155 replies to this topic

[DaZur]

Metus regem, on 09 November 2016 - 02:07 PM, said:

It doesn't need to deter, just reward playing a more lore correct build, and it doesn't need to be a massively game altering quirk, just a little additive.

That's what I meant...

[Malcolm Vordermark]

Arms just aren't very useful in this game. They are more fragile, often low slung, and typically take more damage during the normal course of spreading damage. Limiting the weapons a Warhammer can fit in the torso won't fix that, it will just means the Warhammer won't be as good as the mechs that can still take those kinds of builds.

[Mcgral18]

The biggest thing would be being able to raise your arms (like the gundams pictured)
Offer protection when down, or nice mounts (Jagermech like, but more forward) when raised.

[Ryoken]

Those frankenmech Warhammers are really a terrible sight to behold. (Same goes for Marauders with one 2PPC arm and one empty stump.)

I think we should expand the thought of energy draw to be location specific. As OP stated it is nonsense that a weapon port ment to hold an MG is sufficiant to fully support a big autocannon.

Maybe because of this the ammo supply capacity or the energy supply capacitiy or the coolant supply capacity should be used to stop this hardpoint abuse.

So an AC/5 put into an MG hardpoint has x2.5 the reload time (MG dmg is 2 whereas AC/5 dmg is 5 -> 5/2=2.5) as the underscaled ammo feed simply needs longer.

Same for Energy weapons, if you put an PPC into an M-Laser hardpoint it would double the recharge time (M-Laser dmg 5 whereas PPC dmg is 10 -> 10/5=2)

Also the weapon heat dissipation could be modified as an M-Laser hardpoint has cooling circuits meant to abduct 3 heatpoints and a PPC produces 10 heatpoint. Therefore it could take 3.3x the time to cool down the PPC in that underscaled cooling circuit resulting in more heat generation or slower recharge.

Edited by Ryoken, 09 November 2016 - 03:11 PM.

[S 0 L E N Y A]

All you "lore-hards" should just stick to private matches in stock mode.

[Metus regem]

DaZur, on 09 November 2016 - 02:41 PM, said:

That's what I meant...

I was thinking something along the lines of:

So long as a lore inspired build is present, the mech can mount faction paint skins at no cost. This wouldn't impact the those that want to run meta builds in any way shape or form, but would be a reward for using PPC arms.

[Carl Vickers]

Ryoken, on 09 November 2016 - 03:10 PM, said:

Those frankenmech Warhammers are really a terrible sight to behold. (Same goes for Marauders with one 2PPC arm and one empty stump.)

I think we should expand the thought of energy draw to be location specific. As OP stated it is nonsense that a weapon port ment to hold an MG is sufficiant to fully support a big autocannon.

Maybe because of this the ammo supply capacity or the energy supply capacitiy or the coolant supply capacity should be used to stop this hardpoint abuse.

So an AC/5 put into an MG hardpoint has x2.5 the reload time (MG dmg is 2 whereas AC/5 dmg is 5 -> 5/2=2.5) as the underscaled ammo feed simply needs longer.

Same for Energy weapons, if you put an PPC into an M-Laser hardpoint it would double the recharge time (M-Laser dmg 5 whereas PPC dmg is 10 -> 10/5=2)

Also the weapon heat dissipation could be modified as an M-Laser hardpoint has cooling circuits meant to abduct 3 heatpoints and a PPC produces 10 heatpoint. Therefore it could take 3.3x the time to cool down the PPC in that underscaled cooling circuit resulting in more heat generation or slower recharge.

Nope, go back to lore tard land or go back to older version of mech warrior games. There is absolutely no point in even having a mech lab if you want lore builds only or gimp mechs so badly that there is not point in doing anything other than lore builds.

If you want stock builds form a stock league and go play there.

[kuma8877]

Tarogato, on 09 November 2016 - 02:34 PM, said:

Maps with elevation changes are *exactly* what makes arm mounted weapons a liability. Low mounted weapons can't hill peak. The more elevation changes your map has, the worse it is for mechs that have arm-mounted weapons. If you want to encourage arm-mounted weapons, you need to make completely flat maps (such as a dense urban environment) where the height of your mounts does not matter, and you need to nerf torso mounted weapons (such as reducing twist range, twist speed, pitch range, etc)

Yeah this. The answer is like you said, environments that are generally flat, with vertical terrain features (buildings, wide rock/tree outcroppings, machinery etc.) would help the viability of arm mounted weapons. In the same way that high mounts benefit hill-humping, arm mounts help with corner peeking (weapons just need to be organized by side rather than height). Need some more maps that take advantage of these features throughout tho. Combined with location/weapon system quirks, like was stated above, I think, could adequately entice players to make more use of the original design philosophy and the lower slung mounts in the arms.

[Temu]

they could just maybe give the option of raising arms... making them high mounts.. they are arms and it's even cannon.. imagine that..

[S 0 L E N Y A]

Temu, on 09 November 2016 - 04:24 PM, said:

they could just maybe give the option of raising arms... making them high mounts.. they are arms and it's even cannon.. imagine that..

I love the idea of an Atlas with out-stretched arms chasing after lighter mechs

[DaZur]

What's the deal with you anti-lore zealots?

You do understand that without lore, this game is nothing but a stompy robot combat FPS right?

Yeah, I know... "lore" gets in the way of your pew-pew...

No one is inferring that any mech gets nerfed... It's the advocation of a way to recognize and reward folks who don't bastardize an iconic visage by bending to the divisive min/max mantra.

Every time I see someone infer that lore has no place in MWO I want to reach through my flatscreen and biff them in the back of the head...

You can't separate the MW IP from lore. They're one in the same.

Edited by DaZur, 09 November 2016 - 04:29 PM.

[Alteran]

DaZur, on 09 November 2016 - 04:28 PM, said:

What's the deal with you anti-lore zealots?

You do understand that without lore, this game is nothing but a stompy robot combat FPS right?

Yeah, I know... "lore" gets in the way of your pew-pew...

No one is inferring that any mech gets nerfed... It's the advocation of a way to recognize and reward folks who don't bastardize an iconic visage by bending to the divisive min/max mantra.

Every time I see someone infer that lore has no place in MWO I want to reach through my flatscreen and biff them in the back of the head...

You can't separate the MW IP from lore. They're one in the same.

This is Stompy Robits^tm. The 'Lore' died when Mech, weapon and heat sinks began to be balanced.

BUT, I know we have a stock only option for Private Matches, but I want to see it for the QP. I'd love to see how a Stock only leaderboard would go if that were to happen.

Anyways, most Mechs suffer from terrible arm design in MWO.

Edited by Alteran, 09 November 2016 - 04:36 PM.

[Quxudica]

Carl Vickers, on 09 November 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

Nope, go back to lore tard land or go back to older version of mech warrior games. There is absolutely no point in even having a mech lab if you want lore builds only or gimp mechs so badly that there is not point in doing anything other than lore builds.

If you want stock builds form a stock league and go play there.

Adversity breeds creativity, limitation encourages experimentation. The irony to this mindset is the lack of limitations on what weapons can be placed where actually leads to less build diversity, not more. Also no ones saying we only want "lore builds", I'm certainly not anyway. I'm saying that if a mech physically has huge canons on it's arms as part of it's in-game model, there should be a gameplay benefit for that, a reason for that design and a benefit to the player for using them. Otherwise you wind up in a situation where a mechs physical appearance is just aesthetics outside of its hitboxes and everything starts to homogenize.

[Tarogato]

Boogie138, on 09 November 2016 - 03:22 PM, said:

All you "lore-hards" should just stick to private matches in stock mode.

Carl Vickers, on 09 November 2016 - 03:34 PM, said:

Nope, go back to lore tard land or go back to older version of mech warrior games. There is absolutely no point in even having a mech lab if you want lore builds only or gimp mechs so badly that there is not point in doing anything other than lore builds.

If you want stock builds form a stock league and go play there.

Why such intense resistance to an idea that would only increase build diversity in the game? It is undeniably a good thing.

Why is it bad to so slightly reduce the power level on competitive meta and buff alternative configurations?

[Quxudica]

Tarogato, on 09 November 2016 - 04:41 PM, said:

Why such intense resistance to an idea that would only increase build diversity in the game? It is undeniably a good thing.

Why is it bad to so slightly reduce the power level on competitive meta and buff alternative configurations?

Change is scary and people are knee-jerky. That's the crux of it. Though a lot of people also have a hard time understanding the admittedly less-than-intuitive concept of restrictions being positive in game design. If the game had been built in such a way from the start, no one would even question it.

[kuma8877]

Quxudica, on 09 November 2016 - 04:40 PM, said:

Adversity breeds creativity, limitation encourages experimentation. The irony to this mindset is the lack of limitations on what weapons can be placed where actually leads to less build diversity, not more. Also no ones saying we only want "lore builds", I'm certainly not anyway. I'm saying that if a mech physically has huge canons on it's arms as part of it's in-game model, there should be a gameplay benefit for that, a reason for that design and a benefit to the player for using them. Otherwise you wind up in a situation where a mechs physical appearance is just aesthetics outside of its hitboxes and everything starts to homogenize.

Was just going to say something like this. Limitation encourages creativity and individuality, lack of any kind of limitation leads to, well sameness.

[Carl Vickers]

Well the good new is this will never happen as it requires PGI to do something, so in the end, all your points are moot.

[Felicitatem Parco]

instead of blaming the unlimited sized hardpoints, how about we also point out the fact that particle projector shovels are not very useful combat weapons.

[Splatshot]

GenghisJr, on 09 November 2016 - 02:35 PM, said:

So basically the complaint is because of customization mechs are built for performance and survivability. i think the issue is that the original creators of BT could not foresee the evolution of the game and so had no way of realizing arm mount weapons were a liability. The same can be said of pop tarting, It makes perfect sense to pop tart once you have played this game and understand how to use cover, it may not have been realizable for the original creators because they viewed JJ's as a mobility boost. -I never played TT, just my thoughts

In TT you arm can straighten out your arms and fire/it does not matter where weapons are located except for damage rolls against you.

Due to computer limits i would guess, i have never seen a mech straighten it arms to fire, which one would think that is whole purpose of an elbow joint.

Edited by Splatshot, 09 November 2016 - 06:31 PM.

[Kasumi Sumika]

My personal rules went piloting Warhammer : Always put PPCs on the Arms. It's not a True Warhammer if not put PPCs in the Arms.