Jump to content

Make Head/ct Weapons Not Useless


10 replies to this topic

#1 AeusDeif

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 181 posts

Posted 28 November 2014 - 01:11 AM

Problem: Center torso and Head weapon hardpoints are too limited by lack of space. This not only limits current builds but also limits what new mechs might make it into the game.


Examples:

1. When considering the resistance pack I noticed the missile slot on the Grasshopper. It looks cool and gives the mech character, but it's virtually useless. My first thought was to put a narc there... but that takes 2 slots. What is left? SSRM2, SRM2, SRM4, and LRM5. All of these are weak weapons by themselves -- only useful when combined with more of the same.

2. CTF-4X -- same useless head missile hardpoint.

3. The panther (as well as the founder's jenner) have 2 missile hardpts in the CT. These are slightly less useless but still unnecessarily limited...

4. Most importantly as I look through sarna.net I see many mechs that appear to have large weapons mounted from the center torso. Most notable is the Marauder with an AC5 or UAC5 mounted on the CT, and similar is the Verfolger with a CT PPC, and the Shugenja with CT MRM30.

Mechs like these simply can't be in the game in their current form due to the limited space of CT's and heads. You'd have to alter the form of the mech and change the iconic profile to something less recognizable and classic. This would also have the effect of making mechs more visually formulaic -- always large arm and side torso weapons, never large central or top weapons. Honestly, 'looking cool' has always been a big part of BT's appeal, and weapon placement is part of the characteristic look of the mech.


--------------------
SUGGESTIONS: the simplest solutions I could think of were in the form of upgrades which effect the base components in the CT and Head. I suggest some drawbacks too.

1. movable components

Upgrade: Modular Sensor Suite. This would split the sensors into 4 separate modules of 1 slot each, which can be moved anywhere. Damage should create bad effect on sensors.

Upgrade: Modular Life Support. This would do the same as the above; 2 modules of 2 slots each, and if both are destroyed, pilot dies.

2. components fixed across torsos instead of one location.

Upgrade: Side Mounted Sensors. Similar to an XL engine, 1 slot of sensors are fixed into each side torso, as well as 1 slot in the cockpit. That is 3 slots total.

Upgrade: Center Torso Sensors: same as above except moved to CT with 1 slot in Head. 3 total.

Upgrades: Side Mounted/CT life support. etc.

Upgrade: Side Mounted Gyro. Instead of 4 slots in CT, Gyro is fixed to both side torsos. 3 slots in each side torso. If either Gyro is sufficiently damaged, should effect movement.

Upgrade: Expanded Gyro. 2 Fixed slots in side torsos, 1 fixed slot in center torso. No penalty for just one Gyro damaged, but maybe this Gyro suffers from reduction in acceleration, maneuverability, any movements involving gyro.

3. Other tweaks/alternatives

Upgrade: Compact Autocannons. Reduces by 1 the slots taken by AC5, 10, and 20. If critted, should explode like a gauss, and perhaps increases heat generation.

Upgrade: Compact Standard Engine. Reduces by 1 or 2 the slots taken by the standard engine. Perhaps increases heat generation a bit. Reduce anything that requires engine power

Consider reducing the slots taken by the XL engines in the Center Torso by at least 1. When combined with Expanded Gyro, this could provide 7 slots, enough for an AC10. Or reduce Center XL by 2 slots, and put 1 fixed Expanded Gyro slot in the CT, for 7 slots total of Gyro and 7 empty slots

Consider just reducing the slots that ballistics take up, or introducing some intermediate weapons.

Consider simply reducing the size of gyros/other components as a feature of certain chassis. You could add drawbacks in the quirks -- say a mech has special 3 slot gyro, you can add negative quirks to show less efficient gyro function.

Side notes:

My measure for making CT and Head weapons effective is to be able to mount 3 slot missiles/energy weps in heads, 5 slot ballistics in heads, and 7 slot ballistic in CTs... When those are the only ballistic or missile hardpoint, that is often what is required to make it an effective weapon by itself.

Drawbacks for damaged components should discourage players from putting movable parts in weird places. For damaged sensors there could be effects like reduced radar range, increased time on target info/locks, and flickering targets/hud. For Lifesupport the drawback could be pilot death if all slots destroyed... or ejection, if that were ever implemented =]. For Gyro it could be a slowed mech which cannot climb grades higher than 15 degrees and constantly oscillates between stopping and going or top speed oscillates, so it feels like it's 'struggling' or 'stumbling'

***NOTE*** Something which could prevent a metagame shift or abuse of these features; instead of making them upgrades, make them chassis-specific features, like jumpjets. However the chassis' requires them to function and gives a warning sign w/out them, similar to 'no engine mounted'.

So, for example, have the Grasshopper come equipped with 'Side Mounted Sensors' and it can run an LRM10, SRM6, or NARC in its head slot. Give it 'Modular Sensor Suite' and it could conceivably run LRM15 or SRM6+Artemis.

Center Torso example: Have the Marauder come with 'Expanded Gyro' and it can mount a UAC5 on its CT. Have one of its variants come with 'Side Mounted Gyro' and it can mount LBX10... or upgrade to 'Compact Engine' or 'Compact Autocannons' and it can mount an AC10 on its CT.

--------------------------------------

The long and short of it is, certain mechs need more space for their CT and Head weapons.

These suggestions provide a way to feel you are truly customizing your mech as a whole, not just seeing where weapons fit. And, if these are built-in chassis features instead of upgrades, they may also provide an additional way to flavor mechs, similar to the quirk system. There won't be so much 'such and such mech is worthless because this other mech can mount more of x weapons'...

And I think we can all agree, an empty head weapon slot does not increase the cool factor of a mech.

Edited by AeusDeif, 28 November 2014 - 01:43 AM.


#2 DI3T3R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 28 November 2014 - 03:21 AM

MWO is way past such abrupt balancing.

The LRM5 in the HD of the Grashopper comes from the TT-loadout.

Inventing new equipment and new ways to handle slots would mean that you can throw all the balancing out of the window and can start anew. And aside from that it's a contradiction to lore, which has many fans around here, including me.

The last thing PGI needs right now, right before the start of community-wide campaign-warfare, is a redo of the basics.

#3 WonderSparks

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 909 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC, Canada

Posted 28 November 2014 - 06:49 AM

I would just like to point out that the Marauder's main gun is not actually mounted in the CT as it may appear to be in the pictures, but in fact mounted in the RT.

Also, we have super-limited space in the heads and CTs of our 'Mechs because that is the way things go with standard equipments. If we ever get stuff like Compact Engines/Gyros and Small Cockpits/Torso-Mounted Cockpits, then we can expect a bit more space in the head and CT. :ph34r:

#4 AeusDeif

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 181 posts

Posted 28 November 2014 - 11:17 PM

Neither of your posts really address the fact that the head missile hardpoints as they are, are useless.

It is impossible to make a fully functioning balanced game and also a fully lore-adherent game. That was made clear a long time ago.

View PostDI3T3R, on 28 November 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

MWO is way past such abrupt balancing.

The LRM5 in the HD of the Grashopper comes from the TT-loadout.

Inventing new equipment and new ways to handle slots would mean that you can throw all the balancing out of the window and can start anew. And aside from that it's a contradiction to lore, which has many fans around here, including me.

The last thing PGI needs right now, right before the start of community-wide campaign-warfare, is a redo of the basics.


I don't think you fully comprehended my post. It wouldn't affect balancing that much if it's only applied to certain chassis, like jumpjets.

And I wouldn't recommend all those features, just certain ones in certain cases, in which case it is not abrupt at all. And I said nothing about doing it before CW.

Two grasshoppers have this useless missile head hardpoint. This is a mech people are paying money for. It should not come with useless features. Giving people what they pay for > tiny lore details. Although I would agree that maintaining game balance is important.


View PostWonderSparks, on 28 November 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

I would just like to point out that the Marauder's main gun is not actually mounted in the CT as it may appear to be in the pictures, but in fact mounted in the RT.

Also, we have super-limited space in the heads and CTs of our 'Mechs because that is the way things go with standard equipments. If we ever get stuff like Compact Engines/Gyros and Small Cockpits/Torso-Mounted Cockpits, then we can expect a bit more space in the head and CT. :ph34r:


It seems like you're saying 'if they ever do something about this problem, then something will be done about this problem' which is kind of meaningless.

If the marauder's weapon is mounted in the side torso, they will either have to move it over to that torso and change the look, or they will have a large central gun that will put damage into the side torso... such as when arty hits, or someone shoots the mech as it peaks. All damage to side torso. Glaring weakness. Hopefully at least they will have it covered via central torso armor. In any case, there are other mechs with center torso and head weapons.

Edited by AeusDeif, 28 November 2014 - 11:18 PM.


#5 Thunder Child

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Ironclad
  • The Ironclad
  • 1,460 posts
  • LocationOn the other side of the rock now.

Posted 28 November 2014 - 11:43 PM

I think it depends on your definition of useless. Many mechs come equipped with AMS mounts, that few people bother to use. Does this in fact make the AMS slot useless? As no one seems to want it? Should we swap all AMS slots for Ballistic Slots? Should we allow AMS to be mounted in Ballistic Slots (6 AMS Jager?).

Head and CT Weapons have always been support weapons. Things you fire while waiting for your main guns to cooldown.

And as to the "Iconic Designs" you've seen with weapons supposedly mounted in or on the CT, they are all actually Right or Left Torso mounted. The reason this has never been an issue in TT is because all hits were determined by dice rolls, so they could go crazy with visual design and not have to worry about the Missile Racks on a T-Wolfs Ears, or the "Wings" on the back of the Zeus. Yes, this does mean some mechs will need a redesign, but funnily enough, that has already been happening.

#6 AeusDeif

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 181 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 12:02 AM

hm, maybe CT weapons aren't as much of an issue then. CT missile weapons should still have more space on certain chassis, I think.

Anyway, AMS doesn't really compare. It takes up 1 slot and that is the only kind of AMS. There is not a weak AMS which takes up 1 slot, and a strong AMS that takes up 3 slots. 1 AMS is often quite helpful, in fact 1 slot of AMS can make 1 slot of LRM5 do 0 damage.

So AMS is a completely different dynamic from missiles.

edit: if they just reduced the slots used by NARC that might help a lot too, without really changing much of the game.

Edited by AeusDeif, 29 November 2014 - 05:47 AM.


#7 Pz_DC

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Staff Sergeant
  • 1,100 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 05:49 AM

IHMO overall its fine as it is BUT some mechs definatly need more space for weapons in some locations - not only head or ct. But hey - do you realy think that let grashopper to have lrm20 in head is a good idea?...

#8 Nightmare1

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 7,636 posts
  • Twitch: Link
  • LocationPeeking over your shoulder while eating your cookies.

Posted 29 November 2014 - 06:47 AM

I do well with me Head Mounted Missile slot in one of my SHDs and the Head Mounted Lasers slots in all my HBKs.

I would hesitate very much to call them useless; there have been cases where a ML was all I had left on a zombie HBK, and yet I still managed to kill Mechs and contribute to my team because of the head mounted weapon. The key, is that the head and CT mounted weapons cannot be destroyed easily, thus giving you weapons with significant longevity. Compare this to arm mounted weaponry that can be much more easily destroyed.

As much as I would like to see buffs for my HBKs, SHDs, Grasshoppers, etc., I do not believe that this is needed.

#9 happy mech

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 392 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 07:41 AM

@op: compare a zombie with no weapons to a zombie with a sl, the sl is super powerful then

Edited by happy mech, 29 November 2014 - 07:42 AM.


#10 Koniving

    Welcoming Committee

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Guide
  • The Guide
  • 23,384 posts

Posted 29 November 2014 - 08:01 AM

View PostDI3T3R, on 28 November 2014 - 03:21 AM, said:

Inventing new equipment and new ways to handle slots would mean that you can throw all the balancing out of the window and can start anew. And aside from that it's a contradiction to lore, which has many fans around here, including me.


Just to mention it...

This mech has a CT mounted dual-shot Gauss Rifle.
Posted Image
Though the physical mount is on the CT, the actual Gauss Rifles are placed in each side torso. Its true, this doesn't reinvent things, but it makes an interesting point, and they fire from the barrel on top, which is essentially a 24 ton dual-shot gauss rifle with two charging stations.

Another prime example are the Atlases K, C, and S-2. All three of these Atlases have an LRM-20 shifted from the 5 tube hip launcher to the chest, and split 10 tubes between left and right chest. Even if you disabled the right torso, the left set would just double its reloading speed as the mechanisms, etc. are in the left side, but the official canon is that it has 10 tubes on each side...even though it is an LRM-20 mounted in the LT.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Posted Image
To invent weapons and splits like this with this method is pretty canon to the lore. So is some, but limited, slot play (King Crab isn't the only example).

On the other hand it is important to note that none of these tricks would work on a head.
The only way to get additional slots is to use a Small Cockpit, which frees an additional slot. Or to use a Remote cockpit, which removes everything from the head.

The thing, though, is that in BT, missiles had actual value and did something. In MWO, yes we shoot three times but the damage to armor ratio is 0.5, so three times is 1.5x the tabletop damage and we can miss some of that.

About the only thing that can go in favor of such head-mounted weapons is perhaps a quirk associated with anything placed in the head for those rare instances of just one weapon of that class placed there.

Edited by Koniving, 29 November 2014 - 08:07 AM.


#11 AeusDeif

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Howl
  • The Howl
  • 181 posts

Posted 30 November 2014 - 01:39 PM

View PostMGA121285, on 29 November 2014 - 05:49 AM, said:

IHMO overall its fine as it is BUT some mechs definatly need more space for weapons in some locations - not only head or ct. But hey - do you realy think that let grashopper to have lrm20 in head is a good idea?...


no, was thinking lrm 10, srm6, srm4 with artemis, or narc would be appropriate

View PostNightmare1, on 29 November 2014 - 06:47 AM, said:

I do well with me Head Mounted Missile slot in one of my SHDs and the Head Mounted Lasers slots in all my HBKs.

I would hesitate very much to call them useless; there have been cases where a ML was all I had left on a zombie HBK, and yet I still managed to kill Mechs and contribute to my team because of the head mounted weapon. The key, is that the head and CT mounted weapons cannot be destroyed easily, thus giving you weapons with significant longevity. Compare this to arm mounted weaponry that can be much more easily destroyed.


first off it isn't all missile head hardpoints, but the ones that are by themselves that are useless. you can combine a head srm4 with torso srm6 and it's useful.

second off, lasers are simply easier to make useful even by themselves as a 1 slot weapon.

medium pulse by itself > srm4 by itself. and definitely better than an lrm5 or ssrm2 by itself.

To say nothing of a single ac2 which is still overnerfed....

anyway I don't think you ever get an energy hard point, by itself in the head... as in no other energy hardpoints on the mech... so usually you put it a laser in there with those in other places to stack up a 'laser battery' which makes it useful.

View Posthappy mech, on 29 November 2014 - 07:41 AM, said:

@op: compare a zombie with no weapons to a zombie with a sl, the sl is super powerful then


fair point, but most matches don't pivot on a zombie'd mech. usually a zombie'd mech is slaughtered.

View PostKoniving, on 29 November 2014 - 08:01 AM, said:

On the other hand it is important to note that none of these tricks would work on a head.
The only way to get additional slots is to use a Small Cockpit, which frees an additional slot. Or to use a Remote cockpit, which removes everything from the head.


Are you talking about in terms of lore? Because in game the Cockpit only uses 1 slot as it is. Or would a 'small cockpit' involve smaller sensors and life support?

Edited by AeusDeif, 30 November 2014 - 01:58 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users