48 replies to this topic

[Victor Morson]

This is a bit of an odd topic that's based around Mechlab information released thus far, and my concern for the long term impact on MWO (and thus, the community).

From what we know of the 'mech system, every gun that exists on a 'mech can be replaced, if it fits within the CBT slots, with any other gun of that type. Thus, a machine gun is a possible Gauss Rifle or AC/20. It's actually really clever and I think would be neat if they ever did a new version of Table Top, because it definitely adds flavor to the 'mechs while staying true to Table Top roots. I like it, a lot.

However, the problem that's been nagging me is a forward thinking one. Simply put, because of this situation, you'll only ever really need a handful of 'mechs to fill every possible role. For example my concern started out of my love for the Awesome: It's a great 80 tonner - one of the best in the BTU - with serious armor and energy boating capabilities. That's sweet!

However, with the slot system, this means it will simply have at least 4 energy slots, plus some additional slots (if they keep the "Gun slots + more" mechanic from the videos) with a few missile options thrown into other variants of the 'mech.

Now, this is where my concern comes into play. The Stalker, for example, has a bunch of medium lasers on it plus a bunch of missiles. The end result is the Stalker is capable of arming, easily, the 3-4 PPCs the Awesome does, plus it has 5 more tons to deal with. The Stalker has in effect rendered the Awesome entirely outdated by having the ability to field the exact same weapons package, plus wildly different ones (the slew of missile slots); it's more way more flexible with little to no drawback.

Guns being mounted on arms, and the range of arm movement could play into it sometimes for sure, but honestly, I don't think that's enough to set 'mechs truly apart and encourage people to want more. If people don't want to buy more 'mechs, PGI won't be selling mech credits. If they aren't selling 'mech credits, they won't have extra money for more content and that hurts all of us.

The problem is further compounded by similar 'mechs in close weight brackets (Centurion vs Dragon, for example) not really justifying why you'd want one over another in most cases.

So in summary I guess my question is simple: Is there going to be some factor that sets these 'mechs apart that's of yet unreleased? Will certain Chassis have the ability to take different pilot modules that might further buff it's style of play or something? For example of the Awesome can take modules to increase heat sink effectiveness and the Stalker might get modules for decreasing missile lock time, you really go a long way towards justifying the existence of both.

Right now I'm not really sure as to why I'd want more 'mechs once I pick up 8 or so (to cover all roles/weight classes) and that concerns me as I suspect expanding the 'mech library over time is a huge selling point to the game.

EDIT: I find it interesting that they didn't opt to follow the MW4 slot-level system, as that would easily justify more chassis. For example if the Stalker had 4 level 2 energy slots, it'd be able to support Medium/Large Lasers and remain true to the chassis theme, while an Awesome might have 4 level 4 energy slots, making it capable of equipping not only an array of PPCs plus extra lasers, but any combination of lasers. It really seems like the slot level thing would be a huge benefit towards encouraging people to want more 'mechs and keep the game healthy.

EDIT 2: If they retain the Atlas arm mounted lasers, I just realized you could likely get 4 PPCs entirely arm mounted on one, giving it an aiming advantage over the Awesome as well. I love the Awesome but it seems like the design plan will hurt specialist 'mechs - including this one.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 June 2012 - 12:03 AM.

[Adrienne Vorton]

some good points here, would love to see an official statement on the topic^^
basically it seems like it will turn out more to be a matter of taste, then actually any pro´s and cons of certain models...
but i think thats the case with many mechs anyway...

Edited by Adrienne Vorton, 12 June 2012 - 12:09 AM.

[Zynk]

You have missed 1 point Stalker has 20 heat sinks and the Awesome has 28 heat sinks.

Firing 4 PPC's in a Stalker would fire the mech.

[oohawkoo]

hmm dont mistake criticles for hard points =3 ... there might be a lot of criticle space so too speak but there wont be masive amounts of hard point space ... unlike mw4 where you could just keep pileing weaps on a spot till space ran out (if i rembering that right =X been a while since i last played that )

they are trying to make the game so any mech stands a chance to at least do significant damage if not win in a fight with any other mech

[Kanatta Jing]

The Atlas D has one medium laser in each arm and two medium lasers in the torso and the Atlas K has one large laser in each arm.

You could see an Atlas faking being an Awesome with at least two PPCs.

That might get patched latter on. It would be a shame to see the PPC boat out PPC boated.

[Shadowscythe]

Hmmmm. Hardpoints wize yeah, Atlas has a great mix. stalker has a lot of hardpoints also. but they haven't released how many each particular mech as for module slots. Which I think will be a big deciding factor for me since I remember reading (I think) that different mechs have different amounts of module slots. (will look for the quote)...The Awesome also has a couple early varients with better mixes of different types of weapons.

Maybe this varient is in MWO
AWS-9M - The 9M is an upgrade of the Awesome that uses Star League technologies, and was introduced in 3049^[5]. The 'Mech is built around a 320 Hermes XL Fusion engine, giving the 'Mech a top speed of 64.8 km/h. The heat sinks were upgraded to double heat sinks to allow this variant to be rearmed with three Fusigon Longtooth ER PPCs. The ER PPCs are backed up by two Hovertec Streak SRM-2s, a Magna 400P Medium Pulse Laser, and a Diverse Optics Type 10 Small Pulse Laser.....not bad I'd say, hardpoint wize

Heatsinks and armor isn't really a big deal since you can customize that to whatever (within tonnage of course)

There will still be people that pick it based purely on looks....But that goes for pretty much any mech since people have different tastes.

edit,,,, found quote on different mechs with different amount of module slots. From Developer Q&A 4 role warfare.

"[DAVID] You have a few different options to be able to achieve the sort of play style that you’re looking for; it all depends on how you customize and fine tune them. The first is your choice of ’Mech. Not only are different ’Mechs naturally suited to different tactics (ie the Catapult is long range fire support while a Dragon is more of a faster moving brawler), but different ’Mechs come with a different number of module slots. This leads to the Pilot Skill Trees; you’re not restricted to any one tree, so you can unlock your way through them as you please, and then purchase the modules you want. So you could unlock and purchase a combination of Commander and Attacker/Defender modules that suit your style, and put them onto a ’Mech that comes with enough module slots."

So, it is possible that the Awesome could have more, equal or even less module slots then other varients of awesomes and other assaults....... Time will tell.

Edited by Shadowscythe, 12 June 2012 - 01:07 AM.

[Draxern]

One idea would be to change the energy slot into a energy/ppc & energy only slots. In that way you might be able to limit the number of ppc on certain mechs.

Eg stalker might only have 2 ppc/energy slots and rest are pure energy slots.

[Victor Morson]

Zynk, on 12 June 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

You have missed 1 point Stalker has 20 heat sinks and the Awesome has 28 heat sinks.

But we're talking about mechlab here. I'm assuming there is nothing stopping you from putting 33 heatsinks on a Stalker armed like an Awesome, because it's 5 tons heavier. So this isn't really applicable at all.

oohawkoo, on 12 June 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

hmm dont mistake criticles for hard points =3 ... there might be a lot of criticle space so too speak but there wont be masive amounts of hard point space ... unlike mw4 where you could just keep pileing weaps on a spot till space ran out (if i rembering that right =X been a while since i last played that )

That's inaccurate. MW4 had a HARD hard point system, where weapons were of different sizes (1 slot to 4 slot) and weapon hardpoints had nothing to do with criticals; if you could fit the tonnage and slots of the weapon into an area, it would work.

The system MWO is supposed to use is a set type of weapon applicable to an area (i.e. 2 missile slots) which, if you have enough critical space, means you can apply 2 missile weapons there.

Largely that's the problem, though: If every medium laser counts as an energy slot, and additional slots are given per weapon, it means that any assault with a few medium lasers can take the same armament of the Awesome rendering it an inferior 'mech, in particular if they have extra gear.

I'm not just talking about the Awesome though, but any specialist 'mech; it's just the easiest example I know of right now.

Kanatta Jing, on 12 June 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

The Atlas D has one medium laser in each arm and two medium lasers in the torso and the Atlas K has one large laser in each arm.

You could see an Atlas faking being an Awesome with at least two PPCs.

That might get patched latter on. It would be a shame to see the PPC boat out PPC boated.

Given they've been talking additional slots, yeah, that's my primary concern too.

To bring the scope of this conversation past the Awesome (and to my primary concern: What happens when we get a few dozen 'mechs in the game) if they later say, add a heavy 'mech with three SRM-6 and some small lasers, you've effectively outdated the Catapult.

Where as with a MW4 style system (hardpoints of different caliber, opposed to "gun type/crit space") you could have put 3 Level 2 slots on said heavy, while the Catapult would have 2 Level 4 slots, leaving it with an edge but making both designs viable.

Again, I like what they did with 'mech lab; but in a game with full easy customization, I'm mostly concerned about the long-term ramifications. Unless (what I'm really hoping) 'mechs get hidden advantages we don't know about yet - specialized module support, exclusive electronic packages/engines/armor types or even the idea of "quirks." Something to say "Yes, both 'mechs can carry the same guns, but they get different edges that justify their existence."

EDIT: For those confused on how they've said 'mechlab work, to sum it up, a stock Charger would be exactly on par with an Awesome: Or better. It's got 5 Small Lasers in it's head, right arm, left arm, right torso and left torso.

This means 5 Energy Hardpoints. Since a PPC is an energy weapon, you could replace the small lasers anywhere that they would have critical space on the 'mech: i.e. all locations except the head. This means at the very least (not considering additional slots) it could sport 4 PPCs in the same locations as the 9Q Awesome, complete with small laser in it's head. Since it's 80 tons the engine and heatsinks could be made to match precisely.

Thus, if they ever added the Charger (just as a random example - a particularly notable one given the Charger's completely different intended role) it would completely invalidate the need for the Awesome.. and vice versa. The Awesome could, as far as I can tell, be modded into a 5 Small Laser high speed Charger if you were so inclined. That's my biggest problem, and again, something the MW4 style slots wouldn't have a problem with: 4x level 4 slots and a 1x head slot vs, say, 4x level 2 slots and a 1x head slot would allow both designs without stepping on each other's toes.

Again, I don't want the MW4 system back necessarily. I like what PGI came up with for Mechlab, mostly because it sticks to TT rules and gives us far better control over the fine details. I really like it. I'm just hoping there's something that sets 'mechs with similar hardpoints apart.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 June 2012 - 02:11 AM.

[Derek Flynn]

Unfortunately, I've been away from the Mechwarrior franchise for several years now, so this may not be a valid point for this thread. However, from what I remember from MW 4 and Mech Commander, PPCs weigh ALOT more than Medium Lasers. So sure, you could strip the Med Lasers from a Stalker and replace them with PPCs if you have the hardpoints. But at what cost? Not only would you have the Heat Sink issues listed above, but you'd have to sacrifice considerable tonnage in armor or other weapons to mount those PPCs. But as I said, it's been a long time since I've been able to play one of the games and even longer since I've been able to read any of the novels or source books as mine are in storage, so I could just be completely off base in this assumption.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

I'd say there is another factor. If those hard points are kept in the area they are removed from, IE torso has to remain torso not just a energy weapon, Then this adds a bit more varity. But as for alot of the questions floating around, we'll either have to wait till July 17th or a statement made before then.

[Victor Morson]

I should note my main reason for concern is that approaching the launch date, this isn't an issue that will bite anyone too early on. Some examples (Dragon/Centurion or Awesome/Stalker) will overlap already, but it's not a huge deal until another 10 or so 'mechs have been added to the game: There's still room for different hardpoint combinations.

Yet when this becomes an issue, people will have paid real world money for 'mechs and suddenly restricting their hardpoints or adding advantages/disadvantages to something you already own would also cause a backlash.

Effectively the whole point of bringing this up now is to try to help prevent burn out and backlash a year from now, more than the very immediate future.

Derek Flynn, on 12 June 2012 - 01:56 AM, said:

Unfortunately, I've been away from the Mechwarrior franchise for several years now, so this may not be a valid point for this thread. However, from what I remember from MW 4 and Mech Commander, PPCs weigh ALOT more than Medium Lasers. So sure, you could strip the Med Lasers from a Stalker and replace them with PPCs if you have the hardpoints. But at what cost? Not only would you have the Heat Sink issues listed above, but you'd have to sacrifice considerable tonnage in armor or other weapons to mount those PPCs. But as I said, it's been a long time since I've been able to play one of the games and even longer since I've been able to read any of the novels or source books as mine are in storage, so I could just be completely off base in this assumption.

The concern isn't that you would take the Stalker and add PPCs to it's impressive armament, but rather, that you would take all the guns off the Stalker and effectively turn it into a 5 ton heavier Awesome, with similar specs and the added bonus that if you so decided, you could turn it into a missile boat or any combination thereof - while the Awesome is stuck simply less hard points.

There'd be no reason to purchase an Awesome if this is the case, because the Stalker can do everything it can - and more, depending on how you modify it.

Zerstorer Stallin, on 12 June 2012 - 02:14 AM, said:

I'd say there is another factor. If those hard points are kept in the area they are removed from, IE torso has to remain torso not just a energy weapon, Then this adds a bit more varity. But as for alot of the questions floating around, we'll either have to wait till July 17th or a statement made before then.

I'm pretty sure they've explained you can't move hardpoints. I'm not really following what you mean by this.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 June 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[Zerstorer Stallin]

Victor Morson, on 12 June 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

The concern isn't that you would take the Stalker and add PPCs to it's impressive armament, but rather, that you would take all the guns off the Stalker and effectively turn it into a 5 ton heavier Awesome, with similar specs and the added bonus that if you so decided, you could turn it into a missile boat or any combination thereof - while the Awesome is stuck simply less hard points.

There'd be no reason to purchase an Awesome if this is the case, because the Stalker can do everything it can - and more, depending on how you modify it.



I'm pretty sure they've explained you can't move hardpoints. I'm not really following what you mean by this.

well for a example if the "hard point" is a laser weapon located in the torso, you upgrade to an XL engine you now have 3 less slots, not counting the FF Armor, Endo Steel, extra HS and such. Plus its known now that torso weapons have a fixed firing point based on Left, Right, and center of the reticle(depending on where they are ie left, right, center torso), where arms have the ability to move to a target. So I'm saying certain mechs, with certain hard points, in certain areas, will fit a certain playing style. This I'm certain of... (JK)

[Fear Radick]

The way the mechlab works here is you must have both the right amount of critical slots, as well as the right type of critical slots. Each mech varies in how many it has. Each mech also varries in armor capacity, heat sink capacity, speed, torso twist, etc.. You may be able to get more weapons on a stalker than an awesome, but you lose out on the heat capacity and the speed. Depending on your play style and opponents each mech might come in handy at different times.

Also, as the game progresses, not only will new mechs be available, but also new weapons. Weapons which may or may not fit based off of tonnage and space required in mutliple mechs.

[Derek Flynn]

Ah right. Now I see your point. From that standpoint it would boil down to 2 things for me.
1) The Hardpoint location noted above and the fact that if I'm understanding what little I've been able to read thus far, the Awesome would
have a slight advantage over the Stalker in that it's arm mounted PPC can target independently of it's torso mounted PPCs which the
Stalker wouldn't be able to do. Granted, it would be a minor advantage, but still.
2) Personally, I just think the Awesome looks better, and aesthetics play into the toons I play in MMOs. If I don't like the look of what I'm
playing, I'm less inclined to want to play it. Though, that's just a personal quirk of mine and not at all relevant to this discussion.

[KageRyuu]

First of all, Hard Points are in the game or at least will be implemented come open beta.

Second of all, you're confusing Critical Slots for Hard Points. Critical slots show the raw ammount of space available in the mech for weapons and equipment (which ironically is the same across all the mechs, generally they reason that equipment will vary in actual size but not ratio of space used, while weapons don't vary from mech to mech in size but generally smaller mechs won't have the tonnage let alone the critical space if they choose to use endo steel or ferro fiber to save some weight to equip some of the bigger guns), while Hard Points defines what kinds of weapons can fit into each area.

Additionally, Hard Points was never a part of the Table Top in any fashion, thank god.

As for the rest, you're making some pretty big leaps of logic into all the wrong areas, especially regarding one tonnage being superior in all roles to another tonnage.

Now, yes there's little conceptual difference between an 80 ton mech and a 85 ton mech, and for all intents and purposes as long as they're kitted the same way the 85 ton mech would be superior. However, Engine size is affected by mech weight which affects how many critical free heat sinks you get which is important if you're using doubles and don't want to sacrifice a lot of critical slots (1 free heat sink for every 25 points, while one double heat sink takes up 3 critical slots when it's not "free") because everything takes up a critical slot. There are also two maximum engine sizes, the first for regular engines which is 400, and another for heavy engines which is 500 but I won't go into them as they're out of our tech range. Now, an 80 ton mech could move up to 75kph with a 400 rated engine, but a 85 ton mech would never be able to run at those speeds without a heavy engine because 85 x 5 is 425 which exceeds the 400 point engine size limit.

So, technically, while it may not be the best idea a 80 ton mech can move at a maximum speed of 75 kph, while an 85 ton mech would only ever be able to reach 45kph with a normal engine. See how much difference 5 tons can make?

But technically once they got a single mech for every weight bar from 20-100 tons you could reason they don't need anymore. But the Battletech universe would be an awefully boring place without all those interesting designs. After all the 6 or so great houses don't play well with one another for very often if at all so they tend to prefer native designs over competitive designs. Add to that all the corporations competing for weapons contracts with the various house militaries, not to mention the Periphery Powers and their Corps, and the legacy of the Star League and the entirety of BattleTech lore, and you should begin to see why there is a need for more than just 24 mechs.

I suppose Hard Points, while never a part of cannon would be an artificial and completely non canon reason to increase the number of designs besides appearance and personal preference.

Though in short, your worrying too much about something that isn't a problem and never was, and instead should get yourself acquainted with more BT lore.

Edited by KageRyuu, 12 June 2012 - 03:23 AM.

[Shadowscythe]

Victor Morson, on 12 June 2012 - 02:20 AM, said:

The concern isn't that you would take the Stalker and add PPCs to it's impressive armament, but rather, that you would take all the guns off the Stalker and effectively turn it into a 5 ton heavier Awesome, with similar specs and the added bonus that if you so decided, you could turn it into a missile boat or any combination thereof - while the Awesome is stuck simply less hard points.

There'd be no reason to purchase an Awesome if this is the case, because the Stalker can do everything it can - and more, depending on how you modify it.

I'm pretty sure they've explained you can't move hardpoints. I'm not really following what you mean by this.

Yep, from what I can tell the 4 main reasons on choosing a mech is possible roles, Hardpoints, module slots (unknown to us how many each mech and they are different amounts), tonnage (which affects speed), and looks. The rest is changable in mechlab

But since we are talking about assaults that gets rid of roles and, to a minor effect, tonnage.

Yes, the basic Awesome has crap for hardpoint variety. but I say again that there are varients to mechs. and how many we don't know either...... This should be one of them (no clue why it wouldn't be)

AWS-9M - was introduced in 3049^[5]. XL Fusion engine, giving the 'Mech a top speed of 64.8 km/h. The heat sinks were upgraded to double heat sinks to allow this variant to be rearmed with three ER PPCs. The ER PPCs are backed up by two Streak SRM-2s, a Medium Pulse Laser, and a Small Pulse Laser.....not bad I'd say, hardpoint wise...which gives 5 energy and 2 missile, even then is still lacking a bit stalker has 6 energy and 4 missile (assuming I am looking at the right stalker )
From what I see of the other stalker varients. http://www.sarna.net/wiki/Stalker. they aren't any better than the first varient hardpoint wise.

So as things are now (assuming these stats are what they are using), the Awesome is indeed lacking in hardpoints badly.

Only way I can think of other than giving it more hardpoints (which would be nice) would be to give it more module slots compared to other assaults.

If there was an assault with jump jets in game I would pick that one most likely

Edited by Shadowscythe, 12 June 2012 - 03:21 AM.

[LordDeathStrike]

PEOPLE ARE ATTACHED TO MECHS, THEY WONT CARE WHAT I CAN ARM, THEY WANT THAT ONE MECH!

[Victor Morson]

KageRyuu, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

First of all, Hard Points are in the game or at least will be implemented come open beta.

I'm aware of it, why I'm talking about the method they used to implement them.

KageRyuu, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Second of all, you're confusing Critical Slots for Hard Points. Critical slots show the raw ammount of space available in the mech for weapons and equipment, while Hard Points defines what kinds of weapons can fit into each area.

I'm really not. I'm saying the MW4 system would have been an easy way to make hard points exclusive, or a hybrid therein (Opposed to say, 1 laser hardpoint per gun you could have 3 laser hardpoints and guns might take 1-3 of them atop of criticals), but I am quite aware that hard points sit atop of the TT build rules. Basically if it's valid in TT and the gun matches the type of hardpoint (1 AC10 in 1 Ballistic slot), you're good to go.

KageRyuu, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Additionally, Hard Points was never a part of the Table Top in any fashion, thank god.

I disagree with your view there. Had they existed, we'd seen a lot more custom 'mechs being accepted in gameplay; the lack of them really devides players as custom 'mechs then become nothing more than a chassis and tonnage value.

KageRyuu, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

As for the rest, you're making some pretty big leaps of logic into all the wrong areas, especially regarding one tonnage being superior in all roles to another tonnage.

That's not what I meant. My point is if we have two 80 ton Innersphere 'mechs with similar arm mechanics, and one has 5 Energy Hardpoints and the other has 5 Energy Hardpoints and 4 Missile Hardpoints, you've invalidated the need for the former by virtue of the second being able to match the first 'mech's capabilities, but now have more options. Likewise radically different 'mechs that happen to have the same "class" guns - my 5 Small Laser Charger vs 4 PPC/1 Small Awesome example - will have no tangible gameplay difference with the current system, because critical space and gun placement are virtually identical, with equal critical space on both chassis. Unless there is more than we aren't aware of, which was my concern in starting the thread.

KageRyuu, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

Now, yes there's little conceptual difference between an 80 ton mech and a 85 ton mech, and for all intents and purposes as long as they're kitted the same way the 85 ton mech would be superior. However, Engine size is affected by mech weight which affects how many critical free heat sinks you get which is important if you're using doubles and don't want to sacrifice a lot of critical slots (1 free heat sink for every 25 points) because everything takes up a critical slot. There are also two maximum engine sizes, the first for regular engines which is 400, and another for heavy engines which is 500 but I won't go into them as they're out of our tech range. Now, an 80 ton mech could move up to 75kph with a 400 engine, but a 85 ton mech would never be able to run at those speeds without a heavy engine because 85 x 5 is 425 which exceeds the 400 point engine size limit.

Again the issue really isn't just Stalker vs Awesome. I like the Awesome, but I'm not here to defend it; rather the point that once some more 'mechs have been added to the game, they will cancel each other out in a lot of ways or render one of them simply inferior. Like my earlier example - if you added a 65 ton heavy with 3 SRM/6 and 4 Small Pulse Lasers (for argument's sake), it has nothing to do with a Catapult - except that it would effectively be moddable into a superior catapult (carrying more base hard points for launchers) under the current system, unless there is another layer (module support, quirks, advantages) not shown to us yet. That's my concern.

KageRyuu, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

So, technically, while it may not be the best idea a 80 ton mech can move at a maximum speed of 75 kph, while an 85 ton mech would only ever be able to reach 45kph. See how much difference 5 tons can make?

Indeed, the 5 ton issue might come into play with the Awesome/Stalker, but for the sake of flexibility I think the Awesome will give the short end of the stick. Still, when we're talking similar tonnages there is still a serious overlap of similar weapon systems, simply because every small gun (Flamer, SRM2, Machine Gun) is a potential huge gun (ER PPC, LRM/20, Gauss Rifle). With no scale to the hard points, I can't see much point in adding more than a dozen or so more IS 'mechs before total overlap occurs; it's my hope that the machines will gain other advantages to keep them relevant and useful.

KageRyuu, on 12 June 2012 - 03:15 AM, said:

But technically once they got a single mech for every weight bar from 20-100 tons you could reason they don't need anymore. But the Battletech universe would be an awefully boring place without all those interesting designs. After all the 6 or so great houses don't play well with one another for very often if at all so they tend to prefer national mechs more than international mechs. Add to that all the corporations competing for weapons contracts with the house militaries and the legacy of the Star League and the entire BattleTech lore, and you should begin to see why there is a need for more than 24 mechs.

In short, your worrying too much and should get yourself acquainted with more BT lore.

I was going to let it go other than your last line, but there are exactly 5 great houses. If you don't know that, it's best not to challenge people on lore.

As for the need for more 'mechs, I agree; but that brings me back to the whole point, from a gameplay perspective. With the MW4 system (again, I'm not asking for it back!) it was EASY to justify all kinds of new chassis. There was a huge difference between a 'mech with 2 level 2 ballistic hardpoints and one with 1 level 4. You could do entirely different things with them. Without the "leveled" hard points, it changes everything. If they ever release a 100 tonner with 4 machine guns spread across it's body, it will be the most fearsome 'mech in the game because you could throw at least 3 Gauss Rifles on it.

That's the problem: If a 100 ton 'mech that has, say, 2 machine guns and 6 small lasers as backup guns could recreate a Devastator exactly, why would I ever want a Devastator?

PS: Also on the lore, they don't "prefer national 'mechs." They'll can and do use anything they can salvage. It's just that irreplaceable factories that make the 'mechs exist in different houses control. It's true some of the houses have modded original designs (Such as the Catapult K2), but that doesn't mean Davion pilots wouldn't prefer a K2 if they got their hands on one.

LordDeathStrike, on 12 June 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

PEOPLE ARE ATTACHED TO MECHS, THEY WONT CARE WHAT I CAN ARM, THEY WANT THAT ONE MECH!

This is true, to a point. I'm attached to the Awesome (and what started me thinking about this) but by God, I didn't use it in MW4 because it was horrible there. If it turns out to simply have inferior slots, love it or not, I won't be driving it.

Shadowscythe, on 12 June 2012 - 03:20 AM, said:

AWS-9M - was introduced in 3049^[5]. XL Fusion engine, giving the 'Mech a top speed of 64.8 km/h. The heat sinks were upgraded to double heat sinks to allow this variant to be rearmed with three ER PPCs. The ER PPCs are backed up by two Streak SRM-2s, a Medium Pulse Laser, and a Small Pulse Laser.....not bad I'd say, hardpoint wise...which gives 5 energy and 2 missile, even then is still lacking a bit stalker has 6 energy and 4 missile (assuming I am looking at the right stalker )

Yep; I'd love to take the AWS-9M and mod it into being an LRM carrier with laser support (as I suspect would be entirely possible), but if another 'mech has more hardpoints ultimately I'll go with that.

As a side note, I'm concerned about the practicality of other variants of chassis, too, unless they give them slots for guns that don't exist. I'd rather buy a 'mech with 5 terrible guns than 3 good ones, because it means I could convert it to 5 good guns instead. It causes a little bizarro logic.

Edited by Victor Morson, 12 June 2012 - 03:46 AM.

[Shadowscythe]

lol, when it comes to pure hardpoints look out for the

HBK-4P - Also called the Swaybackl eight Medium Lasers can do twice as much damage as the Autocannon they replaced.

wonder if you can shoot 8 ERPPCs and not blow up

edit, Hmmmm, look at the mech lab vid again....http://mwomercs.com/...deo/dPoqjslGcO0 that thing is showing WAY more hard points then a basic hunchback and it isn't a swayback

Edited by Shadowscythe, 12 June 2012 - 03:53 AM.

[Nairdowell]

Unless I missed it (and its always possible), the major limiting factor is not so much the hardpoints, but the WEIGHT.... any concerns that MLs can get upgraded to PPCs is canceled by the weight of those items. Same goes for swapping out LRMs for AC20 (if allowed) would be the weight....

The Hardpoint schematic corresponds to the different locations of the mech (head, left & right torso, etc)... but during the video, the legs appear as hardpoints, but no slots are available..... so again, the upgrade of the SLs of a Charger to even MLs is impossible due to both slots available and weight....

Just my two cents....