HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


weight system


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted December 03 2012 - 12:56 AM

We've seen it successfully implemented in games like Mechwarrior, Chrome Hounds, and Armored Core to help balance out weapons and equipment on the field.

I feel if Hawken simply provided us with stock mechs [no weapons, items, or internals] and a weight system... it would allow for customization without making things unbalanced [as long as the values are done right]

For it to work, I think not only weapons, but special abilities, items, and internals would all have to have weight values, so only certain combinations would actually be possible, but it would allow players to set up their mechs how they want instead of being forced to pick from pre-built chassis [although it would definitely be fine to have pre-built mechs on top of this that would be rent-able, or at least cheaper to buy]


This could also prevent the wide use of items and balance out weapons that currently feel OP:

Let's say you want a Seeker because of how easy it is to use and the awesome DPS on it. Well, you can get it, but now, you may not be able to install items or more than 1 or 2 internals. And you could only afford a lighter secondary.

Now a mini-flak might be significantly lighter in terms of damage than a normal flak, but this is balanced out by you being able to carry more items/internals.

Players who like firepower can now focus on such without having to feel they need items. Likewise, players who like to be more tactical, using items/internals to their advantage, will not be able to wield a ton of firepower on top of that.


I also feel this could make it easier for new mechs/weapons/other content to be introduced in the future as the devs may want to expand the universe further.

Any thoughts out there on this?

Edit: expanding this idea a little further:

internals could play a larger role in specializing mechs than they currently do, since they'll actually cost something now.

A, B, and C class chassis could have different total weights which could be balanced in a number of ways:


idea 1--Base health and speed differences remain as is, but then all 3 classes have basically the same total free space for weapons/items/internals/abilities

idea 2--Speed values are default [current differences between A, B, and C] but base health is the same value for all mechs; larger chassis have more space and therefore could optionally equip more armor [additional armor could be an internal/several internals]

Edited by Ace4225, December 03 2012 - 01:19 AM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#2 Kyrzon

Kyrzon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • LocationDes Moines, WA

Posted December 03 2012 - 02:46 AM

It looks like I wasn't very clear in the post that this seems to be spawned from; I didn't refer to it as a weight system, but simply as a cost system. Same thing, just different names.

Regardless, this level of customization needs all the attention it can get. Will link the other thread which also includes theoretical price costs for the mech parts.
http://community.pla...on/page__st__40

Edited by Kyrzon, December 03 2012 - 02:47 AM.


#3 Subdivision

Subdivision

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM

I love this idea. It would be a pretty dramatic change to the current system but it excites me non the less. I haven't gone anywhere near MWO so I can't relate it their system but it sounds pretty nifty. I like the idea of some kind of potential capacity value that you can fill up as you please enabling greater customisation. The only real concern to me is how restricting it would be on smaller chassis? Obviously a minimum a requirement would be two weapons but after that how much can they take on? Would they get less space/weight allowance so they have fewer items and/or internals, so in effect their speed and manoeuvrability is now costing them functional items or just internal perks as well as armour? How does the lighter classes balance off against the heavier ones and what trade-offs are made for each class, ie how would  they be balanced out is pretty much what I'd like to know.

Another thought on this, instead of just block internals that slotted in could it be done with sliders so you slide up the armour and it drags down the speed and fuel capacity or something. Or does having fixed values to be inserted ensure greater balance. To me I keep coming back to balance in my mind but I haven't played many mech games and have little understanding of how other games manage this.

Posted Image


#4 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted December 03 2012 - 10:57 AM

View PostKyrzon, on December 03 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

It looks like I wasn't very clear in the post that this seems to be spawned from; I didn't refer to it as a weight system, but simply as a cost system. Same thing, just different names.

Ok. Sorry bout that, I like your ideas... but I admit I didn't read all the way through them.

Edited by Ace4225, December 03 2012 - 11:22 AM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#5 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted December 03 2012 - 11:05 AM

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Obviously a minimum a requirement would be two weapons but after that how much can they take on?

My thought was we could keep it at just two weapons [one primary and one secondary] on each mech [so each mech has two weapon slots; one specifically designed for a primary, and the other for a secondary.] But the weapons themselves would have weight differences to balance out their firepower/heat generation.

I.E. A Flak could weigh more than a mini-flak, and thus do more damage [the mini-flak could be nerfed a little] giving you the option to either take the normal Flak by itself for a higher DPS, or the mini-flak to leave room for an internal. My thoughts anyway.

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Another thought on this, instead of just block internals that slotted in could it be done with sliders so you slide up the armour and it drags down the speed and fuel capacity or something.

Not bad. May need to be more to it than that, but not bad.

Edited by Ace4225, December 03 2012 - 11:13 AM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#6 Adreni

Adreni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted December 03 2012 - 11:24 AM

This is EXCELLENT.

I'd like to see energy and processing management as well, with energy explaining the infinite ammo and items thing (more energy means faster regen of items) and processor dealing with fire-control and sensory systems such as RADAR and lock-on.

I'd gander that heavy chassis would have a MUCH higher weight tolerance, thus more firepower, but at the cost of speed.

#7 Subdivision

Subdivision

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted December 03 2012 - 11:47 AM

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Obviously a minimum a requirement would be two weapons but after that how much can they take on?

My thought was we could keep it at just two weapons [one primary and one secondary] on each mech [so each mech has two weapon slots; one specifically designed for a primary, and the other for a secondary.]

Yeah I figured that. What I meant was how much other stuff like internals and items and what-not could you fit in. Would it reflect the current state of 2 items 3 internals providing a standard option for each is taken and swapping certain things in and out comes at the cost of others?


View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Another thought on this, instead of just block internals that slotted in could it be done with sliders so you slide up the armour and it drags down the speed and fuel capacity or something.

Not bad. May need to be more to it than that, but not bad.

Yeah I just decided to add that into the mix. Didn't give it too much thought other than here is one way of managing such a system of set variables...


View PostAdreni, on December 03 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

This is EXCELLENT.

I'd like to see energy and processing management as well, with energy explaining the infinite ammo and items thing (more energy means faster regen of items) and processor dealing with fire-control and sensory systems such as RADAR and lock-on.

Glad you think so.

As for explaining how ammo and everything works, I don't know how long you have been around nor what you know but I seen you mention this before so I'll chip in here a little. The hawken team have a mythic tome of lore and back-story for the entire universe the game is set in (or so we're told) and thus with a live action series AND comic in the works to parallel the game I think everything will be explained. As it is fiction and science fiction at that you get the sense there is so much to explain and elaborate upon it is going to take some time for all of it be unveiled. I like your ideas on adding more levels of controlling factors to consider. Even if its slightly superficial for a few of them.

Posted Image


#8 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted December 03 2012 - 11:54 AM

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Obviously a minimum a requirement would be two weapons but after that how much can they take on?

My thought was we could keep it at just two weapons [one primary and one secondary] on each mech [so each mech has two weapon slots; one specifically designed for a primary, and the other for a secondary.]

Yeah I figured that. What I meant was how much other stuff like internals and items and what-not could you fit in. Would it reflect the current state of 2 items 3 internals providing a standard option for each is taken and swapping certain things in and out comes at the cost of others?

Ah ok. Going back and reading this, I see what you were getting at now.

Check the "Edit" section of my OP. I expressed a couple of ideas I had about how weight could still be balanced against health/speed that I think might resolve the issue.

But yes, I think we should still be limited to 2 items and 3 internals max, with the current differentiation [offensive/support items, and offensive/defensive/functional internals]. The only thing that would change is that items/internals would have weights now, so only certain combos would fit in the spaces left over after picking weapons and, optionally, an ability.

I now foresee a limitation to current gameplay that this system could have: you would no longer be able to have an "alternate primary" considering it would change the encumberment of your mech. However, this too could be mitigated by simply building a second mech with a similar setup yet a different primary.

Edited by Ace4225, December 03 2012 - 11:58 AM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#9 Kyrzon

Kyrzon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • LocationDes Moines, WA

Posted December 03 2012 - 12:23 PM

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

View PostKyrzon, on December 03 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

It looks like I wasn't very clear in the post that this seems to be spawned from; I didn't refer to it as a weight system, but simply as a cost system. Same thing, just different names.

Ok. Sorry bout that, I like your ideas... but I admit I didn't read all the way through them.
It's not a big deal, Ace. I have a core group that I play with and everyone that I've discussed 'the idea' with has all come to this logic point you guys are fleshing out in this thread.

The fact that different wording can get this kind of positive exposure; I'm very happy. I think this idea needs as much visibility and exposure as it can get, so keep doing what you're doing. Fragmentation sucks, but exposure is worth quite a bit more than that. :)

#10 Subdivision

Subdivision

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted December 03 2012 - 01:30 PM

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

I now foresee a limitation to current gameplay that this system could have: you would no longer be able to have an "alternate primary" considering it would change the encumberment of your mech. However, this too could be mitigated by simply building a second mech with a similar setup yet a different primary.

Yeah a load-out menu for each mech may be a good way to utilise different builds on the same chassis. Having some form of menu to select from would allow you to pick a build you have tailored for particular game modes or situations. Potentially a fixed choice once selected going into a game. To allow switching of mechs during a game you would have to swap into a different chassis with a more suitable load out, or left totally open to chose all the time...


View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:54 AM, said:

But yes, I think we should still be limited to 2 items and 3 internals max, with the current differentiation [offensive/support items, and offensive/defensive/functional internals]. The only thing that would change is that items/internals would have weights now, so only certain combos would fit in the spaces left over after picking weapons and, optionally, an ability.

Indeed. I was thinking if it was going to imply any more radical changes to that aspect, items or internals of greater significance and consequently a greater weight to accommodate them potentially. Say a better turret would cost you more so you have an internal or two less. I was trying to get at this potential this system has for that kind of swapping ability, where it is possible to have a much wider variety of these components. You might not necessarily be still fixed to current numbers of what your load out is comprising of other than some minimal requirements necessitated for balance.

Posted Image


#11 Adreni

Adreni

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 111 posts

Posted December 03 2012 - 01:52 PM

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Obviously a minimum a requirement would be two weapons but after that how much can they take on?

My thought was we could keep it at just two weapons [one primary and one secondary] on each mech [so each mech has two weapon slots; one specifically designed for a primary, and the other for a secondary.]

Yeah I figured that. What I meant was how much other stuff like internals and items and what-not could you fit in. Would it reflect the current state of 2 items 3 internals providing a standard option for each is taken and swapping certain things in and out comes at the cost of others?


View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

View PostSubdivision, on December 03 2012 - 03:56 AM, said:

Another thought on this, instead of just block internals that slotted in could it be done with sliders so you slide up the armour and it drags down the speed and fuel capacity or something.

Not bad. May need to be more to it than that, but not bad.

Yeah I just decided to add that into the mix. Didn't give it too much thought other than here is one way of managing such a system of set variables...


View PostAdreni, on December 03 2012 - 11:24 AM, said:

This is EXCELLENT.

I'd like to see energy and processing management as well, with energy explaining the infinite ammo and items thing (more energy means faster regen of items) and processor dealing with fire-control and sensory systems such as RADAR and lock-on.

Glad you think so.

As for explaining how ammo and everything works, I don't know how long you have been around nor what you know but I seen you mention this before so I'll chip in here a little. The hawken team have a mythic tome of lore and back-story for the entire universe the game is set in (or so we're told) and thus with a live action series AND comic in the works to parallel the game I think everything will be explained. As it is fiction and science fiction at that you get the sense there is so much to explain and elaborate upon it is going to take some time for all of it be unveiled. I like your ideas on adding more levels of controlling factors to consider. Even if its slightly superficial for a few of them.

>_> That explains EVERYTHING.

Note: Just because it SHOULD be explored does not mean it WILL be. I doubt we'll ever be able to count all the half-assed (not fully explained) scifi out there. Armored Core, Gundam, Macross, Blacklight, and, I am certain, a vast slew of others.

You make it sound as if it's a given that the ammo system will be explained. I have ZERO confidence in that unless the community at large pulls for it.

#12 Subdivision

Subdivision

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted December 03 2012 - 02:14 PM

Oh of course, I didn't mean to make it sound quite that certain, no I think some pestering may be needed down the road but I wanted more to reassure you it had been thought about and was an abstract office thing of one guys saying 'hey wouldn't it be cool if they had infinite ammo?' and that kind of situation. I know what you mean, plenty of great sci-fi isn't explained in great enough detail I feel as it really opens it up to much greater criticism and people who believe its some kind of truth someone is truing to sell so they get defensive or aggressive and lash out at it in some manner. No I probably shouldn't have said everything but I think if we are lucky the dev's will one day do some AMA's and we can get all super nerdy and ask them what kind of gyro's balance the chassis and where exactly does a TOW come from or even out of? Rest assured you aren't alone in wanting a few more answers to the more mysterious and intriguing bits of Hawken. I've expressed this to Ace on how I'd love to get my hands on the original 'hawken bible' as it were, previously. Anyway, this an entirely different conversation for an entirely different thread so I'll just leave this here!

Posted Image


#13 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted December 03 2012 - 10:36 PM

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Now a mini-flak might be significantly lighter in terms of damage than a normal flak, but this is balanced out by you being able to carry more items/internals.
Uuuuuuuuuhhhh...
What?
Mini-flak... less damage...
Whhhhaaaaaaat?

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#14 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted December 03 2012 - 11:04 PM

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on December 03 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Now a mini-flak might be significantly lighter in terms of damage than a normal flak, but this is balanced out by you being able to carry more items/internals.
Uuuuuuuuuhhhh...
What?
Mini-flak... less damage...
Whhhhaaaaaaat?

that was just a for-instance what-if example. Not trying to say it does, but it could..

The idea there was simply weapons could have more significant DPS differences if they were balanced by weight, since a heavier weapon would mean less room for other equipment.

Edited by Ace4225, December 03 2012 - 11:46 PM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#15 Kyrzon

Kyrzon

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 283 posts
  • LocationDes Moines, WA

Posted December 04 2012 - 01:22 AM

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 11:04 PM, said:

View PostAsianJoyKiller, on December 03 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

View PostAce4225, on December 03 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Now a mini-flak might be significantly lighter in terms of damage than a normal flak, but this is balanced out by you being able to carry more items/internals.
Uuuuuuuuuhhhh...
What?
Mini-flak... less damage...
Whhhhaaaaaaat?

that was just a for-instance what-if example. Not trying to say it does, but it could..

The idea there was simply weapons could have more significant DPS differences if they were balanced by weight, since a heavier weapon would mean less room for other equipment.

This was another reason I was looking at the weapons on being under a limited resource (cost) system instead of weight; there could be a really badass lightweight weapon that (based on weight alone) could be a secondary on any mech.

#16 Subdivision

Subdivision

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • LocationUK

Posted December 04 2012 - 01:41 AM

Weight alone might not literally refer to weapons and items 'weight' or how ever they are being classed. It could be a case it is a 'weight of power' or more appropriately 'weight of potential' as it will take a player's skill fully utilise the power of a weapon. Therefore, the weight of the mini flak and flak would be reasonably similar as they do roughly the same damage or so it seems to me who hasn't read the numbers yet or however it needs to be, you get the idea.


View PostAsianJoyKiller, on December 03 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Uuuuuuuuuhhhh...
What?
Mini-flak... less damage...
Whhhhaaaaaaat?

Yeah we all get that and we aren't trying to start another debate over weapons balance as it currently stands. Without looking at numbers and stats you would naturally expect the smaller version to do less damage in this kind of game. Regardless of the case, it's the suggestion that a lighter or weaker weapon, however you wish to read it, has a smaller weight cost, therefore allowing more of the other bits to be put on top of that relative to a heavier weapon on the same chassis.

And I'm sure that was all in good jest AJK! I just didn't want people getting too sidetracked on that can of worms ;)

Edited by Subdivision, December 04 2012 - 01:43 AM.

Posted Image


#17 Saer

Saer

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted January 24 2013 - 12:07 AM

want moar this :wub:

#18 x1aa

x1aa

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted January 24 2013 - 08:55 AM

I smell cookie cutters!
"Your attack has been rendered harmless. It is, however, quite pretty."
—Saprazzan vizier

#19 Ace4225

Ace4225

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 684 posts
  • LocationMission Control

Posted January 26 2013 - 09:51 PM

View Postx1aa, on January 24 2013 - 08:55 AM, said:

I smell cookie cutters!

Even with the current system, there's been lots of arguments as to which mech is the "best" mech... but yet we still see a wide variety of pilots pulling off impressive wins with a variety of mechs/loadouts. Customizable mechs wouldn't change that.. on the contrary; it would widen the variety of classes we'd see on the battlefield...

Look at a game like Mechwarrior. While not much of a competitive game, the system for weapon balance is solid, even though there's over 100 different weapons, simply because there are balance factors (weight, heat generation, range, recycle time, ammo cost, etc)

Edited by Ace4225, January 26 2013 - 09:54 PM.

Posted Image
US East    -Brawler   -Berserker   -Scout   -Assault
---->[ =./\.= ]<----


#20 Dread_Lord_Pitr

Dread_Lord_Pitr

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,280 posts
  • LocationColumbia Internet

Posted January 27 2013 - 02:41 AM

Totally off topic, but...

@x1aa :


Up and down,
over and through,
back around—
the joke's on you.

;)
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. -George Orwell's Animal Farm
BEGIN Pitr's GEEK CODE BLOCK
GCS d? s: a- C++++ UL++++ P+++ L++++ E--- W+(++) N++ o+++ K+++ w--- !O M-- V-- PS+++ PE+++ Y(++) PGP+++ t* 5(-) X R- tv- b- DI-- D- G++ e++ h* r% y?
END Pitr's GEEK CODE BLOCK




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users