6 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

The idea is simple.

Some weapons become designed as "Heavy". Some hard points become designated as "Heavy".
You can still put these "Heavy" weapons into non-heavy hard points, but if you do so, you suffer a limitation: When a heavy weapon is fired from a non-heavy hard point, all heavy weapons not in a heavy hardpoint are put on a 0.5 second cooldown. This even applies when group-fired, so it can be that only one weapon is fired.

Heavy Weapons (at least as a starting point)
PPC
ER PPC
AC/10
AC/20
Gauss Rifle

If a mech canonically comes with heavy weapons, he will have some heavy hard points. But not necessarily all of the hard points, so he is still forced to not fire all weapons together.

Current Mechs that would have heavy hard points:
Hunchback 4G: 1 of the Ballistic Heavy Hard Point
Centurion (CN-A, CN9-AL, YEN-LO-Wang): 1 Ballistic Heavy Hard Point
Catapult K2: 2 Heavy Energy Hard Points.
Awesome 8Q, 9M: 2 Heavy Energy Hard Points
Stalker (all but the Misery): 2 Heavy Energy Hard Points
Stalker (Misery): 1 Heavy Energy Hard Point, 1 Heavy Ballistic Hard Point
Highlander (all but the 733P): 1 Heavy Ballistic Hard Point
Highlander 733P: 1 Heavy Energy Hard Point
Atlas (all variants): 1 Heavy Ballistic Hard Point


Future Mechs that might have heavy hard points:
Devastator: 2 Heavy Energy Hard Points
Annihilator (2A): 2 Heavy Ballistic Hard Points
Thunderhawk: 1 Heavy Ballistic Hard Points


This means only a few Assaults can get the Dual AC/20 or Gauss combo, and no one can go Triple AC/20 or Gauss. (Truth to be told, I would still prefer to give those mechs only one Heavy Hard POint, but unfortunately, my OCDness demands symmetric hard points on symmetric mechs...)


The rationale for why heavy hard points exist and are limited in the game world could be that these "heavy" weapons either draw so much energy or produce so much recoil that they cannot generally be fired safely with other weapons, unless they have specifically fortified hard points and/or additional energy supplies.

[Terror Teddy]

I would limit it from another view.

Used criticals of the base chassis.

HBK-4G could carry either a AC/20 or 'boat' X10 MG's in the shoulder section.

The CPL-K2 would be able to replace its PPC in the arms for X3 medium lasers or anything filling up the X3 energy criticals that the PPC takes up. The K2 would NOT be able to dual wield A/20 as it would be limited to AC/2 or MG's.

Boating would exist but it would be more limited and favor smaller weapons. Some would still be there like the AC/20 Jager but unless there are mechs with X3 energy criticals in several limb locations Quad ERPPC's would be rare.

[MustrumRidcully]

Terror Teddy, on 23 June 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

I would limit it from another view.

Used criticals of the base chassis.

HBK-4G could carry either a AC/20 or 'boat' X10 MG's in the shoulder section.

The CPL-K2 would be able to replace its PPC in the arms for X3 medium lasers or anything filling up the X3 energy criticals that the PPC takes up. The K2 would NOT be able to dual wield A/20 as it would be limited to AC/2 or MG's.

Boating would exist but it would be more limited and favor smaller weapons. Some would still be there like the AC/20 Jager but unless there are mechs with X3 energy criticals in several limb locations Quad ERPPC's would be rare.

The question is - is this really better?

It still would have a Thunderhawk boating 3 Gauss Rifles. He could just also replace them with, I dunnno, 6 AC/5s (but why would he).

The advantage I see is that most hardpoint size restrictions lead to little customization options left.

If you can only effectively downgrade a weapon slot, then what do you do with the spare weight?

[Asmudius Heng]

You know my point of view - anything to give mechs more character and if it has a knock on effect to encourage balance and less boating then that is good.

Your last comment is also pertinent when it comes to hardpoint discussions. If you are too restrictive you give people no where to move in mech design as they cannot spend the tonnage etc. some chassis may end up never being able to get some upgrades ... this seems ok to me in some ways but seems less than optimal given upgrades are so damned good.

This seems like a happier balance as long as it is clearly illustrated to a pilot what he is going to lose when he equips too many heavy weapons.

This is like a soft-counter to boating compared to more restrictive 'hard counters' and i like that.

Mechwarrior should be a game of trade offs, you have to pay for power in one way or he other and the current system means that we need new ways that you have to make meaningful choices in the mechlab.

And yes canon boats exist and should ... but all boats should come with some significant drawbacks.

[Karl Streiger]

Just heavy or normal?
Should the AC 10 really become a heavy weapon?
I really don't want to find "exploits" but that means the K2 is still able to work with Dual Ultra 5s without penalty.... it isn't such a great problem but on the other hand - you still could mount dual Gauss Rifles in the K2 - but you can't alpha them anylonger.

To have a artifical "delay" is the same complex game mechanic like heat penalty for stacking weapons.

While in general i really would like to have more hardpoint variations (from anti infantry - over light, medium towards heavy) - i don't think that the delay have a good flavour.

[MustrumRidcully]

Karl Streiger, on 25 June 2013 - 12:40 AM, said:

Just heavy or normal?
Should the AC 10 really become a heavy weapon?

Yes. Future-Proofing.

Currently you can't build a Quad AC/10 Mech. But a mech like the Annihilator, however, could do it. The Quad LBX-10 build would be a joke with the current mechanics, but if Gauss was a Heavy weapon and the AC/10 wasn't, you'd basically get your Quad PPC Assault right back with the Annihilator. The mech would be slower, but the build would also have a lot more DPS without being so heat limited.

So, future-proof. 10 damage is the sweet spot, pretty much. Maybe I'll eat those words when we get our first Light PPC boat. (8 Light PPC Awesome?) or Light Gauss Rifle Boat. But that would just mean we would have needed to be even more strict.

The UAC is not such a big deal. It fires a lot of shots in a short time, and without jamming, its DPS is ridicilious for its weight - but I can assure you, it's not a precision weapon.

Quote

To have a artifical "delay" is the same complex game mechanic like heat penalty for stacking weapons.

I don't think it is as complex. Particularly because you don't have any complex numbers to wrangle. We already have cooldowns in the game, not just for weapons, but also for special powers like Air Strike and Artillery Strike, so it should be something that is pretty well existing in the system.

And it's easy to understand. You don't need to know different things for different weapon. "Okay, 4 of this is bad, but 5 of that is good, and if I have 4 of this, it's this extra heat, but if I have 5 of this, its that extra heat". It's just. "Oh, heavy weapon. Can't fire it together with the others unless I got a heavy slot for it."

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 25 June 2013 - 01:51 AM.

[Terror Teddy]

MustrumRidcully, on 24 June 2013 - 11:01 PM, said:

The question is - is this really better?

It still would have a Thunderhawk boating 3 Gauss Rifles. He could just also replace them with, I dunnno, 6 AC/5s (but why would he).

I dont want to eliminate boaring since it does have it's place.

What this would limit would be excessive HEAVY weapon boating.

You can take several smaller weapons instead of the AC/20 or th ERPCC but se sould not see quad erppc stalkers as they sould not have enough triple energy critical slots in one location.

Yes, boating of smaller weapons would still exist but would still be more seen on larger mechs unless the chassis is designed for it.

Spare tonnage could be used for BAP, internals, heatsinks, ammo etc.

Yea, a mech could skip the AC 20 and potentially carry X10 AC2 instead...at 80 tonnes plus ammo...

I can also see someone boat 6-10 ML but heat usually take care of those.

Also, limiting gear through base chassi loadout critocal space would also lead to potentially more chassis designs.

It's not perfect but neither is any system.

I still think
-convergence penalties
-proper heat scale

Would solve many issues