28 replies to this topic

[Jack Spade Ward]

And the solution is... wait for it...

HARDPOINT SIZE!!!!!

Yes boys and girls, hardpoint size! I mean, MW4 Mercs had it. And the ideia was amazing.
I adressed to this problem whe i saw, in closed beta, Ravens with AC20???!!!!!

Yes people, and this aplies for all mechs!

IS mechs would have more builds apropriate for them. A hardpoint would not only be limited for what type of weapon it is, but also in size! Being the greater size the AC20 (logic) for ACs for example. So, no Ravens carrying a weapon wich is bigger than the mech itself!

Clan Omni mechs would NOT need omni pods or the like, the hardpoint they come with, would act as omni, but with the hardpoint limited in size. That means, that if the omnimech comes with a medium laser hardpoint (size 1), you cant put a CERPPC there. But sinse its only 1 size slot, and since its an omni hardpoint, you could only fit weapons with 1 size slot! Makes sense actually.

Clan battlemechs would suffer the same way as IS battlemechs, with the diference that they use clan weapons.

[L1f3H4ck]

Omnimechs shouldnt have hardpoints at all, but they had to have the whole 3 variants thing. Which will change with the new skill tree, so let's wait til that drops. That said, sized hardpoints aren't the worst idea, they worked in MW4.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Frechdachs, on 27 December 2016 - 01:37 PM, said:

Omnimechs shouldnt have hardpoints at all, but they had to have the whole 3 variants thing. Which will change with the new skill tree, so let's wait til that drops. That said, sized hardpoints aren't the worst idea, they worked in MW4.

Yes they did, and it would help alot agaisnt the whole ideia for boating in this game!
So there would be one more limit to what you could equip your mech with; hardpoint size, heat, tonnage and the type of the weapon.
For omnimechs, instead of pods, the omni hardpoints, limited in size, would be the logical and better solution. Alot of the so called meta would disapear

[1453 R]

So this is...what?

Sized Hardpoint proposal #11,374?

Same proposal, same answer: it's a garbage system that essentially eliminates meaningful 'Mech customization. You may as well just lock everything in their stock configurations, including OmniMechs, if you're going to to do strict sized hardpoints.

This does not equate to everything magically having its own special-snowflake role. it equates to the small handful of sensibly designed TT stock fits rising to absolute, utterly uncontestable crushing dominance, and the vast majority of the 'Mech pools for both sides becoming completely useless.

I'd get into specific examples (the Dragon is a good one, the Blackjack is another), but I've done so for at least four thousand of the last eleven thousand sized hardpoint idiocy threads. It's somebody else's turn.

[L1f3H4ck]

People could still boat a bunch of small wapons on certain mechs like the Nova or Hunchbach 4P tho. The whole thing about unlocking certain fixed equipment on omnis would be less of a deal if they straight up didn't use hardpoints. If it fits, you can add it. But I guess that would go against the pay-to-optimize business model.

[1453 R]

Frechdachs, on 27 December 2016 - 01:48 PM, said:

People could still boat a bunch of small wapons on certain mechs like the Nova or Hunchbach 4P tho. The whole thing about unlocking certain fixed equipment on omnis would be less of a deal if they straight up didn't use hardpoints. If it fits, you can add it. But I guess that would go against the pay-to-optimize business model.

So what's stopping the HunchBach (the most musical medium 'Mech ever? ) or Nopeva from just flat pwnooblerating everything else in a system where they can still do the thing that wins games but suddenly 99% of their competition can no longer do that thing?

That's what sized hardpoints does. It eliminates the ability for 'Mechs to switch from what loses games to what wins games. It does not change what wins games; it merely states that nine out of ten 'Mechs are now completely unable to do what wins games.

[Y E O N N E]

Weapon weight and slot-count are doing what you people want sized hard-points to do. That they have failed is a symptom of those weapons being too potent for their resource costs. Period.

[1453 R]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2016 - 01:56 PM, said:

Weapon weight and slot-count are doing what you people want sized hard-points to do. That they have failed is a symptom of those weapons being too potent for their resource costs. Period.

To elaborate on this for Yeonne: sized hardpoints do not balance weapons.

Weapon balancing balances weapons.

Sized hardpoints doesn't really do anything but make puppies sad. And nobody likes sad puppies.

[Jack Spade Ward]

1453 R, on 27 December 2016 - 01:46 PM, said:

So this is...what?

Sized Hardpoint proposal #11,374?

Same proposal, same answer: it's a garbage system that essentially eliminates meaningful 'Mech customization. You may as well just lock everything in their stock configurations, including OmniMechs, if you're going to to do strict sized hardpoints.

This does not equate to everything magically having its own special-snowflake role. it equates to the small handful of sensibly designed TT stock fits rising to absolute, utterly uncontestable crushing dominance, and the vast majority of the 'Mech pools for both sides becoming completely useless.

I'd get into specific examples (the Dragon is a good one, the Blackjack is another), but I've done so for at least four thousand of the last eleven thousand sized hardpoint idiocy threads. It's somebody else's turn.

Sorry, i do not agree with you!
It worked pretty well in MW4 series. Over here, critical slots does not give you what is intended in my suggestion.
Ive been playing MW4 latelly, and that system still works well. It can give you alot of custumization, not as much ridiculous as you can see in MWO. Raven carrying an AC20...
With this system, no more 4 LPL where ML used to be, you had to compromise! And this game is all about compromise, isnt it?

[Y E O N N E]

A Raven carrying an AC/20 has drawbacks to balance out the fact that it's carrying an AC/20. Namely, that it is slow and has very little ammo.

I wish you people would stop throwing around examples like that as if they actually meant something, because they don't. It's a silly build and gets similarly silly results.

[Jack Spade Ward]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

A Raven carrying an AC/20 has drawbacks to balance out the fact that it's carrying an AC/20. Namely, that it is slow and has very little ammo.

I wish you people would stop throwing around examples like that as if they actually meant something, because they don't. It's a silly build and gets similarly silly results.

That is not the point! Of course it is a silly build, but the fact that it is possible makes it stupid! The weapon is bigger than the mech!!!
I do think, honestly, that this could work really well. Can you imagine omnipoints instead of omnipods? You could not put 4 CUAC 10 on a kodiak due to its hardpoint size, hence, no nerfs on clans or the Kodiak. Think about that

Edited by Jack Spade Ward, 27 December 2016 - 04:58 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Jack Spade Ward, on 27 December 2016 - 04:57 PM, said:

That is not the point! Of course it is a silly build, but the fact that it is possible makes it stupid! The weapon is bigger than the mech!!!
I do think, honestly, that this could work really well. Can you imagine omnipoints instead of omnipods? You could not put 4 CUAC 10 on a kodiak due to its hardpoint size, hence, no nerfs on clans or the Kodiak. Think about that

It's not for you to decide it shouldn't exist just because it is stupid. The only thing that matters is whether it is a detriment to actual game-play, and it isn't.

[brroleg]

Quote

Solution For..

Before thinking about any solution to fix game, think how your solution can give money to PGI. Because PGI will do only things that will give them money, and give it immediately.

[Bombast]

Sized hard points would have been an interesting choice if done at the beginning of the games life, but... it's a bit late for mechlab changes. The time for gutting the foundation of the game has kind of passed.

[Luca M Pryde]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2016 - 04:52 PM, said:

A Raven carrying an AC/20 has drawbacks to balance out the fact that it's carrying an AC/20. Namely, that it is slow and has very little ammo.

I wish you people would stop throwing around examples like that as if they actually meant something, because they don't. It's a silly build and gets similarly silly results.

I think from a new player's perspective this is an issue. It costs a lot of money (real or cbills) to buy a different engine and test it in a new build only for it to suck big time in game play.

In fact if I didn't know a lot about this game before playing it I may have just played another game with more story and immersion like Titanfall as sad as it sounds. Basically I can get up to speed, playing well and kicking ******** quicker on that game than this MWO.

On the other hand I am worried they might take it too far and it might make some mechs predictable or only have a few choices.

Maybe this really is only something of a condition that exists on light mechs and some medium mechs?

Edited by Luca M Pryde, 27 December 2016 - 05:56 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

Luca M Pryde, on 27 December 2016 - 05:54 PM, said:

I think from a new player's perspective this is an issue. It costs a lot of money (real or cbills) to buy a different engine and test it in a new build only for it to suck big time in game play.

In fact if I didn't know a lot about this game before playing it I may have just played another game with more story and immersion like Titanfall as sound as it sounds. Basically I can get up to speed on that game MUCH quicker than this game.

On the other hand I am worried they might take it too far and it might make some mechs predictable or only have a few choices.

Maybe this really is only something of a condition that exists on light mechs and some medium mechs?

Maybe I'm just a special snowflake, but when I started MWO and made stupid builds, I wasn't discouraged by the cost. I said "maybe I should actually look at the stats on these items" and then proceeded to play around with it until I got something that worked. Then I discovered Smurfy and the process accelerated.

And no, I didn't learn how to MWO back when C-bill payouts were high. This was post-Paulconomy, Feb 2014. And you know what my first purchase was? A Locust 1V. I bought it thinking I could mount AC/2 on it, and then discovered that "tonnage" was a thing and went with MGs. C'est la vie!

[Luca M Pryde]

Yeonne Greene, on 27 December 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Maybe I'm just a special snowflake, but when I started MWO and made stupid builds, I wasn't discouraged by the cost. I said "maybe I should actually look at the stats on these items" and then proceeded to play around with it until I got something that worked. Then I discovered Smurfy and the process accelerated.

And no, I didn't learn how to MWO back when C-bill payouts were high. This was post-Paulconomy, Feb 2014. And you know what my first purchase was? A Locust 1V. I bought it thinking I could mount AC/2 on it, and then discovered that "tonnage" was a thing and went with MGs. C'est la vie!

Yeh same experience I had except my mech was awesome which wasn't awesome. Actually I didn't think customising was such a big deal in mechwarrior until my first battle and realised stock builds suck and are no longer used.

Most harder core gamers discover the world and mend to it. Not all gamers are hardcore. Some people have small attention spans and time. I've played a lot of types of games. Most single player.

If you need a larger player base you need to make some things easier or quicker to learn. Not everyone likes customising things.

I am not arguing for making the game simple though. I like customising things and some degree of difficulty and learning is fun.

I was surprised when I saw a PPC on a Jenner though. I though PPCs were huge weapons and Ravens with 2 lg lasers. Coming from the board game and card game and mw2 video game I didn't think it was possible.

I think the developers have attempted to deal with this issue with steam builds so it doesn't bother me anymore.

Edited by Luca M Pryde, 27 December 2016 - 06:38 PM.

[El Bandito]

I know it is too late to implement, but I have been championing Sized Hardpoints ever since Catapult-K2 put dual Gauss on those machine gun slots.

[Monster Ultra Zero]

As awesome as it sounds, sized hardpoints are the kind of thing that should have been added far earlier in MWOs development cycle and such a drastic change at this stage of MWOs lifespan is as likely to issues and mass exodus as it is to fix anything.

[1453 R]

Jack Spade Ward, on 27 December 2016 - 04:49 PM, said:

Sorry, i do not agree with you!
It worked pretty well in MW4 series. Over here, critical slots does not give you what is intended in my suggestion.
Ive been playing MW4 latelly, and that system still works well. It can give you alot of custumization, not as much ridiculous as you can see in MWO. Raven carrying an AC20...
With this system, no more 4 LPL where ML used to be, you had to compromise! And this game is all about compromise, isnt it?

Sized hardpoints worked in MW4 because there was vastly less variation in weapon sizes in that game due to Microsoft throwing out any and all TT build rules and redesigning the entire 'MechLab based around this sized-hardpoint principle - something Piranha specifically set out to not do. Your AC/20s in MW4 were 4-slot weapons, not 10-slot weapons, and even then many 'Mechs had slot count inflation (effectively the same thing as MWO's hardpoint inflation) over their stock limitations to allow for improved customization of the machine.

Trying to shoehorn size limitations into MWO at this point, without any of the other supporting design decisions MW4 made, would do nothing positive. The fact that AC/20 Ravens offend your sensibilities is irrelevant. Light 'Mechs with AC/20s existed in the tabletop canon; they even had light 'Mechs with the even heavier Gauss Rifle. They all suffered from exactly the drawbacks Yeonne mentioned - they were slow, they carried very limited ammunition, they generally had nothing or less in the way of supporting weaponry, and they were often poorly armored, as well. These were very special use-case 'Mechs with specific, narrow niches in the tabletop game.

In MWO, they're gags more than anything else.

This is a 'solution' for a problem that doesn't really exist.

Luca M Pryde, on 27 December 2016 - 06:32 PM, said:

Yeh same experience I had except my mech was awesome which wasn't awesome. Actually I didn't think customising was such a big deal in mechwarrior until my first battle and realised stock builds suck and are no longer used.

Most harder core gamers discover the world and mend to it. Not all gamers are hardcore. Some people have small attention spans and time. I've played a lot of types of games. Most single player.

If you need a larger player base you need to make some things easier or quicker to learn. Not everyone likes customising things.

I am not arguing for making the game simple though. I like customising things and some degree of difficulty and learning is fun.

I was surprised when I saw a PPC on a Jenner though. I though PPCs were huge weapons and Ravens with 2 lg lasers. Coming from the board game and card game and mw2 video game I didn't think it was possible.

I think the developers have attempted to deal with this issue with steam builds so it doesn't bother me anymore.

MechWarrior is traditionally a deeper and more complex game than your modern Call of Duty. Anyone familiar with the franchise at all is expecting it to be less forgiving than other games, and the sheer existence of Dark Souls proves that you can be a game that actively hates everyone that plays it and still be massively popular. And unlike Dark Souls, you can correct mistakes you make in the MechLab given enough time investment.

I started the game in Dragons, way back when, on the assumption that taking a bigger-engine'd heavy would let me pull the ol' classic "outrun whatever you can't outgun" saw that had gotten me through several previous MechWarrior games as well as many other games of other types. We all know how that worked out, ne? But that's okay. It's just what happens.

The trap with New Player Retention ideas is getting stuck on the idea that it's possible to retain everyone who plays your game. It isn't. What's more important is making a game that strongly retains the specific audience you're trying to market to, which first of all requires you to pick an audience, then requires you to have a strong vision that audience can get behind and help you push. This is where MWO has stumbled, not in the 'MechLab.

Nobody really cares that the MechLab can confuse new people; the sort of people who'd get turned off and walk away after one bad run in the 'Lab are the people we weren't going to keep anyways.