with essentially 4 hard points and saying 2 of those have to be 1 crit slot. That makes an iconic mech that no one will play. Hard point restrictions will effectively murder the K2.

Now, if you want to add 2 additional energy (2 in each arm and one in the torso), then maybe a 2 PPC, 4 MLaser or 4MPLaser build might actually do something. As it is though, hardpoin restrictions would devastate this chassis without hard point inflation.

I also feel restrictions do nothing but restrict. They do not promote variety, but squelch it. With the K2 as an example, you can run big ballistics, you can run PPCs, you can run LPLasers. With restrictions to hard points, all you can run is PPCs and MLasers. All variety is gone for the sake of what some feel a K2 must be.

I understand wanting it to be a PPC machine because of lore, but it doesn't add more variety but instead shoehorns one build into one very exact role. You might see this as a shame, but in some cases, it helps people play a mech they like in a role they are more comfortable with. I see no issue in this. I guess it's subjective.

Quote

I have never wanted to stop boating. The Hunchback and the Nova should always be laserboats. But I'm saying not every mech in the game should be laserboats.

I agree, but that is more of a weapon issue IMO than a hard point issue. Restricting hard points won't stop some mechs from being more effective than others. If anything it also restricts variety. Certain mechs will have higher potential with their hard points vs others. This will influence more chassis to be abandoned for a very special few that now outperform due to lore hard points.

Sometimes the unrestricted hard point system allows for lesser mechs (hard point location and number wise) to compete when in general they couldn't.

If you really want to promote more variety in weapons, more weapons need to be as viable. You need to want people to carry a variety of weapons, not force them too or they will find another way.

Quote

This has nothing to do with my criticism, at all. I'm upset because the CPLT-K2 is an iconic PPC carrier, and people are stripping its arms to equip gauss or AC10 in the side torsos. Whether it's OP is irrelevant, as long as it's a common build.

It's like playing a Star Wars game and seeing people use TIE Fighters as troop carriers while TIE Interceptors become torpedo-wielding capital ship hunters, because of some wacky game mechanisms. If I play a Star Wars game, I want it to be like Star Wars. I don't want Stormtroopers with Wookie bowcasters, I don't want Sandpeople with lightsabers and I don't want AT-AT walkers to fly.

Battletech is built not just on battle, but also modification. A lot of chassis variants in general exist because even houses experimented with a mech to create something new.

The K2 was a regular Catapult until House Kurita decided "Hey, why don't we strip these missile racks and add PPCs?". That right there spits in the face of the iconic Catapult with its iconic missile ears and replaces them with PPCs.

The universe is built on this sort of behavior (where something like Star Wars isn't, well not really). Why can't you as a player do the same thing as House Kurita?

In true BT, such modifications can be costly and have a chance to fail, but I think for a game like this, that wouldn't add much.

Besides, at the end of the day, nothing stops a player from running a PPC K2 if they want to run an icon. The reason it just isn't seen as much is because of the faults of PPCs. This is again more of a weapon issue than a hard point issue.

[Karl Streiger]

MeiSooHaityu, on 19 April 2016 - 05:01 AM, said:

If you really want to promote more variety in weapons, more weapons need to be as viable. You need to want people to carry a variety of weapons, not force them too or they will find another way.

even with multiple weapon system viable you still have the issue its simpler to run a mono build with just one or at least two weapons of a kind - only exception battering rams (AS7-S; AS7-DDC, Spirit Bear to come)

[MeiSooHaityu]

Karl Streiger, on 19 April 2016 - 05:07 AM, said:

even with multiple weapon system viable you still have the issue its simpler to run a mono build with just one or at least two weapons of a kind - only exception battering rams (AS7-S; AS7-DDC, Spirit Bear to come)

That's true too.

[Widowmaker1981]

Karl Streiger, on 19 April 2016 - 05:07 AM, said:

even with multiple weapon system viable you still have the issue its simpler to run a mono build with just one or at least two weapons of a kind - only exception battering rams (AS7-S; AS7-DDC, Spirit Bear to come)

But that is always going to be the case. Where you have a system where different weapons have different firing profiles (single projectile, multi projectile splat, multi projectile stream, hitscan beams, lock on missiles, etc) - which is a good thing because it differentiates the weapons - it will always take less mental processing to effectively use only one of those delivery methods on any one mech that it does to use many, and as such be more consistent, i.e. better. You cant change that without forcing change via arbitrary rules, its not a function of weapon balance as such.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Widowmaker1981, on 19 April 2016 - 05:58 AM, said:

But that is always going to be the case. Where you have a system where different weapons have different firing profiles (single projectile, multi projectile splat, multi projectile stream, hitscan beams, lock on missiles, etc) - which is a good thing because it differentiates the weapons - it will always take less mental processing to effectively use only one of those delivery methods on any one mech that it does to use many, and as such be more consistent, i.e. better. You cant change that without forcing change via arbitrary rules, its not a function of weapon balance as such.

It's not always mental processing per se, but also a good means of fire control.

It is always nice to be able to fire any fire group you want to easily at your fingertips. This game isn't quake or unreal pacing, but it still is a fast enough paced game where having to locate a fifth fire group key while in the middle of combat can distract or even get you killed.

That is why I try to limit my fire groups to 3 and maybe 4 if I have to (like missile that require less good aim). when it comes to fire groups, 3 and 4 can get used up quick. There are times I want to use all the different hardpoints on a mech, but can't because I can't fit them easily within 3 or 4 firegroups. I could use 5 or all 6, but it would be too tricky to fire them for my setup without hunting on the keyboard.

Maybe if there was a toggle that allowed me to quickly switch the buttons/keys assigned to fire groups 1~3 to 4~6, and it was intuitive and easy enough to do, then I'd be more likely to expand my fire groups a bit.

[Karl Streiger]

Widowmaker1981, on 19 April 2016 - 05:58 AM, said:

But that is always going to be the case. Where you have a system where different weapons have different firing profiles (single projectile, multi projectile splat, multi projectile stream, hitscan beams, lock on missiles, etc) - which is a good thing because it differentiates the weapons - it will always take less mental processing to effectively use only one of those delivery methods on any one mech that it does to use many, and as such be more consistent, i.e. better. You cant change that without forcing change via arbitrary rules, its not a function of weapon balance as such.

Well you need a defined weapon rule, something that is not given yet.
Whats the reason to take SRM2 over a Medium Laser for example?
Why to take a AC 5 rather than a PPC or vice versa.

So what if the PPC are the gap opener that they are supposed to be - maybe awesome vs armor but kind of lacking when shooting at internal structure. What if its the opposite with Lasers? Is it lore? Of course not - it would have caused a head ache for pen & pencil gamers - but its perfectly suitable for MWO.
not even to mention the ballistic and/or reflective armor - don't mind the time line. They were a great addition in MW4

[Widowmaker1981]

Karl Streiger, on 19 April 2016 - 06:12 AM, said:

Well you need a defined weapon rule, something that is not given yet.
Whats the reason to take SRM2 over a Medium Laser for example?
Why to take a AC 5 rather than a PPC or vice versa.

So what if the PPC are the gap opener that they are supposed to be - maybe awesome vs armor but kind of lacking when shooting at internal structure. What if its the opposite with Lasers? Is it lore? Of course not - it would have caused a head ache for pen & pencil gamers - but its perfectly suitable for MWO.
not even to mention the ballistic and/or reflective armor - don't mind the time line. They were a great addition in MW4

I fully agree on adding the MW4 versions of reflective/reactive armour - it would be great for self balancing the meta. Im not sure i like the idea of making certain weapons work vs armour and others work vs structure though, because that would really screw over mechs like the Adder which only work with one weapon type.

[Karl Streiger]

Widowmaker1981, on 19 April 2016 - 06:30 AM, said:

Im not sure i like the idea of making certain weapons work vs armour and others work vs structure though, because that would really screw over mechs like the Adder which only work with one weapon type.

don't have to be this way.... was just a instant brain fart - nothing to take serious.
Maybe we need to look at MWLL again - PPC dealt serious damage including splash damage and a bonus, while small and medium caliber ACs were just a kind of hit scan weapons - great in walking the fire towards the cockpit

Edited by Karl Streiger, 19 April 2016 - 06:36 AM.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Widowmaker1981, on 19 April 2016 - 06:30 AM, said:

I fully agree on adding the MW4 versions of reflective/reactive armour - it would be great for self balancing the meta. Im not sure i like the idea of making certain weapons work vs armour and others work vs structure though, because that would really screw over mechs like the Adder which only work with one weapon type.

I'm just not convinced in general about how really good multiple armor types would be. I still feel most would tend towards the standard jack-of-all-trade armor to be safe.

I mean, if you get smacked by a Direwolf with 2 LPLasers and 2 Gauss Rifles, your armor would protect against one more, and be really weak against the other. Is it a wash?

Or we know clans are generally energy heavy due to their ballistics. Does armor types give more general advantage to IS forces in CW (which are more likely to face energy boats), vs the clans that are more likely to face anything from IS forces?

I mean, even if the weapons systems were very balanced, that would just seem to promote general armor protection more anyway since you were more likely to be hit by all sorts of weapon types anyway.

I mean, I don't hate the idea of specialized armor, but I'm not really sure it would be the way to go if things were very balanced. If things were unbalanced as they can sometimes be now (see laser vomit meta), then I think the IS would have the better end of the deal and the clans would be a bit more SOL.

P.S. Darn, I said "I mean" a lot :/

Edited by MeiSooHaityu, 19 April 2016 - 07:00 AM.

[Widowmaker1981]

MeiSooHaityu, on 19 April 2016 - 06:43 AM, said:

I'm just not convinced in general about how really good multiple armor types would be. I still feel most would tend towards the standard jack-of-all-trade armor to be safe.

I mean, if you get smacked by a Direwolf with 2 LPLasers and 2 Gauss Rifles, your armor would protect against one more, and be really weak against the other. Is it a wash?

Or we know clans are generally energy heavy due to their ballistics. Does armor types give more general advantage to IS forces in CW (which are more likely to face energy boats), vs the clans that are more likely to face anything from IS forces?

I mean, even if the weapons systems were very balanced, that would just seem to promote general armor protection more anyway since you were more likely to be hit by all sorts of weapon types anyway.

I mean, I don't hate the idea of specialized armor, but I'm not really sure it would be the way to go if things were very balanced. If things were unbalanced as they can sometimes be now (see laser vomit meta), then I think the IS would have the better end of the deal and the clans would be a bit more SOL.

While its true that at the moment reflective armour would help IS much more than clans, that isnt a function of the actual weapons themselves imo, they are pretty damn good and the double taps and lighter weight balance out the single slug of the IS ones, its more that due to Omnimech constuctruction rules there is no way to build fully optimised Clan ballistic builds (locked DHS you dont need, locked FF/ES/JJs in legs where the ammo should be, etc). Those issues go away as Clans get more IIC type mechs that can actually make properly set up ballistic builds - Kodiak-3 will be starting the process.

Edited by Widowmaker1981, 19 April 2016 - 06:59 AM.

[Raso]

Personally I still think a lower heat cap with higher heat dissipation would help off set boating.

Make is so that it's equally impractical and inefficient to boat 20 DHS with only 3-5 Llas or LPLs. Make it so a more effective use of your tonnage is to equip your mech with multiple weapon systems for multiple ranges or situations.

[occusoj]

Alistair Winter, on 19 April 2016 - 04:14 AM, said:

This has nothing to do with my criticism, at all. I'm upset because the CPLT-K2 is an iconic PPC carrier, and people are stripping its arms to equip gauss or AC10 in the side torsos. Whether it's OP is irrelevant, as long as it's a common build.
...

So you want to make some chassis totally worthless for the sake of .... looks and "originality" or something like that?
Theres a reason people toss the PPCs for other setups on the K2, mainly because they are terrible.
Trying to force them to use PPCs by restricting harpoint sizes wont result in more PPC-K2s but NO K2s instead. Probably moar Blacknights though.

Great job.