66 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 July 2016 - 02:43 PM, said:

Fixes nothing. We have the problem we have because some weapons are simply too good for the amount of tons and slots they occupy. All you are doing with sized hardpoints is adding a third resource, with which we can still have weapons that are too good for how much of it they require.

Sized Hardpoints lessens boating, for sure. No longer there will be 5xLPL Battlemaster-2C, for example.

[Y E O N N E]

El Bandito, on 01 July 2016 - 05:41 PM, said:

Sized Hardpoints lessens boating, for sure. No longer there will be 5xLPL Battlemaster-2C, for example.

But there are other ways to fix boating that are coming down the pipe. Ghost Heat 2.0, for good or ill, will also discourage boating.

Even more, there's nothing inherently wrong with boating. What else do you think a 'Mech that has between 8 and 12 energy hard-points is supposed to do? Would you rather everybody just sticks to using only 3-5 of those hard-points? If I've got 85 tons, what else am I supposed to do if all I have is E hardpoints anyway? Am I supposed to take two larges, a PPC, and three small lasers or something? What is enforcing that supposed to accomplish for the game?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 01 July 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

Assuming sized hardpoints, however...Every. Single. One. Of the Dragon's hardpoints would be classified as 'small'.

This is a false assumption, sized hardpoints DOES NOT mean they have to be the same size as the stock config, just like the number of hardpoints the mechs in this game is not hard capped to the number of stock weapons.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 01 July 2016 - 05:53 PM.

[Chuck Jager]

Tarl Cabot, on 01 July 2016 - 04:08 AM, said:

Based off the Solaris rules/delay (cooldown) ERLL/LPL/ER-ppc had longer cooldown than Gauss Rifle. With MWO cooldown timers those high energy weapons pulling lots of power fire almost as quickly as the med range weapons, so many players forego med/short range weapons. And reviewing my sheets, the Clan versions of those weapons have a slightly lower cooldown rate.

PGI should remove the weapon quirks while balancing said technologies slightly closer together then add for flavor.

There are no solaris rules in this game. This game is based on that cave painting (computers versus static board). Just like we have vegan versions of bacon.

[adamts01]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 July 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

But there are other ways to fix boating that are coming down the pipe. Ghost Heat 2.0, for good or ill, will also discourage boating.

Even more, there's nothing inherently wrong with boating. What else do you think a 'Mech that has between 8 and 12 energy hard-points is supposed to do? Would you rather everybody just sticks to using only 3-5 of those hard-points? If I've got 85 tons, what else am I supposed to do if all I have is E hardpoints anyway? Am I supposed to take two larges, a PPC, and three small lasers or something? What is enforcing that supposed to accomplish for the game?

Those builds that were traditionally boats need some quirks to keep that as an option, like the Nova for example. I think that mech is in a good place right now. It runs 12 smalls but it's slow, weak, short ranged, and needs to expose itself to deal that damage. The Warhammer on the other hand has the tonnage and flexibility to run decent long range weapons (2xERPPC), mixed with a decent short range loadout (6ML). Same as the Black knight. This all assumes 6 medium lasers will be halfway decent up close with the new system.

[Y E O N N E]

adamts01, on 01 July 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

Those builds that were traditionally boats need some quirks to keep that as an option, like the Nova for example. I think that mech is in a good place right now. It runs 12 smalls but it's slow, weak, short ranged, and needs to expose itself to deal that damage. The Warhammer on the other hand has the tonnage and flexibility to run decent long range weapons (2xERPPC), mixed with a decent short range loadout (6ML). Same as the Black knight. This all assumes 6 medium lasers will be halfway decent up close with the new system.

How is that Warhammer not considered a boat?

And we're talking about a system that's designed to keep 'Mechs like the Locust from bringing things like LPLs and PPCs regardless of potential in-game utility.

The whole thing is just silly.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 01 July 2016 - 05:49 PM, said:

This is a false assumption, sized hardpoints DOES NOT mean they have to be the same size as the stock config, just like the number of hardpoints the mechs in this game is not hard capped to the number of stock weapons.

Then we get back to the question of 'why do it in the first place'? If hardpoint sizing isn't influenced by the stock configuration, beyond the necessities of 'hardpoints big enough to use the stock loadout'...then why bother? At that point the whole system basically just comes across as "a lever to use to arbitrarily f*** over 'mechs I don't like." Or rather, 'Mechs Piranha doesn't like, given that they're in control of the whole thing.

Again - why do we gotta do that to ourselves?

[oldradagast]

Highly mixed builds only worked in tabletop because there was no actual aiming going on; no matter how different weapon ranges and projectile speeds were, you just rolled 2d6 and followed the results. When such builds are translated into a first-person shooter, you get a mess of weapons scattered across way too many weapon groups for it to be practical.

So, while convergence is its own problem, changing it will not make mixed builds as effective as boated builds.

[Hotthedd]

1453 R, on 01 July 2016 - 03:23 PM, said:

Let's take the case of the Dragon, shall we?

The Dragon has (generally) an LRM launcher in the CT, an AC/5 in the right arm, and one medium laser apiece in LA and LT. This shakes out as one or two ballistics per RA, one or two energy per LA and LT, and one missile hardpoint nobody uses per CT, variant-dependent.

No one can really argue that the Dragon is a bad chassis. The 60-ton mark is hard to be good in, and the Dragon's geometry makes it very fragile. This was the 'Mech I learned MWO in - I can personally attest that it's not a top-flight chassis by any means or manner. However...with a Gausslasers weapons mix, or some PPCs/large lasers substituting for medium daggers, it can (theoretically, or at least it could back in the day) be made to be halfway workable - the Mehcategory mentioned above.

Assuming sized hardpoints, however...Every. Single. One. Of the Dragon's hardpoints would be classified as 'small'. it could not mount gauss rifles. It could not mount PPCs or large lasers. It can't even mount an SRM-6, since most sized hardpoint systems I've seen classify the SRM-6 as a 'large' hardpoint. It is stuck with a horribly suboptimal, utterly non-impactful mix of low-damage popguns in bad locations, and would almost be worse than dropping into the match with a bolt-action rifle and a pair of stompin' boots.

Sized hardpoints would thoroughly, irrevocably destroy what little viability the Dragon has left. And I'm pretty sure you could easily come up with other examples. Wouldn't even be hard, eh?

Well first of all, nobody has determined the SIZE of ANY of the hardpoints. In my mind, hard point sizes would be used to stop boating of huge weapons, especially in chassis that were never really meant to have them. (I'm thinking of the Gaussapult) The sized hardpoints would not necessarily only allow MGs on the Catapult, but they could be small enough that an AC/5 might be the largest ballistic to fit in those slots.
TBH, I'm not a huge proponent of sized hardpoints, but since PGI will never fix the actual underlying problem, the solution is as good as any.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

1453 R, on 02 July 2016 - 05:11 AM, said:

Then we get back to the question of 'why do it in the first place'?

The idea is to limit customization to make mechs more unique by limiting what weapons they can take, honestly the more I've thought about it the more I wouldn't mind stricter hardpoints based on weapon types (like PPC hardpoints or Laser hardpoints). That's it, sized hardpoints are to differentiate mechs better.

[Kangarad]

Hotthedd, on 02 July 2016 - 06:51 AM, said:

Well first of all, nobody has determined the SIZE of ANY of the hardpoints. In my mind, hard point sizes would be used to stop boating of huge weapons, especially in chassis that were never really meant to have them. (I'm thinking of the Gaussapult) The sized hardpoints would not necessarily only allow MGs on the Catapult, but they could be small enough that an AC/5 might be the largest ballistic to fit in those slots.
TBH, I'm not a huge proponent of sized hardpoints, but since PGI will never fix the actual underlying problem, the solution is as good as any.

Well no it does not discurage boating..

that 12 sml laser+4mgs nova? doesn't matter that it is 16 small hardpoints, it still fits 12 small lasers+ 4 mg's. congratulations.


the A1 Catapult LRMBOAT,, Hardpoint size Small uh oh it still fits 6 lrm 5's.... becuase everyone boats the smallest posible lrm launcher anyway if the hardpoint number allows it.

Name me one mech that 1. Boats heavily 2. will no nlonger boat after the change.

IF Hardpoints do not allow for larger weapons to be boated, then people wil juts go for the next best thing and boat that, simple because its the best thing to take.

Edited by Kangarad, 03 July 2016 - 11:21 AM.

[Chuck Jager]

Yeonne Greene, on 01 July 2016 - 06:30 PM, said:

How is that Warhammer not considered a boat?

And we're talking about a system that's designed to keep 'Mechs like the Locust from bringing things like LPLs and PPCs regardless of potential in-game utility.

The whole thing is just silly.

plenty of examples of real weapon systems that have a big piece of firepower with little armor strictly for mobility. Now they have/had the same problem when exposed to enemy fire too.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kangarad, on 02 July 2016 - 11:01 AM, said:

Well no it does not discurage boating..

Ummm, where did I say that it does, the post you quoted says nothing about boating.

[Kangarad]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 03 July 2016 - 11:19 AM, said:

Ummm, where did I say that it does, the post you quoted says nothing about boating.

Iz got the wrong qoute it seems, should be the one aboth your post. my bad.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Kangarad, on 03 July 2016 - 11:21 AM, said:

Iz got the wrong qoute it seems, should be the one aboth your post. my bad.

Alright, that makes more sense then.

[InspectorG]

Hit the Deck, on 30 June 2016 - 04:21 AM, said:

What do you think about this? Do you want 'Mechs to carry mixed builds more because it's what makes sense by changing the game mechanics to support it?

The problem was trying to force BT rulesets into a FPS.

BT you wanted mixed weapons for numerous reasons: range overlap, crit seeking, single big damage guns to punch holes in armor.

Problem is not only range overlap is obsolete in MWO, but also:

Crit system is completely different.

Convergence is important.

Hardpoint location matters in MWO, is irrelevant in BT.

The x2 armor count in MWO to extend TTK, and most mechs in BT DID NOT use full armor.

Hard 30 heatcap with heat penalties in BT, MWO lets you expand the heat scale and the only penalty is shutdown.

etc...

[InspectorG]

adamts01, on 01 July 2016 - 06:27 PM, said:

It runs 12 smalls but it's slow, weak, short ranged, and needs to expose itself to deal that damage.

You also have to look at why the Nova had 12 ERML in BT when BT had a hard 30 heatcap.

Multiple weapons were a means to crit-fish.

Also allowed the means to hit multiple opponents within range brackets.

The redundancy was a form of endurance, crits were WAY more brutal in BT than MWO. 1 damage and angry 2D6 meant that weapon/equip was gone.

Look at the stock Warhawk Prime? with 4ERPPC. Usually you alternated 2,1,2,1... at a very nice range while sitting still to punch 15point(thats a lot in BT) holes in enemies before they could even get in range. The LRM10 was crit seek or support.

BT had reasons both TO and NOT TO boat.

MWO flat encourages boating due to FPS.

[Hotthedd]

InspectorG, on 03 July 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

The problem was trying to force BT rulesets into a FPS.

BT you wanted mixed weapons for numerous reasons: range overlap, crit seeking, single big damage guns to punch holes in armor.

Problem is not only range overlap is obsolete in MWO, but also:

Crit system is completely different.

Convergence is important.

Hardpoint location matters in MWO, is irrelevant in BT.

The x2 armor count in MWO to extend TTK, and most mechs in BT DID NOT use full armor.

Hard 30 heatcap with heat penalties in BT, MWO lets you expand the heat scale and the only penalty is shutdown.

etc...

So, the actual problem was not using TT rulesets in this particular FPS.

[adamts01]

InspectorG, on 03 July 2016 - 11:56 AM, said:

The problem was trying to force BT rulesets into a FPS.

BT you wanted mixed weapons for numerous reasons: range overlap, crit seeking, single big damage guns to punch holes in armor.

Problem is not only range overlap is obsolete in MWO, but also:

Crit system is completely different.

Convergence is important.

Hardpoint location matters in MWO, is irrelevant in BT.

The x2 armor count in MWO to extend TTK, and most mechs in BT DID NOT use full armor.

Hard 30 heatcap with heat penalties in BT, MWO lets you expand the heat scale and the only penalty is shutdown.

etc...

InspectorG, on 03 July 2016 - 12:09 PM, said:

You also have to look at why the Nova had 12 ERML in BT when BT had a hard 30 heatcap.

Multiple weapons were a means to crit-fish.

Also allowed the means to hit multiple opponents within range brackets.

The redundancy was a form of endurance, crits were WAY more brutal in BT than MWO. 1 damage and angry 2D6 meant that weapon/equip was gone.

Look at the stock Warhawk Prime? with 4ERPPC. Usually you alternated 2,1,2,1... at a very nice range while sitting still to punch 15point(thats a lot in BT) holes in enemies before they could even get in range. The LRM10 was crit seek or support.

BT had reasons both TO and NOT TO boat.

MWO flat encourages boating due to FPS.

That's all awesome stuff. I'd like crits to play a larger role in this game. Instead of doubling armor, they should have double structure, which would give MGs more of a role, and the LBX if they fix its crit ability. Range overlap might be a good choice in the future if you're only able to effectively use half your weapons at once, you might as well fill two roles if your tonnage allows it. I don't like the convergence proposals but I like variable COF. Either is better than what we have. Everythimg you pointed out would make this game more strategic and differentiate it from the other crap on the market if it were translated over in a suitable way.

[Aiden Skye]

Convergence isn't perfect if you have to lead your target as with projectile weapons. I think it would be better if the game if you didn't have a lock, you got no convergence. This would reduce massive peeking alphas. I it makes no sense that fixed torso weapons, or weapons mounted in arms without lower arm actuators converge.

Active and passive sensors. Make it more important to not be detected, and to have mechs out there actively scouting with tag, narc, bap etc. So stupid that every light that comes along is boating pulse lasers. Lights should have better sensor range and not light up the map the same as an 100 ton atlas....ok going on a rant...