31 replies to this topic

[focuspark]

IceSerpent, on 24 November 2012 - 12:24 PM, said:

Given that we already have "1 hardpoint = 1 weapon" rule, a more simple approach would be to just have the upper limit of crits per hardpoint. In other words, you can replace a large laser with either medium or small, but you can't replace it with a PPC. Same goes for ballistics - you can replace AC10 with AC5 or AC2, but can't put AC20 or gauss in there.

You can introduce "small/medium/large" mechanic, but ultimately it serves the same purpose as crits, and rose by any other name is still a rose...so why create unnecessary entities?

The reason for not doing the weapon bay approach is that ballistic, energy, and missile weapons work very differently from each other. The also serve different roles and in keeping with spirit of the mech we get better diversity (I know it seems counter intuitive)

[IceSerpent]

focuspark, on 24 November 2012 - 04:00 PM, said:

The reason for not doing the weapon bay approach is that ballistic, energy, and missile weapons work very differently from each other. The also serve different roles and in keeping with spirit of the mech we get better diversity (I know it seems counter intuitive)

I am not talking about generic weapon bay approach, I am talking about using existing hardpoints, but limiting their maximum "size" in some cases.

[Homeless Bill]

There are two problems the current lack of hardpoint restrictions creates:

1. Overly powerful and flexible 'mechs that are straight-up better than others for the hardpoints. I use a Cat with 2 LBX-10s, and I love it. But it shouldn't happen. I shouldn't have my tiny side torsos housing such massive weaponry when it was CLEARLY not designed or able to do that. Why does the Hunchback have a big "shoot me here" sign stamped on its right torso? So it can carry a big ******* gun. If you don't restrict hardpoints, 'mechs aren't special. 'Mechs like the Hunchback and Hollander were designed around a gun. Why take the only thing special away from them?

2. This clear advantage for some 'mechs (see the K2), and it makes others largely redundant. Some of you will argue that because most configurations are getting a decent share of players, this isn't a problem. But it is in the long-term. Their business model is based off of people continually wanting the new 'mechs they pump out. As it stands, I'm looking forward to very few things. Even half of the ones I want are purely out of want, not out of necessity for a different build.

TLDR: A lack of hardpoint restrictions creates an unfair advantage for some 'mechs, makes others obsolete, and financially handicaps the game in the long-term.

I'm not even in favor of limiting to within a certain size - just a maximum limit. If you want to put an MG in your AC/20 slot, power to you.

[Xandralkus]

Fundamentally rescripting the mechlab so that we do have MW4-style hardpoint-less mechs may actually be impossible, given that we are already in open beta...but there is an easier way to achieve the same end without radical programming and UI changes to the mechlab.

Each mech should have 1 hardpoint per 5 tons.

The Swayback is (almost) in the right place for this, with 9 hardpoints (expanded to 10)

Any Atlas should have 20 hardpoints.

Any Dragon should have 12 hardpoints.

Any Jenner should have 7 Hardpoints.

If you use this system though, it is CRITICALLY DEPENDENT on weapon rebalancing, so that a 16x Medium Laser Atlas is not an autowin-platform, but instead a balanced and competent configuration. The Small Laser and Medium Laser require nerfs to their DPS per ton, Alpha per ton, and damage per heat.

You can read all about it here: http://mwomercs.com/...eapon-redesign/ I used spreadsheets and math to rebalance EVERY weapon in the game. No tonnage alterations mean that every single configuration presently usable will still be usable.

Oh, and on the subject of massive AC's in a machinegun slot...you know those huge, round cannons that appear when one mounts PPC's in the K2 arms? Make those appear in the LT and RT of the K2 when mounting autocannons. Problem solved FOREVER! Not just on the catapult, but on every mech that puts a large weapon in place of a small one. We should not narrowly constrain the role of the Catapult, but instead do the opposite - balance every single possible role a mech can perform.

Likewise, the Hunchback's massive RT should shrink if one installs a couple machine guns in it, and the arms should transform into massive guns if one mounts PPC's on them.

Edited by Xandralkus, 25 November 2012 - 02:13 PM.

[Dr Killinger]

I'm a BT traditionalist, and... I support this notion wholeheartedly. I like the way MW:T is handling it.

[Hetfeng321]

This is what we need: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1469319 (post 79).

The MW3 mechlab (the one they went with in MWO) was a catastrophe. PGI took a step backwards when they didin't use MW4's mechlab, a more progressive, streamlined design. Sure the MW4 mechlab didn't take into account the small differences (size differences of 1 critical) for some weapons but it was a far more intuitive design. The BT purists really need to shut up and try it out without any bias from the TT game.

As you will see in the post I linked, I do not want an exact copy of the MW4 system. In MW4, non-weapon equipment (heatsinks, AMSs, etc) did not have a defined position in the mech. My proposed system includes equipment hardpoints with no minumum size located in different sections of the mechs.

Edited by Hetfeng321, 25 November 2012 - 03:24 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Xandralkus, on 25 November 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Fundamentally rescripting the mechlab so that we do have MW4-style hardpoint-less mechs may actually be impossible, given that we are already in open beta...but there is an easier way to achieve the same end without radical programming and UI changes to the mechlab.

It doesn't require any radical changes - all it needs is every hardpoint to have an extra "size" parameter (and display it in UI, kind of like "ballistic hardpoint (5 crits)" instead of just "ballistic harpoint") and a check in the UI code that doesn't allow you to install a weapon that is too large (similar to existing check for overall number of open crits in the given location).

Quote

Each mech should have 1 hardpoint per 5 tons.

The Swayback is (almost) in the right place for this, with 9 hardpoints (expanded to 10)

Any Atlas should have 20 hardpoints.

Any Dragon should have 12 hardpoints.

Any Jenner should have 7 Hardpoints.

If you use this system though, it is CRITICALLY DEPENDENT on weapon rebalancing, so that a 16x Medium Laser Atlas is not an autowin-platform, but instead a balanced and competent configuration. The Small Laser and Medium Laser require nerfs to their DPS per ton, Alpha per ton, and damage per heat.

You can read all about it here: http://mwomercs.com/...eapon-redesign/ I used spreadsheets and math to rebalance EVERY weapon in the game. No tonnage alterations mean that every single configuration presently usable will still be usable.

Here's a problem with your design - the "autowin" team would consist of 8 Atlases, each packing 4 gauss rifles, 2 AMS, and small standard engine, all sitting at their base for the entire match. Worst case scenario - enemy does the same and match ends in a draw. Any other move = win.

[ConnorSinclair]

I just don't see why we didn't use the system from MW4.

Why fix what isn't broken?

[focuspark]

ConnorSinclair, on 25 November 2012 - 04:51 PM, said:

I just don't see why we didn't use the system from MW4.

Why fix what isn't broken?

Because the system from MW4 system isn't owned by PGI.

IMO the important points to hit are:

• Keep the mech with in its role
  
• Keep the weapon loadout reminiscent of the model
  
• Keep mechs balanced
  
• Keep choice meaningful without too much restriction

TLDR: hardpoints should come in a flavors (ballistic, energy, missile, or combination of two) and a sizes (small, medium, large) this would improve mech variety and constancy of intended roles.


Here's a list of how I see things breaking down. Weapons in a given column should be balanced among each other using weight, size, heat, ammo, etc as balancing factors.

..........|.Small.......|.Medium.......|.Large...........
---------------------------------------------------------
Ballistic.|.Machine Gun.|.AC/2.........|.AC/20...........
..........|.............|.AC/5.........|.Gauss Cannon....
..........|.............|.AC/10........|.................
..........|.............|.Ultra AC/5...|.................
---------------------------------------------------------
Energy....|.Small Laser.|.Medium Laser.|.Large Laser.....
..........|.Small Pulse.|.Medium Pulse.|.Large Pulse.....
..........|.............|..............|.ER Large Laser..
..........|.............|..............|.PPC.............
..........|.............|..............|.ER PPC..........
---------------------------------------------------------
Missile...|.LRM5........|.LRM10........|.LRM20...........
..........|.SRM2........|.SRM4.........|.................
..........|.Streak SRM2.|.SRM6.........|.................

[Xandralkus]

IceSerpent, on 25 November 2012 - 03:17 PM, said:

Here's a problem with your design - the "autowin" team would consist of 8 Atlases, each packing 4 gauss rifles, 2 AMS, and small standard engine, all sitting at their base for the entire match. Worst case scenario - enemy does the same and match ends in a draw. Any other move = win.

In a real game mode, with multiple capture points around the map, the Atlases would have to first split up and go capture some of the objectives. These LOLslow quadgauss Atlases would absolutely suck at moving around the battlefield. Not only would they warpspeed-faceplant-fail to capture anything, but they will easily get ***** by any medium, heavy, or another semi-fast assault.

If they stick together and form an impenetrable shell of AMS and Gaussdeath, it only makes it easier to capture other things and avoid them.

A little quick math says that if you have 8 players per side, then including nine or more capturable objectives means that speed and positioning begin to matter, and also that multiple mechs concentrating fire on a single mech is a potential liability. The problem with the current game mode is that victory conditions are too narrowly constrained - not infinite freedom to put 4 Gauss Rifles on an Atlas.

Every combination is OP when you have an entire team doing something. The solution is to design game mechanics that require a team to do different things at different places. An entire team focusing on just one action (which they can, and will, overspecialize in), should be a liability rather than a sound strategy for victory.

...And this is why narrowly constrained roles are bad game design.

Edited by Xandralkus, 26 November 2012 - 01:19 AM.

[Imagine Dragons]

Dr Killinger, on 25 November 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

I'm a BT traditionalist, and... I support this notion wholeheartedly. I like the way MW:T is handling it.

Glad somebody else picked up on that...

[focuspark]

Dr Killinger, on 25 November 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

I'm a BT traditionalist, and... I support this notion wholeheartedly. I like the way MW:T is handling it.

Looked into mw:t recently and they're doing a bunch of good stuff. There's a lot mwo could borrow/learn from mw:t.