35 replies to this topic

[Homeless Bill]

I've seen a lot of complaints lately about 'mechs having unrealistic (in the context of Mechwarrior) and overpowered builds, particularly the Gauss Cat. The simple solution in my mind is to do exactly what Mechwarrior 4 did by making hardpoints have a certain number of slots. Something with four ballistic slots in a single arm could mount four machine guns, two AC10s, or a single Gauss/AC20. This eliminated the weird issues created by PGI's decision to make all hardpoints equal.

Hardpoints are not all created equal and they shouldn't be. The hardpoints that were obviously designed for a large weapon should be the only ones able to mount a large weapon. Otherwise, 'mechs like the Catapult get the benefit of large weapons with none of the drawbacks. The more I've driven a Hunchback, the more I hate it; everyone knows exactly where my weapon slots are, and it's often not long before I'm stuck with two lasers as a result. And it's the same with plenty of 'mechs. This is a given, and that's how the game should be. That said, when I see someone with a build that clearly has large weapons mounted in all the wrong places, it ****** me off.

I'm on the fence about whether or not I'd limit hardpoints to a single weapon or let people switch out two smaller weapons for a larger one. On one hand, allowing it is not realistic and allows for short-range **** builds; on the other, giving the player more freedom is usually the way to go so long as it does not affect game balance.

Any other thoughts on how this could be fixed?

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

Edit: Since this thread has been necroed against my will, I figure I'll update the OP to reflect my thoughts several months on. I posted this in another hardpoint size thread, but it pretty much says it all. Homeless Bill's thoughts, now with bold and underline:


It's becoming clearer and clearer how much this is needed to prevent ridiculous boating. The Stalker was never meant to mount PPCs, the K2 was never meant to boat ballistics, etc., and the result is that a lot of 'mechs are becoming redundant. It's not bad. Not yet. But with as few 'mechs as we have now and as many will eventually be released, it's going to get worse quickly.

Why can a Raven mount the same AC/20 that a Hunchback can, but it doesn't have a huge hardpoint that everyone shoots for first? It's blatantly unfair to allow 'mechs to have all the advantages of large hardpoints with none of the drawbacks. The larger gun models are not enough - and even if they were, PGI plans to ramp up 'mech releases (plus, the Clans are coming eventually); how are they going to keep selling 'mechs if much of a chassis' uniqueness is diluted by redundancy?

I love all the Awesomes, and I run them whenever I'm not grinding. But they have a couple very niche roles they can shine in, whereas the Stalker is largely superior in most other respects. And it largely comes down to the lack of hardpoint sizes.

At first, the lack of limitations was good for diversity. Now, the more 'mechs they release, the worse things are going to get.

I would like to just note that this won't fix all boating perfectly. Canon boats like the A1, Jager, and this ******* monstrosity would still be able to do their thing to an extent. I think the developers should stay away from those 'mechs as much as possible.

For the canon boats we have, hardpoint size restrictions will go a long way towards solving the problem. Size restrictions on the A1 and Jagermechs would bring them back into the realm of effective without being cheesy (I speak of the A1 assuming that missiles will again one day not be ****).

3rdworld makes some good points for the opposing side, so I felt the need to respond:

3rdworld, on 25 April 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Hardpoint sizes just shift the meta to mechs that come stock with larger weapons. It will destroy customization.

Example with size based hardpoints, the most customization you could do to an Atlas would be putting a Gauss in for a AC/20. That is about it.

...

...because I could not swap the LRMs for SRM or vice versa.

With the Atlas D, I could put MPLs for MLs, or Gauss for Ac/20. That is about the most customization I could do. This defeats the entire premise of Mechwarrior.

AS7-D:
RA: 1 Energy
RT: 1 Large Ballistic, 1 Ballistic
CT: 2 Energy
LT: 1 Large LRM, 1 Large SRM
LA: 1 Energy

To an extent, 'mechs with larger hardpoints would be more valuable for certain builds. But that's exactly how it should be. The Hunchback should get the privilege of mounting a big cannon because it has a huge ******* right torso.

Not everything should be able to boat PPCs. Not everything should be able to boat large ballistics. The more 'mechs they pump out, the more the builds will all look the same. More and more chassis will be made obsolete. Just look at the Awesome; I run them as my primary 'mech, but its shining capability (PPC hardpoints) is overshadowed by just about every other assault with energy hardpoints.

About your Atlas-D example. First, I'm not in favor of limiting LRM/SRM swaps (that would be terrible). Second, I don't think stock weapons should necessarily determine hardpoint size; that should be up to the developers. For instance on the Atlas-D, the arm hardpoints would be 2-slot-capable. Third, I'm also not in favor of limiting down-sizing.

I'm thinking something more like this:
RA: 1 2-Slot Energy
RT: 1 Extra Large Ballistic, 1 Medum Ballistic
CT: 2 1-Slot Energy
LT: 2 Large Missiles
LA: 1 2-Slot Energy

The Atlas would frankly barely be affected. No PPCs, no LL in the CT, no 2xLBX-10s (</3), but everything else would work like it does now. The things most hard-hit currently would be most PPC boats. The K2 and certain LRM boats would have taken a hit (though PPC K2s would be back in force like they should be), but I don't see them around much anymore.

And just in case I gave the wrong impression, this isn't about me being all jelly that I don't get to be special with PPCs in my Awesome. I don't run PPCs in any of my Awesomes. I just hate to see my baby get the short end of the stick, and I hate to see the metagame polluted with cheese weapons because everyone can mount them =[

The only 'mechs that should be capable of mounting large weaponry are the ones that are slow and easy-to-escape and the ones screaming "shoot my big-*** weapon hardpoint."

Edited by Homeless Bill, 20 May 2013 - 12:19 PM.

[Stoicblitzer]

Honestly it's been so long since I played MW4. However, something doesn't feel right about the current system.

[Eddrick]

MechWarrior 4 system had a way of only allowing downgrading or sidegrading customization. But, you couldn't put anything bigger then what was there to start with.

I'm om with the idea.

[Corvus Antaka]

my founders hunchback, 81 KPH, AC20, 3 MLaser, 4 tons of ac 20 ammo.

my trebuchet 7M - AC20, 2 MLaser, 81 KPH, 5 tons AC20 ammo.

Outside the missing medium laser but extra ammo these 2 mechs hit about the same, same speed, armour etc.

I favour the hunchback. it looks cool, it is iconic, and it has a MASSIVE hunch to hold an AC/20.

But in MWO, as the game is now, the trebuchet completely bests the hunchie, because the lack of hunch "shoot me" and the vast difference in profile is significant.

Either the Trebuchet needs a massive hunch when mounting an AC20 (same for the gauss/ac20 pult)

or we need hardpoints limited by size. Otherwise the iconic mech profiles will mean nothing as munchkins cram AC/20 and dual gauss into machine gun ports.

Something must be done!!! Maybe we need a "Save the hunch" poll.

[Xandralkus]

The first mistake the devs made in this game was the new hardpoint system. Undoing that mistake and going with a Mechwarrior 4 Mechlab would be one of the smartest things they could possibly do, alongside:

No ECM jam with Line of Sight
No double armor
No consumable modules
Recalculation of Transversal Velocity Acceleration vs arm/torso tracking speed, according to tonnage.
Recalculation of all weapon values

[Stormwolf]

I was never too fond of the MW4 mechlab since it dumbed down things way too much.

I'd personally like to see a mechlab where you normally can't mount components bigger then the stock weapons.
Although there should be exceptions where you can buy special upgrades for mechs like the CN9-A so you can mod it to carry a AC20 or Gauss. This should be a unique option for every variant.

Edited by Stormwolf, 07 March 2013 - 01:45 AM.

[Karl Streiger]

I wouldn't would like to turn of the actual critical system.
But i would split the weapon types in different classes:
Ranging from very light to very heavy.

For example a Small Laser is a light energy weapon, while a PPC is a heavy energy weapon.
A Machine Gun is a very light ballistic weapon, while a AC 20 is a very heavy ballistic weapon...
same with missile weapons.

You can chance:
Hardpoints available VL | L | M | H | VH
/Weapon mountable
VL X
L X X
M X X X
H X X X X
VH X X X X X

(The Raven 2X could mount 2 AC2 instead of his machineguns but not even a AC 5.
LBX counts 1 size class less
Ultra counts 1 size more

Another option would be to break different size classes in lesser or add two lesser size classes into a bigger one.
For example you can carry a AC 20 when you have at least 2 heavy slots or 3 medium slots.
You can have a LRM 20 and a SRM 6 with 3 H slots or 1VH and a H Slot

Just a fast idea...initally not from me, it will need lots of rethinking - and calculating

[Funky Bacon]

I can post this again, where I have an Atlas based on the MW:4 Atlas (modified to fit into the MWO model). So it's basically not a real variant, but it's used to better preview a potential HP system that mixes both MW:4 and MWO's system.

[MrTarget]

I asked about this in ask the devs 37, they have no plans to do it.

[trollocaustic]

Additonal note, Ammo has to be in the same crit spots.

[Deathlike]

trollocaustic, on 19 May 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

Additonal note, Ammo has to be in the same crit spots.

You would never be able to use the Cataphract-4X's head missile slot correctly...

[Nathan Foxbane]

SWEET HOLY NECROPOSTS, WHY?! Really though, the old MW4 build system sucked. It throws are the traditional build rules which worked nicely out the window after setting them on fire. The current system works well and keeps helps preserve aesthetics on the 'Mechs. Not everything will be perfect, but that is more current meta and weapon balance than an issue with hardpoints... except the Spider 5K, but that poor thing was just gimped to begin with.

[Roland]

Honestly, I think MWO has a more in depth system than MW4, due to the inclusion of actual critical space into mech design.

[Metafox]

I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that we replace the MWO mechlab with the MW4 mechlab. The poll and the majority of the replies are referring only to the hardpoint system. Putting some kind of limits on MWO's hardpoints could be a very good tool for balancing weapons and for making different mechs and variants more unique. For example, with MW4-style hardpoint size limitations, only a couple mechs would be able to use more than one PPC and PPCs could be balanced without reducing the effectiveness of the weapon itself.

That said, I wouldn't want to see an exact copy of MW4's hardpoint system. I'd prefer 1 weapon per hardpoint to prevent boating small weapons, and I'd like some variants to have a little extra room on some of the hardpoints so that players can have the option to mount slightly larger weapons, i.e. replacing a stock AC5 with a UAC5.

[Homeless Bill]

OP updated now that this thread has been necroed. How do people even find this **** to bring back from the dead?

[Shibas]

So your answer to a customizable mech loadout with loose restrictions that provide freedom in a constrained environment is to shrink the environment, creating an even more restrictive loadout for mechs?

[blah40000]

Shibas, on 21 May 2013 - 06:18 AM, said:

So your answer to a customizable mech loadout with loose restrictions that provide freedom in a constrained environment is to shrink the environment, creating an even more restrictive loadout for mechs?

it would actually make the builds less restrictive and/or more varied.

look at the cat-k2 it currently has 2 balistic and 4 energy hardpoints. yes it would make it so the largest balistic you could mount is an a/c2, but it also would give you a lot of variance in energy layout. instead of 2 medium lasers and 2 PPCs you could have 12 small lasers or 6 medium and that's on top of the dual a/c2.

[MustrumRidcully]

blah40000, on 21 May 2013 - 08:01 AM, said:

it would actually make the builds less restrictive and/or more varied.

look at the cat-k2 it currently has 2 balistic and 4 energy hardpoints. yes it would make it so the largest balistic you could mount is an a/c2, but it also would give you a lot of variance in energy layout. instead of 2 medium lasers and 2 PPCs you could have 12 small lasers or 6 medium and that's on top of the dual a/c2.

But doesn't this create new problems as well - The K2 arm slots only show two big guns. Changing that to 3 Medium Lasers each is not necessarily an improvement, it is as aesthetically unpleasing as Gauss Rifles fitting inside a Machine-Gun emplacement. The latter was eventually adressed on the visual side, so maybe the 3 Meds in a PPC slot could be fixed too. And I am partial to giving the K2 two extra energy slots in the arms, because there aren't enough build options that actually utilize the arms well.

I think what I would like to take away from Mechwarrior 4 hard points is the concept of "direct-fire" hard points. I'd give the K2 a direct-fire hard point in each arm, instead of an energy hard point.

Edited by MustrumRidcully, 21 May 2013 - 10:44 AM.

[Sharg]

This really needs to happen. It would make some neglected 'mechs (see Awesome) actually be viable.

[zolop]

Simply put I like the idea that each battlemech (maybe Vairents included?) have different amount of Hardpoints available for Left Torsor, Right Torso, Left Arm, Right Arm and CEnter Torso. For example, it doesn't make sense to hve a large spot for a AC20 in the hunchback when other battlemechs with the same weight class be able to fit the same large ac20 (or a similar large weapon) in their torso...

I really wish they would add this as it would further diversify each battlemech and make them even more distingwishable from each other.

Metafox, on 19 May 2013 - 06:07 PM, said:

I don't believe that anyone is suggesting that we replace the MWO mechlab with the MW4 mechlab. The poll and the majority of the replies are referring only to the hardpoint system. Putting some kind of limits on MWO's hardpoints could be a very good tool for balancing weapons and for making different mechs and variants more unique. For example, with MW4-style hardpoint size limitations, only a couple mechs would be able to use more than one PPC and PPCs could be balanced without reducing the effectiveness of the weapon itself.

Agree

Edited by zolop, 11 June 2013 - 10:35 AM.