27 replies to this topic

[Koniving]

I'm talking about how MWO does inflated hardpoints these days.

If I were to take how hardpoint inflation worked for the Cyclops and apply them to the Atlases...

The Atlas K would have 3 ballistic hardpoints, 4 energy hardpoints and probably 1 missile hardpoint.
The Atlas D would have 1 ballistic hardpoint, 2 missile hardpoint, and probably 8 energy hardpoints.
The Atlas D-DC would probably have 2-4 missile hardpoints, 1-2 ballistic hardpoints and 2 energy, if they did 4 missiles then we'd get 1 ballistic.
The RS.... wouldn't have 4 energy on the arms anymore.

I bet you're thinking "What the heck is he talking about?"

Hardpoints, obviously.
"Well no kidding! But what do you mean by all this stuff with Atlases?"

Welp, hardpoint inflation had a pattern set by the stock loadouts back in the day when players didn't cry so much and the game was genuinely fun with its delayed convergence (for those of us in the US anyway), mechs that felt like Mac Trucks and not like Sports Cars, and radar blips that teleported since the minimap updated once every 1 to 2 seconds meaning you did NOT know where everyone is at every given second and could see a blip in front of you and lose him, then suddenly have the mech standing on your head because he snuck around!

Back in the day, PGI seemed to care a bit more about developing the game, or I should say had a much better attitude towards it. Of course a large part of that is that they had our trust, our support, our hopes and dreams and none of us were on islands or the "2%."

And during this time of "We'll do a Pick this or that" skill tree, "Info Warfare is going to mean something," and numerous other "In over our head" things, PGI had a (reasonably) well-thought out pattern for how they would develop hardpoints for Mechs.

Take a seat kiddos and I will explain this old system.

• Energy slots: If it had a PPC or Large Laser, it got 2 slots per instance. Medium or less? 1 slot.
  
• Ballistic slots: If it had an AC/20, it got 2 slots. Otherwise it got 1 slot. (Do wish it was AC/20 got 3, Gauss, AC/10/LBX got 2, UAC/5 or less got 1).
  
• Missile slots: LRM-20 got 2. Anything less got 1. If it only had LRM-20s it got 3 per instance.

Simple, tangible. Has some issues but you knew exactly what you were gonna get in the near future.
Even better, it preluded to an easy way to convert all MWO mechs to use a sized hardpoint system. But yeah let's leave out the fantasies of good development over poor practices such as overzealous quirkening.

The current system of hardpoints makes little to no sense.
"It's got a medium laser in the arm. Give it 3 energy hardpoints for each medium laser."
...What?
"It's got an LRM-10, lets give it 3 missile hardpoints there."
....Huh?
"This one has an LRM-5. Just stick with one missile hardpoint, no one will ever use it; instead lets inflate, uh... actually we're not gonna inflate a single thing on this variant. While we hyper-inflated every other variant to have 9 hardpoints, we're gonna let this uninflated variant -- which would have had the most hardpoints if all were uninflated -- have only 8 hardpoints... in some of the worst locations to be uninflated."

I... um..
Don't you think, uh... Shouldn't we... or they rather...
I'm speechless. I don't even know where to begin with this. I really don't. I'm not even sure why I'm surprised at this point.
Sometimes I wonder why I try to make sense of PGI does. Because sometimes it just doesn't make any sense at all.

[Metus regem]

I stopped trying to figure it out a while ago, as it started to make my head hurt...

[Koniving]

Really weird, for some reason I got a like on a post about something very similar from months ago. Quoting here.
This is in response to why we can't have the Flea, where one of the excuses cited was "too similar" in loadouts both to one another and to the Locust and discussions took off from there.

Koniving, on 08 June 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

In the past PGI used the weapons a mech was equipped with to determine hard points.
Example, AC/20 got 2, Atlases D and D-dc. AC/10 or Gauss, one. Atlas R's and k.
Large laser, 2 energy (Atlas Rs.). Medium laser, one.

So.

Hard point sizes.
Mechs become more unique with only some limits in variety, in turn increasing both variety in the field and the potential range of meta. Having the ability combine two hard points to make a larger one would also help (2 medium energies together to make a large or split into a smaller hard point).

Been a lot of requests for this.
Locusts don't generally have large slots though they have enough to make some if need be. The Flea however is a Slower mech that has bigger weapon slots.

Why isn't this already a thing?

[Master Maniac]

I...think you may be overreacting to something rather inconsequential.

[Alistair Winter]

I know this goes without saying, but... powercreep is the way PGI keeps selling mechs in a game where we already have hundreds of the buggers and there's not really any new content that makes new mechs that interesting. It's not like when they started adding ECM for the first time or MASC, it's not like they're adding melee mechs for the first time, or mechs with stealth armour or anything like that.

They're selling new constellations of weight and hardpoints, and they're selling hardpoint inflation.

Compare the King Crab hardpoints with the Atlas hardpoints. See any logic? Well, the King Crab is newer and they needed to sell more mechs. It's not like they could just give another AMS hardpoint to one of the variants, like they did with the AS7-K. That ship has sailed. Time for more power creep.

I don't care that much anymore though. The game is getting older and PGI knows they've reached diminishing returns of hardpoint inflation. Like when they released the Top Dog with 9 energy hardpoints, more than any other Thunderbolt, (weird coincidence, right?) and it didn't really turn out to be as good as some people (including myself) had feared. Now they know they can't really make a lot of money with further hardpoint inflation for 65 tonners, at least. At some point, the extra hardpoints are worthless.

[Bishop Steiner]

A few different paths chosen, a few different voices listened to during CB...and MWO might have embarked on a much different, and far less contentious path than the one we have witnessed.

But I think the truth is, no matter the debates.. Russ always had his eyes on a simple FPS catering to Esports. Nothing more.

#MAY2017

[Koniving]

Master Maniac, on 05 August 2016 - 02:51 PM, said:

I...think you may be overreacting to something rather inconsequential.

Just bringing it out. By itself it is quite inconsequential. But in the midst of every decision that has happened, when they are still tweaking weapon stats balancing weapons and bouncing quirks from extreme to extreme 4 years into development?

Let me use an example or two: PGI said before the Clan Invasion that they are bringing in a quirk system to encourage the use of 'fewer' hardpoints when given the choice between less or more, but then the quirk system most strongly encourages use of the 'more' hardpoints of whatever the mech might have (8 energy and 1 missile? The system they described would inflat the missile so that 1 slot missile launcher would be extremely useful and you'd want to bring something in it, instead their quirks bring things like 20-25% softer energy heat generation and 15% reduced duration, and then PGI can't understand why you'd load it up with 8 medium lasers and ignore ghost heat to alpha strike enemies). Kind of the opposite of what they said it would be used for.

PGI designed a pilot skill tree that could make each copy of the same variant you own 'feel different' compared to another, giving you a different feeling even with two of the same 'Mech. This skill tree consisted of making choices for each unlock. Faster cooling or higher heat threshold. Faster acceleration or faster braking. Better twist range or faster twisting? The list goes on. See here. These also have small numbers, so that the advantages you would have over someone else, especially someone new were 'present but not overpowering'. The system used instead? Get all the skills, have nothing really feel unique about multiple copies of the same mech or much purpose in buying them (if there isn't a purpose in buying something, hasn't this already hurt the bottom line of making money?), and the difference in power between a new player and another new player who has the skill tree unlocked when both have the same loadout is so immense that you might as well put a 30 year old against a toddler in a game of Rubik's Cube, after giving the 30 year old the step-by-step instructions.

Anyway, I'm not overreacting. I'm face-palming.

PGI has so many issues with balancing weapons and mechs, and for a little while now their method of hardpoint inflation doesn't make much if any sense these days. This is a case of power creep on the rise between quirks and inflation. Given the track record of bandaids on causal factors while ignoring root causes, I'm left to wonder if PGI even thought of the implications this sort of easy negligence could bring to their already flimsy balance?

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 August 2016 - 03:29 PM, said:

But I think the truth is, no matter the debates.. Russ always had his eyes on a simple FPS catering to Esports. Nothing more.

#MAY2017

I agree, it could have had a very different path. Possibly fortuitous, possibly fruitless.

And the dream of an E-sport requires a fine line of imperfect balance with a system around the system, and a set of reliable paper-rock-scissors-lizard-spock playstyles catering to at least three of the four echelons of Bartholomew's Taxonomy. (And for it to be truly successful, cater to the often underappreciated fourth echelon as well; the Social gamer, so that word of mouth and popularity spreads).

We don't really have any of the first three things, and there's some catering to two of the four eschelons with a 'throw-at' tossed in the general direction of a third.

I'm afraid Russ is going to be rather disappointed.

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 05 August 2016 - 03:36 PM, said:

I agree, it could have had a very different path. Possibly fortuitous, possibly fruitless.

And the dream of an E-sport requires a fine line of imperfect balance with a system around the system, and a set of reliable paper-rock-scissors-lizard-spock playstyles catering to at least three of the four echelons of Bartholomew's Taxonomy. (And for it to be truly successful, cater to the often underappreciated fourth echelon as well; the Social gamer, so that word of mouth and popularity spreads).

We don't really have any of the first three things, and there's some catering to two of the four eschelons with a 'throw-at' tossed in the general direction of a third.

I'm afraid Russ is going to be rather disappointed.

Indeed. One can only hope he develops the self awareness to parse out WHY it all went wrong, after the dust settles. But the last 4 years (and things liek the FW Roundtable) does not leave me with much faith in that.

[Master Maniac]

Look, my argument is that hardpoints are really a non-issue in general. What they're doing isn't leading the game down a bad road - at least not where hardpoints are concerned. Energy would be more constructively spent towards a push for features suggested above, rather than harping about the very debatable notion of "power creep."

Yes, I agree with you. Quirks are stupid. It's not that they're a bad idea in principle, but their constant, endless, every-week tinkering according to the whims of the forumites *is* dumb. It is. Juggling numbers to appease the Balance Gods is a pointless exercise and I agree that it needs to stop.

But. *But.* Hardpoints really aren't an issue.

We need basic, functioning collision. We need knockdowns. "Lore" be da.... err, darned, we need more weapons from Battletech, with a wider variety of functions and operations. We NEED an overhaul to basic shooting mechanics. I mean, we REALLY do. Convergence, spread, recoil, WHATEVER - Just. Something.

Our demands need to be focused on realistic things important to the game. This really isn't it.

EDIT: Speaking of pointless endeavors, Community Warfare always was precisely that. It didn't do anything for MechAssault, or Armored Core, and anyone with a lick of sense knows that it won't do anything here. There never was any future in it. Give a game robust mechanics, however... Things with nuance and depth that are rewarding and enjoyable to perform - that's what you need to get people on and coming back. Not some tacked-on stat tracking nonsense. Look at Call of Duty. As maligned as it is (because people are silly) the fundamentals were solid, addictive, and satisfying. We're missing a lot of those basic gameplay fundamentals. That's what needs to improve. Not "balance." Not CW. Not hardpoints. We need NUANCE.

EDIT EDIT: And there's no future in E-Sports either. That candle burned bright and briefly, and people are almost embarrassed now looking back at it. With good reason.

Edited by Master Maniac, 05 August 2016 - 04:02 PM.

[Deathlike]

When you leave it to our balance overlord and his Dartboard of Balance™, there is a level of inconsistency there.

It's not like anyone is seriously considering using an Atlas-K in a general purpose match when the alternatives are better.

[Koniving]

Bishop Steiner, on 05 August 2016 - 03:40 PM, said:

Indeed. One can only hope he develops the self awareness to parse out WHY it all went wrong, after the dust settles. But the last 4 years (and things liek the FW Roundtable) does not leave me with much faith in that.

Side note, about Goliaths and Scorpions, a certain Quad lover referenced your art for the Goliath and since I'm doing them in 3D and practicing game design by conceptualizing how they might work, perhaps I could bounce some ideas off of you tomorrow.
(You wouldn't happen to have Scorpion art of your own, would you?)

[Koniving]

Master Maniac, on 05 August 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

Our demands need to be focused on realistic things important to the game. This really isn't it.

I wholeheartedly agree, but it is lonely on this island where we debate about important things where we try to address issues that push the game into dark places that few are masochistic enough to touch.

This rather insignificant thing, if even an inkling of thought goes into this, then maybe other things could also get a second look and maybe a change might happen in what otherwise feels like a spiraling pit of despair and gloom.

[Bishop Steiner]

Koniving, on 05 August 2016 - 03:58 PM, said:

Side note, about Goliaths and Scorpions, a certain Quad lover referenced your art for the Goliath and since I'm doing them in 3D and practicing game design by conceptualizing how they might work, perhaps I could bounce some ideas off of you tomorrow.
(You wouldn't happen to have Scorpion art of your own, would you?)

PM me. As for the scorpion, don't recall it specifically, but my swampgator design is based on it. Shouldn't be too hard. Goliath is a tricky beast, but might make a fun challenge

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I'd be fine if PGI did a hardpoint rework, even if it kills most of my current builds, making things more systematic and sensible.

Of course, it should probably accompany armor based on stock proportionality, and a deeper module distribution system.

[El Bandito]

Alistair Winter, on 05 August 2016 - 03:24 PM, said:

I know this goes without saying, but... powercreep is the way PGI keeps selling mechs in a game where we already have hundreds of the buggers and there's not really any new content that makes new mechs that interesting.

Does this mean my Victors are forever doomed to have low amount of hardpoints as well as missile tubes? Just to sell powercreep?

[Coolant]

OP, some of us supported the Mechwarrior franchise long before MWO came out and have a less narrow perspective. In MW4:Mercs + Mektek patches you had omnislots - hardpoints where you could put any type of weapon (missile/beam/ballistic). If you think the hardpoint selection is messed up here then you didn't experience that system. Rather than receive complaints, PGI should be rewarded for sticking more closely to the lore (from those for whom lore is important).

But, it seems to be commonplace for entitled, sefish, spoiled children to throw emotional temper-tantrums regularly on these forums.

I for one have no complaints about the hardpoint system (except for the Summoner). And I do wish the omnislot system would make it's way to MWO.

[Mystere]

Master Maniac, on 05 August 2016 - 03:56 PM, said:

EDIT: Speaking of pointless endeavors, Community Warfare always was precisely that.

Burn, heretic, burn!

[TheVent]

Call me an idiot but I think that half the fun of the game is watching newbs in their brand new hottest coolest whatever get slaughtered by veterans in the classic "pillar of lance" type mechs. It's not about how many hardpoints you have (most times) it's about how effectively you use what you have. They turn out new mechs all the time with ******* absurd amounts of hardpoints, but that doesn't always mean that you'll be able to put all of them to use viably.

[Koniving]

Coolant, on 05 August 2016 - 04:17 PM, said:

OP, some of us supported the Mechwarrior franchise long before MWO came out and have a less narrow perspective. In MW4:Mercs + Mektek patches you had omnislots - hardpoints where you could put any type of weapon (missile/beam/ballistic). If you think the hardpoint selection is messed up here then you didn't experience that system. Rather than receive complaints, PGI should be rewarded for sticking more closely to the lore (from those for whom lore is important).

But, it seems to be commonplace for entitled, sefish, spoiled children to throw emotional temper-tantrums regularly on these forums.

I for one have no complaints about the hardpoint system (except for the Summoner). And I do wish the omnislot system would make it's way to MWO.

I've been with Mechwarrior since Mechwarrior 3050 and "Mechwarrior" both for the SNES, and have played everything made since then (except Mech Assault and Mech Assault 2).

In 2012 I praised it. I'm still praising it if you hadn't noticed in my original post, talking about how good things were, how PGI's lack of enthusiasm is in part, our fault (indirectly referencing the entitled nature of players which you claim I have and sure, I think I am entitled to a little more than a minimally viable product for the nearly thousand dollars I've personally spent on it), and most importantly how back then it made sense. It had a pattern, it had some reliable notion that it was predictable and therefore could be balanced for the future. As in no need for radical changes due to "new issues" appearing with each newly released mech.

But that system is clearly gone. We now have an unpredictable "Wouldn't it be cool if we slapped these on there," or "Here's another 'Mech, throw some numbers at it and I'll figure out what gets 50% buffs tomorrow" approach where PGI is baffled as to why they have to throw so much money into inventing convoluted systems to bandage these issues and somehow using what was once quoted to be 150,000 dollars to produce a map, when HBS can produce something with far more polish in just a pre-pre-alpha and budget an entire complete game on only 100k more.