11 replies to this topic

[Wildstreak]

This topic is currently opened by me to focus on specific Mechs hurt by hardpoint designs that seem to point towards using a lot of MGs thus contributing towards the MG discussion.

It was said there were 3 obvious Mech designs invovled in the MG discussion, I can think of 2 offhand:

SPIDERS

Personally I think all Spiders got shafted.

For now I will focus on the SDR-5K. Designed for anti-infantry, stock mounted 1ML and 2MGs. Hardpoints allow this plus 2 more Ballistic leading players to think they have to mount up to 2 more MGs.

Thing is, even though MGs are considered anti-infantry for their design, it is also known SLs, MLs and light SRMs are useful for anti-infantry work as well. So I can only conlcude adding 2 Ballistic over 1-2 Energy was not to overshadow the 5V but could it have been made as 1 Energy, 2 Ballisitc and 1 or 2 Missile? I see no reason why not, keeps the stock Hardpoints while adding the 1-2 Missile option makes it different and viable compared to the 5V and 5D.

CICADAS

Here the problem is the CDA-3C, like the SDR-5K it gets 1 Energy and 4 Ballistic 2 of which were added above stock weaponry.

Description of the 3C from Sarna.Net says this was to give the 3C a greater reach obviously through the PPC. So why 2 extra Ballistic? Like the SDR-5K, it could have had Missile added instead this time to allow the use of LRMs as an option while staying true to the 'long-reach' purpose of the variant.

Or it could change the mix to 2/3 Energy and 3/2 Ballistic. Still allows stock loadout while being flexible for modification and preserving the long reach purpose.

Now I am not sure what other Mech is the third posted but not specified by someone but there are 2 good guesses.

HUNCHBACKS

HBK-4G obviously. 3 Ballisitcs pretty much limits it to 3MGs or 2MGs and an AC. Either you carry 2 big energy like LLs with 3MGs or mount an AC, MLs and 2MGs. Debatable as to how bad this is. I don't know why they didn't just make the 4G and 4H on 1 chassis, you can make a 4G out of the existing 4H.

JAGERMECHS

JM6-DD, like the SDR-5K and CDA-3C added 2 Ballistics but again the same argument holds up here. It could have been made with 2 Missile slots instead, then it would be a step between the JM6-A and the JM6-S. This still allows it to fulfill the double role of fire support and anti aircraft that both the S and A variants have been described as. The DD is just the 3050 version of the S and usually it seems 3050 versions not changed much from earlier designs do not gain their own variant such as the 3050 Hunchback variants not offered since you can make them from existing designs.

I should note I do not know why the JM7-D is not offered unless as a planned Hero but it was not unique as Hero Mechs are, just because it is 70 tons it still counts as a JagerMech variant and it fits the 3050 timeframe. It even has interesting stock Hardpoints, 1 Energy and 1 Ballistic per arm and 1 Energy per side torso, you could add 1 more Ballistic per side torso or 1 missile and have a better variant than the current JM6-DD.

So in the case of 3 Mechs (SDR-5K, CDA-3C and JM6-DD) there is a rational argument for re-evaluating the hardpoints and possibly changing them while still fitting into their roles as described plus a request for where the JM7-D is.

[Deathlike]

You will have to put a lot more thought into it.

The Cicada-3C for instance doesn't directly suffer from it because it actually has the TONNAGE to play with. The Jagermech has been used as an alternative AC platform (which used to be the Cataphract's domain), so the only mech that has suffered is still the Spider-5K... and that's an issue with MG balance.

[Wildstreak]

Actually, no.

Having more tonnage doesn't change things.

And when a small number of Mechs suffer, it is a problem of their hardpoints, not solely 1 weapon's design.

[Deathlike]

When tonnage actually allows you to "create" a dual AC20 Cicada-3C (which is not actually practical for serious play), or the occasional AC20 Raven-4X, it's really about the tonnage.

The Jagermech-DD probably isn't able to use more than 4AC2s reliably I'm told, due to either heat and/or tonnage for ammo. MGs would be an option.. except MGs are not that useful.

There are "tonnage holes" where weapons should be, like the gap between the .5 ton MG and the 6 ton AC2.. and anything bigger than the LRM20 (anything more than 5 slots, ideally 7 slots or more) so the Atlas-K doesn't look so inferior. The Atlas-K does suffer from hardpoints, but not for the same reasoning.

The Spider-5K suffers greatly from weapon choices... so it's truly an issue with MGs and to a lesser extent.. weapon options. The options are truly limited to tonnage... and since the non-viability of MGs (unless, you think Spider-5Ks are a threat for some reason), some variants will inevitably suffer. People have found some viable builds on a 3C, despite it seemingly being tagged for an MG boat (UAC5 builds, AC2 builds).. because the weapon options correspond to the greater tonnage the Cicada has over the Spider. There are some decent builds for the Raven-4X with its ballistic slots as well (UAC5 is optimal IMO).

Anyways... your suggestion doesn't really take too much into account "the current options" and how they relate to the platform. If we had some sort viable 2-3 ton ballistic option, many of these issues would be a non-issue. However.. most of it is related to how MGs function at the moment (in which the Spider-5K is most affected by). If that was addressed, the mechs you listed would be able to use MGs w/o issue, even if they aren't optimal, but they can fill in their hardpoints with something relatively useful.

Edited by Deathlike, 15 April 2013 - 09:58 AM.

[sC4r]

agreed on everything except on JM6-DD which can atleast get something out of the weapons since it has tonnage to back it up though slow as hell thats for sure... but you can still make a fair variety of builds on it like... you can put 3 guns on one arm and skip the other one

unfortunately this doesnt apply to others
hunch -> it has some viable builds out there but still if you ever want to mount more than 2 balistics you will end up slow... and with the placement of acs you lose the torso you are useless

spider - 30 tons... excluding mg lightest balistic weighs 20% of the mech without ammo now tell me what else can you put on it besides machineguns

cicada - almost the same as spider... except you can put in one decent gun but still options are kind of limited

raven - this one has more options but normally players just skip balistic ports (except those funky guass/boomravens)

i wouldnt care if pgi would introduce some lightweight balistic that could be mounted on any of these mechs (ac1 for example)
or maybe finally straight up buff for mg dmg (double for starters) and see how it goes... like hell anyone would care what it does with balance after this... lrm fiasco which went from one extreme to another... and if it goes well all the better

edit: but w/e this thread will go to trashcan just like so many suggestions to make small balistic boat mechs usefull

Edited by sC4r, 15 April 2013 - 10:35 AM.

[MasterErrant]

All of the mechs suffer form a poorly though out hardpoint system which is arbitrary and stupid. MGs are a filler weapon and never will be a good antimech weapon. no half ton weapon is going to be a "Good" mech killer.

for that matter the spider has never been a "powerfull" mech..it's a fast extraordinarily agile scout mech and is fantastic in tt used correctly. but it had no place in this game...

[Wildstreak]

Deathlike, on 15 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

The Jagermech-DD probably isn't able to use more than 4AC2s reliably I'm told, due to either heat and/or tonnage for ammo. MGs would be an option.. except MGs are not that useful.

Like I said, I don't know why they added the JM6-DD when they should have had the JM7-D despite the 5 tons extra, the hardpoints are better. JM6-DD is just an upgrade on the JM6-S and not all upgrades are in MWO else we would have more Hunchbacks. They could have added 2 Missile instead of 2 Ballistic too.

Deathlike, on 15 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

There are "tonnage holes" where weapons should be, like the gap between the .5 ton MG and the 6 ton AC2.. and anything bigger than the LRM20 (anything more than 5 slots, ideally 7 slots or more) so the Atlas-K doesn't look so inferior. The Atlas-K does suffer from hardpoints, but not for the same reasoning.

I'll agree on the Ballistic hole, most ideas for filling in are already in Canon and come later in the timeline but you can try to look around for inspiration for other ideas as I did in my Volley Gun topic.

Deathlike, on 15 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

The Spider-5K suffers greatly from weapon choices... so it's truly an issue with MGs and to a lesser extent.. weapon options. The options are truly limited to tonnage... and since the non-viability of MGs (unless, you think Spider-5Ks are a threat for some reason), some variants will inevitably suffer. People have found some viable builds on a 3C, despite it seemingly being tagged for an MG boat (UAC5 builds, AC2 builds).. because the weapon options correspond to the greater tonnage the Cicada has over the Spider. There are some decent builds for the Raven-4X with its ballistic slots as well (UAC5 is optimal IMO).

Limited choices are due to Hardpoints as well. The RVN-4X proves that, it has only 2 Ballistic so it nowhere is near as limited as the others. That is why I went over the decriptions of what the canon variants were designed for to come up with these suggested changes to Hardpoints while still keeping the theme of the variant. Change the Hardpoints increases weapon options.

Deathlike, on 15 April 2013 - 09:57 AM, said:

Anyways... your suggestion doesn't really take too much into account "the current options" and how they relate to the platform. If we had some sort viable 2-3 ton ballistic option, many of these issues would be a non-issue. However.. most of it is related to how MGs function at the moment (in which the Spider-5K is most affected by). If that was addressed, the mechs you listed would be able to use MGs w/o issue, even if they aren't optimal, but they can fill in their hardpoints with something relatively useful.

There can be different ways to resolve a problem and each has different results. The MG argument has a major flaw in claiming these variants justify a MG change because anything changing the MG affects all Mechs that can use it, not just these. Even if the MG would change, these Mechs still suffer from weapon limitations. The 2 arguments are separate, not the same.

[Saltychipmunk]

I vote we make mgs and flamers take up half a weapon critical slot ( thus if you have 1 ballistic slot you get 2 mgs in it)

[Riordan Lionheart]

I feel like the Catapult C1 has been hurt by it's hardpoints I think it's kinda ridiculous that it only has 2 missile hardpoints for an intended missile boat, that plus the Cat's huge cockpit are making me regret that founders pack some

[Deathlike]

Riordan Lionheart, on 16 April 2013 - 11:13 AM, said:

I feel like the Catapult C1 has been hurt by it's hardpoints I think it's kinda ridiculous that it only has 2 missile hardpoints for an intended missile boat, that plus the Cat's huge cockpit are making me regret that founders pack some

You can put PPCs on the mech (similar to the K2).. that's why the C4 and A1 exist... to be a better missile boat.

[FrostCollar]

All the mechs listed would have decent hardpoints if an effective light ballistic weapon existed in game.
Hmm...

[Nothing Whatsoever]

I'd add the Dragon 5N to the list also, and we have that one also as a Champion version.