5 replies to this topic

[Thuraash]

Since the devs mentioned that hardpoint sizes are under consideration, I figured I'd throw an idea into the hat on how to go about them. If they implement hardpoint sizes, I think they should do it in a way that accomplishes what it sets out to with the bare minimum in terms of limitations and changes.

The primary purpose of a hardpoint size system is to limit how many heavy weapons an asset can carry, and where it can carry them. This would create diversity between the variants, effectively creating clear strengths and weaknesses, while simultaneously matching the ability to carry a heavy weapon with the design sacrifices the 'mech had to make for that capability.

The system is very simple:

Create two tiers of hardpoints: "Heavy" hardpoints, and "Standard" hardpoints. Heavy hardpoints can mount all weapons. Standard hardpoints cannot mount "Heavy" weapons.

The Heavy weapons are the AC/20, the Gauss Rifle, and the ER/PPC.

That's really all there is to it.

The next step is to allocate the heavy hardpoints among 'mechs. Assume that we cannot distrub stock loadouts. That's fine, because 'mech designs reflect the sizes of weapons available to stock loadouts. There are a few 'mechs that look like they can handle larger weapons than they are stock equipped with, like some Cataphracts and Jagers. They get Heavy hardpoints where they can fit them. Even so, Heavy hardpoints are not plentiful; most heavies and assaults will have one. Most mediums will have none.

Here's what the hardpoint distributions could look like:




This system should be easy to integrate with the current 'mechlab (you could represent Heavy hardpoints alongside Standard hardpoints using the same format, except using [1HE] to denote a heavy energy weapon.

Thoughts?

Edited by Thuraash, 30 June 2013 - 07:52 PM.

[aniviron]

Seems pretty arbitrary. Why isn't the LRM20 heavy? Why can you still mount an ac10 where a machinegun was? Or a llas in a slas hardpoint? There are always going to be ways around this system.

I don't think it's a bad idea, and I wouldn't be opposed to trying it for a month or two, but I don't think it's just going to fix all the problems like everyone else on the forums seems to think it will. I predict that it will just mean we see even less diversity among mechs and variants used on the field; some mechs would benefit, but for most mechs this pidgeonholes them pretty badly.

EDIT: This system also does not account for the fact that many mechs have hardpoints added to them to compensate for what would otherwise be low hardpoint counts, like the aws-8q. Six of the seven slots are there because it gets two slots per ppc port, which seems to have been done specifically to account for the fact that they are large hardpoints.

Edited by aniviron, 30 June 2013 - 10:32 PM.

[Stingray Productions]

aniviron, on 30 June 2013 - 08:20 PM, said:

There are always going to be ways around this system.

agreed, anyhow, people are always going to try to do what's in their best interest and find what would be the most effective.

[BadWolf81]

This has been used in almost every other mechwarrior game including mechwarrior tactics. What we have now is one step from omnimechs it’s such an easy fix for boating too. People are adding 6 PPC’s to stalkers? HARDPOINT NURF HAMMER now you can only fit two.

[Postumus]

If you are interested in seeing a hardpoint size system implemented, please go cast a vote in http://mwomercs.com/...e-implemented/. The devs have said that it is under consideration, so it is important to show community interest to get this ball rolling.

[Thuraash]

Antiviron, the reason I don't touch LRMs is because hardpoint sizes would be redundant. We already have an existing tube count system. That system is pretty toothless right now, but it could solve the problem for LRMs, and it wouldn't make sense to hit it both ways.

Also, I would contend that you would see MORE diversity because 'mech loadout options would be more constrained. I know it seems paradoxical at first, but consider that 'mechs mounting PPCs would no longer be able to do JUST PPCs, unless they're an Awesome. This is fine, because the AWS has some very significant weaknesses as a result of its design (i.e. the very things that allow it to be a PPC boat work against it in every combat situation: it's broader than a barn with big side torsos and a big arm).

In a sandbox, you just throw all of your favorite stuff together, mix and match in the most optimal method, and run with it. Introduce some constraints, and all of a sudden the "perfect" 'mech is no longer possible. You've been denied access to the force multiplication inherent to stacking lots of heavy weapons. You can't have PPCs and a Gauss anymore. You can't stuff 3 PPCs into a HGN side torso, or four into AS7-RS arms. You can't even run dual PPCs on most 'mechs; you need to fill out the rest of your loadout with different weapons. Essentially, it forces players to compromise between the heavy weapons capability, the design vulnerabilities that go along with that capability, and the merits of different weapons.

You've still got diversity within a variant. The CPLT-K2 can still run an AC/10+4ML loadout, or a 2xUAC/5+4ML loadout, but in this world, you may well see people running it in the role it was SUPPOSED to run: a heavy 'mech with dual PPCs, now that they can't do the same job better with a JM6-S or a CTF-3D. It cannot, however, run 2x Gauss or 2xAC/20; that's the sole domain of the JM6-DD.

Now that alone might seem like an unnecessary restriction that accomplishes little more than focusing the imba on a single variant, but consider the balance ramifications: you've now got that crazy capability limited to a single 'mech variant. You can now balance it by applying quirks specifically to that variant, instead of ******* with the whole weapons balance landscape. You can, for example, limit JM6-DD armor to 9 or 10 tons, essentially canon-lite (the damn thing normally has something around 6 tons...). The JM6-DD can now be your 30-point-alpha gauss sniper... but you can target sacrifices specifically at it to balance that powerful advantage.

THAT is true diversity. Defined strengths and weaknesses unique to the different types of 'mechs. Yes, you now need to buy more 'mechs to do all things, but that's OK.

If you can do everything with one 'mech, then all the rest become redundant. Look at the K2: it's completely useless. Dozens of other 'mechs do the PPC role better without the Kansas-sized head hitbox. The JM6-S can pack four PPCs in the side torsos, getting BETTER convergence, and not having big, vulnerable arms. It's why so many 'mechs are completely outmoded: there's a better version of them available, not because it has to be that way, but because players can do whatever the **** they want with their 'mechs.

Another example: HBK-4G. Supposed to be literally the only AC/20-bearing medium, and it's got the huge side torso to account for it. EXCEPT: The TBT-7K can mount an AC/20 with almost the same firepower and a much smaller side torso. The HBK-4H can mount EVERYTHING the HBK-4G can mount in an AC/20 loadout in terms of energy, plus two. The 4G is completely eclipsed because the thing that made it unique is available to everybody. That's what's killing variant diversity.